• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?

Do you feel Christians are Discriminated against in America?


  • Total voters
    73
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought "civility is a must" here. And who do you think is a "paid shill" in the environment subforum?

Civility should be a must everywhere.
The religion forum is more than just a forum where there can't be any discrimination. It's a forum where you are not allowed to post beliefs other a literal interpretation of scripture.

And, I'd really like to hear the answer to that second question.
 
I don't think anyone detests Christians who hold Christian beliefs, I think people detest Christians who act like dicks. Those pizza parlor owners acted like dicks. It wouldn't have mattered what their justification for their stupidity might have been, the reaction would have been largely the same.

I disagree that they acted like "dicks". All they said was they wouldn't serve pizza at a hypothetical gay wedding. That isn't exactly a horrific comment. And in response they got death threats. If death threats are an expected response to people voicing their opinions, this country is in trouble.
 
Believe it or not, even as a publicly avowed atheist I don't actually begrudge the creation of a "safe room" for Christians. It doesn't bother me and there's no reason why it should. If fellow posters are being rude to the point that discussion on a topic becomes untenable, then I support extraordinary measures in venues such as this one that bring civility back to the forum. A great example of where I think "martial law" should be applied, as in the I.P. forum, is the environment subforum where paid shills have drowned out the discussion so that it's effectively become a demilitarized zone, but I'm starting to rant, so back on topic. Point being, the

The problem is you're working off a definition of discrimination that has zero bearing on this topic. Yes, there is "discriminating taste," such as I prefer that cake over the other one, but that has nothing to do with things like workplace discrimination, or discriminating against customers based on their religion/ethnicity/etc., which has specific parameters [mostly] understood in law. You're confusing the definition of discrimination with a social and legal one.

No, actually I'm not confusing discrimination between a social and legal definition. I acknowledge two kinds of discrimination. Positive discrimination and negative discrimination. Social discrimination is just overall discrimination period so that doesn't bother me. I outright reject the legal definition of discrimination. The reason for this is because the legal definition only covers certain forms of negative discrimination and due to that ignores other forms of negative discrimination. Which in itself is a negative discrimination. Once again I use myself as an example. Do you consider it discrimination that I was refused work due to my criminal history? That I was refused housing due to my criminal history? That I was refused state health insurance because I was a single white guy aged 24? I would hope the answer is yes for all of it. Yet that type of negative discrimination is allowed because the law does not prevent it. Yet it is just as harmful and just as negative as one or more voices being drowned out by a bunch of people that do not like [insert whatever here]. The negative effect of drowning out of voices may not be readily apparent. But I'm quite sure that the LGBT community, who did experience such, would admit that yes, it is discriminatory and does have a negative effect.
 
Civility should be a must everywhere.
The religion forum is more than just a forum where there can't be any discrimination. It's a forum where you are not allowed to post beliefs other a literal interpretation of scripture.

And, I'd really like to hear the answer to that second question.

While I support the creation of a safe room for religious people, I do have a big, big problem with religious threads moved into the damn religion forum after the fact. That is absolutely not cool.
 
Conservative Christians are the only religious/cultural group whom it is permissible to mock publicly. I'm agnostic, but I know unfair treatment when I see it.

This. I'm intentionally non-religious but I am taken aback by the popularity Christian bashing has taken on as a sport.
 
And, I'd really like to hear the answer to that second question.

I spoke clumsily there, since unless they actually admit to being paid shills then of course I can't claim to know it. So while I shouldn't have stated it as though it were factual, I do believe it based on the steadfast devotion of certain members' posting history on such a specific topic. They genuinely do treat it like it's their job.

Take that as you will.
 
While I support the creation of a safe room for religious people, I do have a big, big problem with religious threads moved into the damn religion forum after the fact. That is absolutely not cool.

Me too.

And, I'd like to hear about those "paid shills" on the environment subforum. I've suspected as much myself, but haven't been able to find any proof.
 
I disagree that they acted like "dicks". All they said was they wouldn't serve pizza at a hypothetical gay wedding. That isn't exactly a horrific comment. And in response they got death threats. If death threats are an expected response to people voicing their opinions, this country is in trouble.

Which is a dickish position, no different than if they had said they wouldn't provide pizza at a hypothetical black wedding. Some views, no matter what your justification, are not acceptable in modern society. While I certainly don't think anyone, ever, ought to get death threats for anything, let's be honest, most serious death threats come from the religious. Even for those who aren't going to shoot you, they still think heretics deserve to burn forever in eternal hellfire. We also have to remember that this is the Internet and like it or not, there are trolls and anyone who takes trolls seriously, which I assume virtually all of the threats came from trolls, probably ought to log off permanently.
 
They are treated that way for the same reason the conspiracy theorists are treated that way and the other crazies, etc. It's because these people are making claims that they are completely and totally unable to support or defend or provide evidence for and they SHOULD BE TREATED THAT WAY! God is a fairy tale for adults who ought to know better. It's just pathetic that so many people don't. That you find critical thinking and rational evaluation somehow discriminatory is very telling.

Except that I don't find critical thinking and rational evaluation discriminatory. I'm pretty sure that I've never said such a thing. Nor have I once endorsed organized religions beliefs on DP, or any other forum for that matter.

What IS discriminatory is actively trying to drown them out of any discussion regarding their beliefs. Just as it was discriminatory for Christians to try and drown out the LGBT community when the LGBT community was asking for equal Rights.
 
Which is a dickish position, no different than if they had said they wouldn't provide pizza at a hypothetical black wedding. Some views, no matter what your justification, are not acceptable in modern society. While I certainly don't think anyone, ever, ought to get death threats for anything, let's be honest, most serious death threats come from the religious. Even for those who aren't going to shoot you, they still think heretics deserve to burn forever in eternal hellfire. We also have to remember that this is the Internet and like it or not, there are trolls and anyone who takes trolls seriously, which I assume virtually all of the threats came from trolls, probably ought to log off permanently.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll stop after I say this. I don't believe any business owner should be compelled to do business with someone if it isn't a good fit. I also wouldn't expect the black pizza parlor owners to have to deliver pizzas to a wedding of KKK members. There is a reasonable line in every situation and it's better to understand why people think as they do and attempt to reason with them rather than threaten.

None of that deserves death threats. And I don't believe that the death threats they got were from other religious people.

And I truly believe they will be discriminated against at some point because you have to be an idiot to believe there aren't a lot of people who detest religious people and religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
It's worth about as much as pointing to Google. It's a lazy response for someone who has no real sources but can't be honest about it. I trust you're not surprised.

Funny, I was asked for proof and you just admitted here that doing anything that most normal people do to get that proof to you is "lazy" and "can't be honest". Guess that shows that you didn't even have any intention of taking any sort of link I provided as proof of discrimination as actual proof. You were ready and quite willing to dismiss it out of ignorance.
 
Funny, I was asked for proof and you just admitted here that doing anything that most normal people do to get that proof to you is "lazy" and "can't be honest". Guess that shows that you didn't even have any intention of taking any sort of link I provided as proof of discrimination as actual proof. You were ready and quite willing to dismiss it out of ignorance.

By "pointing to google" I'm pretty sure he meant linking to the home google search page. Obviously we would consider any links to relevant stories. It's a silly challenge in any case and I wouldn't have posited it myself: there are 300,000,000 people in the United States so obviously if you google hard enough you're going to find some instance of a business owner discriminating against Christian employees, or a restaurant turning away Christian people. Three hundred million people is a pretty large pool for finding awful humans. The point though is whether such discrimination is systematic in any way or, god forbid, actually condoned by the government.

Going back to the other point about it being silly to throw out the challenge of "find just one case," interestingly enough nobody could actually come up with a single example of businesses discriminating against Christian customers. As a result, Conservatives were "forced" to manufacture outrageous troll videos depicting people going into Muslim bakeries asking for crap like "Muhammed sucks" or some such nonsense on their cakes.

Point is, Christians don't suffer discrimination, and in fact I'm almost inclined to say that they've been so perfectly insulated by their majority status that a lot of them honestly don't even know what it is. So when they face a public backlash for their practice of discrimination or wanting people to live by Christian morals, they're so baffled by the challenge to their majority reach that they don't even have a word for it, so they grasp for the first one at hand and call it "discrimination."
 
What IS discriminatory is actively trying to drown them out of any discussion regarding their beliefs. Just as it was discriminatory for Christians to try and drown out the LGBT community when the LGBT community was asking for equal Rights.

Except nobody is trying to drown them out, in fact, we're often begging them to actually support any of their views and produce evidence for any of their claims. They're just entirely incapable of doing so. Asking that they defend their assertions isn't discrimination, it's a fundamental cornerstone of debate! It's really pathetic that you, a moderator, are totally unaware of that on a debate forum.
 
Funny, I was asked for proof and you just admitted here that doing anything that most normal people do to get that proof to you is "lazy" and "can't be honest". Guess that shows that you didn't even have any intention of taking any sort of link I provided as proof of discrimination as actual proof. You were ready and quite willing to dismiss it out of ignorance.

You were asked for proof. You did not provide proof. You did not point to anything specific. You posted a general link and pretty much said "go look for it yourself". That is not proof. That is wimping out.
 
By "pointing to google" I'm pretty sure he meant linking to the home google search page. Obviously we would consider any links to relevant stories. It's a silly challenge in any case and I wouldn't have posited it myself: there are 300,000,000 people in the United States so obviously if you google hard enough you're going to find some instance of a business owner discriminating against Christian employees, or a restaurant turning away Christian people. Three hundred million people is a pretty large pool for finding awful humans. The point though is whether such discrimination is systematic in any way or, god forbid, actually condoned by the government.

You might be right about the google home page. But even then, its still a valid resource. Doing such is like saying "here! pick your choice, there's lots of choices to pick from!".

Going back to the other point about it being silly to throw out the challenge of "find just one case," interestingly enough nobody could actually come up with a single example of businesses discriminating against Christian customers. As a result, Conservatives were "forced" to manufacture outrageous troll videos depicting people going into Muslim bakeries asking for crap like "Muhammed sucks" or some such nonsense on their cakes.

Why exactly did they have to manufacture such video's in the first place? Is it because there's more focus on the negative aspects of Christians in this particular area than of Muslims? If so...why is that? Because the videos, even if "forced" to be made did show exactly the same things that Christians were being accused of. Yet there was no outcry about that.

Point is, Christians don't suffer discrimination, and in fact I'm almost inclined to say that they've been so perfectly insulated by their majority status that a lot of them honestly don't even know what it is. So when they face a public backlash for their practice of discrimination or wanting people to live by Christian morals, they're so baffled by the challenge to their majority reach that they don't even have a word for it, so they grasp for the first one at hand and call it "discrimination."

So because its not "systemic" in your opinion then its ok to ignore the, in your opinion, "minor" instances of discrimination? Why?

And do you realize that you just admitted that there is indeed discrimination going on towards Christians?
 
You were asked for proof. You did not provide proof. You did not point to anything specific. You posted a general link and pretty much said "go look for it yourself". That is not proof. That is wimping out.

No, I never said to "go look for it yourself". As evidenced by the posts following that one.
 
You might be right about the google home page. But even then, its still a valid resource. Doing such is like saying "here! pick your choice, there's lots of choices to pick from!".

Oh, so were parsing the posts now? Crap, I really hate when debates graduate to this point. Cephus (I'm pretty sure) was the one who suggested that you can't just link to the home google search page. You actually have to go in there, find a story, and link to it. That was his point.

Why exactly did they have to manufacture such video's in the first place? Is it because there's more focus on the negative aspects of Christians in this particular area than of Muslims? If so...why is that? Because the videos, even if "forced" to be made did show exactly the same things that Christians were being accused of. Yet there was no outcry about that.

They manufactured those videos because they wanted to create a narrative that "everybody's doing it" but couldn't find any real world examples on their own that supported that theory. This was an awful reaction for two reasons: 1)Two wrongs don't make a right, and 2)by resorting to manufacturing outrageous troll videos they effectively proved that discrimination against Christians isn't actually a thing. They thoroughly shot themselves in the foot.

So because its not "systemic" in your opinion then its ok to ignore the, in your opinion, "minor" instances of discrimination? Why?

And do you realize that you just admitted that there is indeed discrimination going on towards Christians?

No instance of discrimination if tolerable. Before we can even get to that point, though, at least for god's sake give us something specific to talk about and link to a story of discrimination against Christians. You can do at least that much, can't you? And seriously, this "people are being mean" bull**** isn't discrimination. I'm talking about the real use of the word in this discussion. I want to see Christians turned down for jobs, Christians turned away from businesses. And remember, private clubs and churches don't count -- they have carte blanche to discriminate.
 
Last edited:
No, I never said to "go look for it yourself". As evidenced by the posts following that one.

I said "pretty much", which means it was implied. Providing a specific link to a specific source was not done.
 
Anybody who looks at the religious make up of the decision makers in our financial institutions, our biggest companies, our government, and law enforcement organizations and still concludes that Christians are discriminated against in the US is an absolute idiot. If they won't look at those factors, it's clearly because they don't match the hurt Christian narrative.
 
Christians are socially discriminated against, Try being a younger Christian in today's generation. Everyone likes to dog and attack people who actually live out their faith. Evangelicals are a mocked and socially persecuted minority. One could argue the lawsuits where Christians were forced to cater to things against their beliefs (gay bakery/photo lawsuits) is also discrimination and intolerance.

Yup.

Ya know... It's funny, because a couple of posters on this board were actually giving me crap for being outspokenly religious and admitting to visiting a bar with friends and flirting with women a while back.

My response? It's just about the only thing socially active young people do these days.

Thankfully, I'm Catholic, and we're not quite so picky on the alcohol thing as some other sects I could name. However, the point that one really can't be "social" with the average Millennial without having at least some degree of tolerance for "sinful" things like drunkenness, casual sex, and generally promiscuous behavior still stands either way regardless.

Unless you're planning on doing nothing but sitting at home and occasionally visiting Church groups, you've just kind of got to keep your mouth shut, go with the flow, and do your best to abstain when someone tries to pressure you into doing something you know to be morally wrong. That's simply the kind of culture we live in these days.
 
Last edited:
Under the law, Christians are allowed to practice their religion precisely as much as everyone else is. If anyone is denying Christians rights disproportionately to other faiths/non-faiths, then they are practicing discrimination and breaking the law.

You might be correct if only comparing Christianity to treatment of other theistic religions, however regarding religious practice as a whole including Christianity there is discrimination. If you do not think it to be so, look up the list of cases at the aclj, or do a general google search. Easy enough to determine. If you only define discrimination as "compared to" rather than against constitutional religious liberty, I give you secularism as the preferred religion.
 
You might be correct if only comparing Christianity to treatment of other theistic religions, however regarding religious practice as a whole including Christianity there is discrimination. If you do not think it to be so, look up the list of cases at the aclj, or do a general google search. Easy enough to determine. If you only define discrimination as "compared to" rather than against constitutional religious liberty, I give you secularism as the preferred religion.

There is a legal approach to discrimination that everybody falls under. If religion is a protected class (and it is) then everybody (except private clubs and churches) is barred from discriminating against people because of their faith.
 
There is a legal approach to discrimination that everybody falls under. If religion is a protected class (and it is) then everybody (except private clubs and churches) is barred from discriminating against people because of their faith.

Yet it consistently happens, usually with the blessing of more liberal courts. Again check the ACLJ list of cases. Discrimination exists despite the protected status, just as blacks undergo discrimination despite their protected status. Just the other day Father Jonathan Morris was spit on during a gay rights celebration for merely being present wearing the daily attire of a Catholic priest. If this was a black man spit on at a confederate flag ralley, no one would see it as anything other than discrimination.
 
Yet it consistently happens, usually with the blessing of more liberal courts. Again check the ACLJ list of cases. Discrimination exists despite the protected status, just as blacks undergo discrimination despite their protected status. Just the other day Father Jonathan Morris was spit on during a gay rights celebration for merely being present wearing the daily attire of a Catholic priest.

And if discrimination can be proven to have occurred then fines can be levied against those doing the discrimination. Why don't you point to an example, though?

Spitting on someone already has its own legal status: assault or simple battery. But it's not discrimination.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say against being a douchebag, I said they wanted to be douchebags without consequence. They want to act like asshats and not have anyone disagree with them or take them to task for it. When they are called idiots for acting like idiots, they whine and pretend to be discriminated against. No, they brought it on themselves, all they have to do is stop acting like morons. There aren't government consequences for being stupid, only for breaking the law. There are social consequences though.

Christians aren't the only ones. There are plenty of Christians who are. But have you talked to many athiests and disagreed with them? They are doing the same crap and openly mocking people who believe differently. You can find countless posts right here on this website with people doing it. Asshats who believe they are right and anyone who believes differently applies universally. You may not notice that some athiests who do the exact same crap as some christians. Or you may be one of the countless people who do notice and laugh at it and then jump online and whine when others do it with your beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom