Are Christians Persecuted in Britian?

Fanny Cradock

Sparked by PDN's recent thread, I thought that people might be interested in watching 4Thought.tv. If you happen to be watching C4 about two minutes before the news starts you will be familiar with the programme and it's format.

I happened to be watching last week when Bishop Nick Baines summed up my opinion on the question in a very succinct and eloquent manner.

Jester Minute

I agree it is not good to whinge about your victim status. When the early Christians were being eaten by lions, they were not whinging.

But Christians are discriminated against, because some of their stances mean that many employers will sack you if you object to certain things mainly the life issues. Christians have a hard time, for example, being a doctor or pharmacist. It is VERY difficult, if not impossible, to be a faithful Catholic pharmacist. You cannot dispense either contraceptives or abortifacients. But unless you own your own practise, then you cannot do that. Even if you do own your own practise, you can probably be sued.

I know a fella, Patrick McCrystal, who had to give up being a pharmacist in N. Ireland because of the life issues. He couldn't do his job whilst resisting the elements of the cultrue of death. he adopted a position, and he was unable to keep his job. That's not right. Some Muslim pharmacists in England seem to be able to do it, but then you don't argue with Muslims.

Catholic doctors, and Christian doctors in general, also have issues, working in a system which is intrinsically anti-Christian.

Unless there is solid conscientious objection clauses, without exceptions, then Christian medical professionals will be discriminated against. To fight this, they need to be united.

Regarding religious symbols in the workplace, I have two thoughts on that. One is, if I work for a company, for the period of time I am in their service, I should have no symbols or badges. But then why are Sikhs excluded, with their turbans and little daggers? Or on the other hand, we should be free to wear our little symbols.

But I think Christians need to stop pussy-footing around. Either keep your faith to yourself or be a bold Christian and let the chips fall and don't worry about a thing.

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

But Christians are discriminated against, because some of their stances mean that many employers will sack you if you object to certain things mainly the life issues.

That is not discrimination against Christians.

I'm an atheist. If I am hired for a 9 to 5 job and arrive each day at 2pm saying I didn't want to come in before then I will be fired.

How is that different from a Christian being hired for a job on Sunday and not turning up saying that he did not want to work on Sunday because it is against his religion?

Jester Minute wrote: »

Christians have a hard time, for example, being a doctor or pharmacist. It is VERY difficult, if not impossible, to be a faithful Catholic pharmacist. You cannot dispense either contraceptives or abortifacients. But unless you own your own practise, then you cannot do that. Even if you do own your own practise, you can probably be sued.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I know a fella, Patrick McCrystal, who had to give up being a pharmacist in N. Ireland because of the life issues. He couldn't do his job whilst resisting the elements of the cultrue of death. he adopted a position, and he was unable to keep his job. That's not right.

Again how is this discrimination against Christians?

If I take up a job, say working in a meat processing plant but refuse to handle dead meat because I'm a vegetarian, and I'm let go, what is wrong with this?

I am refusing to do my job, so why would my employer continue to pay me?

You are basically arguing that Christians should be pay for refusing to do their job. Not accepting this position is not discrimination since no one else is paid for refusing to do their job either.

This is just Christians waking up tot he fact that the privileged place Christianity had in society is now gone. The stance It is against Christian teaching is no longer held up as a special case any more. That is not discrimination, quite the opposite in fact, it is the leveling of the playing field, a commitment to treat all people equally.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Regarding religious symbols in the workplace, I have two thoughts on that. One is, if I work for a company, for the period of time I am in their service, I should have no symbols or badges. But then why are Sikhs excluded, with their turbans and little daggers? Or on the other hand, we should be free to wear our little symbols.

I agree 100% with you on that one, there is no reason why Sikhs should be excluded from this, and when they demanded an exception to the Garda uniform they were turned down. They, like you, caused up roar claiming this was discrimination against them despite people pointing out that no one else gets to modify the Garda uniform either so how is this discrimination against them?

This is a point that is often missed with secularism, it protects Christians as much as it protects anyone else. It would be unfair that a Christian would be held to the Garda uniform requirements but a Sikh wouldn't, just as it would be unfair that a Christian could break Sunday working practices but a Muslim couldn't.

Secularism levels the playing field completely, no religious position is considered to have any more value than any other.

But you have to take the times when that is applied to your religion as well. Just as the Gardai were right to say to the Sikhs no you don't get a special exception just because it is your religion, the HSE are also right to say to a Christian no you don't get a special exception just because it is your religion.

This is not discrimination unless it is only applied to Christians, which (in this country at least) does not seem to be the case.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sparked by PDN's recent thread, I thought that people might be interested in watching 4Thought.tv. If you happen to be watching C4 about two minutes before the news starts you will be familiar with the programme and it's format.

I happened to be watching last week when Bishop Nick Baines summed up my opinion on the question in a very succinct and eloquent manner.

Hmmmm. I do and I don't agree with him. I certainly wouldn't say we are 'persecuted'. Such a word should be reserved for that horrid scenario in Pakistan or China. Using it so willy nilly undermines the REAL persecution happening around the world. Its like how the term 'Child abuse' gets thrown about by people too.

However, I think it is much to simplistic to simply say, 'if something in your job changes and you have a conscientious objection, then just do something else'. We are both Christians AND citizens. We must strike a balance, and use wisdom and discernment to see if it better to fight or to walk away. Always Christ should be the number one thing, and we should not do anything to damage His reputation etc. Wearing crosses etc are meaningless. Its nothing to do with Christianity, its just trinketry. However, I would have to try be foresighted if organisations started to demand such public displays be quashed. I would ask, 'Will they eventually quash the rights of people to spread the good news in public too'. So though I don't care about the wearing of trinkets etc, it would still be a point of concern.

I am reminded of this quote by DR. Martin Luther King:

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must
be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority."

We should not allow Christianity to be tossed out like a used rag, just because there is a new breed of politik coming about that does not recognise what it owes to the Christian movement. Remember, Christianity is compared with believing in fairies by the 'intellectuals' over on the 'other side'. If such views are common, or become common, then it will be to the detriment of not only Christians, but society as a whole IMO.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Secularism levels the playing field completely, no religious position is considered to have any more value than any other

Is it the case that the irreligious gain advantage? In which case, one worldview gains advantage over all other worldviews.

Osgoodisgood

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it the case that the irreligious gain advantage? In which case, one worldview gains advantage over all other worldviews.

No, because secularism isn't atheism in diguise.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it the case that the irreligious gain advantage?

The irreligious never had an advantage (saying my personal belief that I shouldn't have to work on Sunday has never meant anything to anyone, slap "because God says so" in front of that suddenly you have a valid excuse to miss work, or did until recently), and they don't now. You should try being irreligious some time, it would be a bit of an eye opener (I liken it to white America complaining that blacks have it better than them now, I wonder how many would choose to be black)

If you want to think of it as removing the advantage Christianity (or the dominant religion in a society) used to have, that is not an unfair assessment.

Basically secularism is the state saying we can't give you religious folk the special treatment we used to give you because we supported your religion, we (the state) are now inclusive and a-religious and thus cannot justify this special treatment any more.

BTW, I'm talking about Ireland. I don't support the French ban on private religious practice such as wearing a burka, I and a lot of people don't consider that secularism but religious oppression.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Remember, Christianity is compared with believing in fairies by the 'intellectuals' over on the 'other side'. If such views are common, or become common, then it will be to the detriment of not only Christians, but society as a whole IMO.

How are you going to stop people concluding that Christianity is false?

Jester Minute

Doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Part of that whole idea is do no harm. So a doctor is, or should be, intrinsically pro-life. What then if a doc finds himself pressured into doing abortions against his oath by a profession that has lost its moral compass? Christian or not, a lot of people don't like killing babies. But it is getting harder to be a prolife doctor or pharmacist. In fact, unless you own your own chemists, you can't follow your conscience or else ya'll be sacked.

This is discrimination. It's making people do things (e.g. kill unborn babies) against their conscience or else you'll be sacked. They did same in Nazi Germany. Kill yon Jews over there and burn the bodies or else you'll be killed.

I say it again: it is VERY difficult to be a pro-life doc or pharmacist in the UK and Ireland. If you don't comply with the atheistic, secular culture of death, then you will be sacked - sooner or later, and probably sooner.

WIKI -- this aint about Sunday working. It's about being a doctor, for example, but being pressured into doing stuff which is against the Hippocratic oath nevermind Christian morality. So yes it is coercion and discrimination.

28064212

Jester Minute wrote: »

Doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Part of that whole idea is do no harm. So a doctor is, or should be, intrinsically pro-life. What then if a doc finds himself pressured into doing abortions against his oath by a profession that has lost its moral compass? Christian or not, a lot of people don't like killing babies. But it is getting harder to be a prolife doctor or pharmacist. In fact, unless you own your own chemists, you can't follow your conscience or else ya'll be sacked.

This isn't an abortion debate. Do you think "pro-choice vs pro-life" is the same as "atheist/secular vs Christian"? It's not. It's not even close. It's a totally different argument that has zero relevance to this one

Jester Minute wrote: »

This is discrimination. It's making people do things (e.g. kill unborn babies) against their conscience or else you'll be sacked. They did same in Nazi Germany. Kill yon Jews over there and burn the bodies or else you'll be killed.

Godwin, obviously. But I might as well address it: So doctors are threatened with death if they don't follow the law of the land? Of course not. If they don't want to go against their conscience, no-one, anywhere will force them to do so

If a nurse applies to work at an abortion clinic, are they discriminated against if they're fired for refusing to do any abortion-related activities? Are Tesco workers discriminated against if they're fired for refusing to sell condoms? What about doctors who refuse to treat someone who was, for example, injured in a pro-choice protest?

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

Doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Part of that whole idea is do no harm. So a doctor is, or should be, intrinsically pro-life.

Firstly there is debate over whether a fetus is considered a human person (as opposed to simply a human fetus) and thus it is debatable as to whether that applies (a debate that is for another thread)

Secondly, and more importantly, if a doctor for what ever reason feels that cannot proceed with the law they can refuse, just like anyone can. But they won't be paid for not doing it, just like anyone else.

So again how is this discrimination against Christians? Anyone can refuse to do the job they were hired to do and they will be fired from that job. This applies almost universally (baring things like the police or the military)

You are free to not work in an area you object to, as is everyone. I'm failing to see where the discrimination against Christians comes in.

Jester Minute wrote: »

What then if a doc finds himself pressured into doing abortions against his oath by a profession that has lost its moral compass?

The doctor stops being a doctor and/or decides to change the opinion of his employers/patients/politicians to force a change in their organisation.

Again how is this any different to anyone else?

If I decide after working in McDonalds that they treat animals in a cruel manner I can quit my job, start a protest campaign and trying and get others to see my view.

I wouldn't though expect McDonalds to pay me while I'm doing this.

Employment and discrimination law is supposed to protect workers willing and able to perform a job, to allow them to do so in a safe and dignified manner.

It is not there to provide a wage to people who want to refuse to do the job in the first place on ethical grounds. This applies to Christians as well as anyone else.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Christian or not, a lot of people don't like killing babies.

Which weakens your argument that this is anything to do with Christian discrimination. You seem more annoyed that the law no longer aligns itself exactly with Catholic moral standards. That isn't an act of discrimination.

Jester Minute wrote: »

But it is getting harder to be a prolife doctor or pharmacist.

I'm not denying that. But that is a personal matter for the doctor. It is not an act of discrimination against him or Christians in general.

Jester Minute wrote: »

This is discrimination. It's making people do things (e.g. kill unborn babies) against their conscience or else you'll be sacked.

Which is what everyone else has to do. It is against my conscience to get up for 9 o'clock, but you know if I am consistently late I will be sacked.

It is against a vegetarians conscience to serve meat in McDonalds. If she refuses to do this she will be sacked.

It is against someone opposed to pornographic to produce this but if he is hired by Vivid Video to edit a pornographic movie and he refuses they won't pay him.

You will not be paid if you refuse to do your job. This is nothing to do with Christianity, it applies to everyone. So again there is no discrimination here. Christians are not being singled out and told do it or you are sacked while everyone else gets to simply sit at home and get paid for it.

Jester Minute wrote: »

They did same in Nazi Germany. Kill yon Jews over there and burn the bodies or else you'll be killed.

And I'm sure a lot of Germans left their jobs, though I doubt many sat around at home thinking "I'm not going to do this, but I sure hope the Nazi's still pay me"

Would you want to be a member of, or paid by, an organisation who's practices you find morally reprehensible? I wouldn't.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I say it again: it is VERY difficult to be a pro-life doc or pharmacist in the UK and Ireland.

It is very difficult to be a member of Peta and work in a fur factory. That is not a form of discrimination, and neither is this.

Jester Minute wrote: »

If you don't comply with the atheistic, secular culture of death, then you will be sacked - sooner or later, and probably sooner.

In other words if you don't do your job you will be sacked.

Again you seem more annoyed about the "atheistic, secular culture of death" (Sarah Palin would be proud) than any genuine grievance over actual discrimination against Christians. Well sorry the atheistic secular culture of death is here to stay. But then doesn't your religion teach to you be prepared to suffer in this life?

Jester Minute wrote: »

WIKI -- this aint about Sunday working. It's about being a doctor, for example, but being pressured into doing stuff which is against the Hippocratic oath nevermind Christian morality. So yes it is coercion and discrimination.

Point out the "discrimination" bit can you? What happens to non-Christian doctors who are anti-abortion and anti-contraception? Do they get a pat on the back and a full salary?

And by coercion do you mean being told to do a job? Am I coerced to write software code each morning otherwise I will be sacked? That is a rather odd way of looking at employment.

Jester Minute

My points all stand. Wiki - you are being deliberately provocative and raising silly examples versus my real and pressing case studies.

The point is, a Christian doctor or pharmacist WILL be discriminated against in the workplace because they refuse to participate in the culture of death, that is, by aiding or doing abortions or dispensing abortifacients. This is beyond dispute. Those docs or chemists will find themselves either sidelined or dismissed cos they won't comply with the culture of death directives, which incidentally go against the hippocratic oath.

I have a doctor friend and he tells me about these things so I know what I am talking about. I also cited the example of Patrick McCrystal who was a pharmacist but then he had to leave the profession cos nobody wanted a pro-life pharmacist. He know works full time for Human Life International Ireland.

That fits my definition for discrimination.

And yes, most secularists/atheists are 'pro-choice' whereas all real Christians are pro-life. SO yes the thing is very much relevant because it is one of the most serious aspects of our problem here in Ireland and in the UK.

28064212

Jester Minute wrote: »

And yes, most secularists/atheists are 'pro-choice'

You have no idea whether a majority of secularists or atheists are pro-life or not. Even if they are a majority, it's irrelevant, because it is by no means equivalent.

Jester Minute wrote: »

whereas all real Christians are pro-life

Total bullshit. Your definition of Christianity is synonymous with pro-life. Many churches are at best ambivalent, and in some cases are pro-choice. And again it's irrelevant, since there are many, many, many people who are not Christian, but are pro-life.

You are taking two different societal divides and making them equivalent because it suits your view. Your argument could just as easily read:

The point is, a black doctor or pharmacist WILL be discriminated against in the workplace...

because there are many black doctors that are pro-life and many white doctors that are pro-choice, therefore society is racist.

The only argument that is actually true is:

The point is, a pro-life doctor or pharmacist WILL be discriminated against in the workplace...

which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is a debate for another thread

mdebets

Jester Minute wrote: »

The point is, a Christian doctor or pharmacist WILL be discriminated against in the workplace because they refuse to participate in the culture of death, that is, by aiding or doing abortions or dispensing abortifacients. This is beyond dispute. Those docs or chemists will find themselves either sidelined or dismissed cos they won't comply with the culture of death directives, which incidentally go against the hippocratic oath.

No, the Christian doctor or pharmacist is NOT being discriminated against for being Christian. They are discriminated against because they won't do what's in their job description.
They would only being discriminated against for being Christian, if there would be a Christian and an Atheist pro-life doctor and both are refusing to do abortions. If the Christian doctor is fired, and the Atheist doctor is kept on, then you have a reason for discrimination.

efb

No, their just not given the special elevated status they assume their entitled to.

Jester Minute

If a Christian doctor is sacked cos he won't have ought to do with abortion in the hospital, that is discrimination. You are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. (It would also be discrimination if he was an atheistic pro-life doctor and was sacked for the same reason. It is discrimination.)

I just asked my doctor friend on Skype if he was sacked because he is a Catholic pro-life doctor, would that be discrimination. He said it would be discrimination but it wouldn't likely happen in N. Ireland as no doctor would be forced to take part in abortions or anything of the like.

That's from the front line, somebody who knows what he's talking about, not some smart alecs on an internet forum trying to wind up Christians with disingenuous and fallacious reasoning.

Look, that is all there is to it. I'm not going to entertain any further discussion on this topic.

28064212

Jester Minute wrote: »

If a Christian doctor is sacked cos he won't have ought to do with abortion in the hospital, that is discrimination. You are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. (It would also be discrimination if he was an atheistic pro-life doctor and was sacked for the same reason. It is discrimination.)

Of course it's discrimination, no-one here said it wasn't. It's discrimination against pro-lifers, which is nothing to do with this thread.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I just asked my doctor friend on Skype if he was sacked because he is a Catholic pro-life doctor, would that be discrimination. He said it would be discrimination but it wouldn't likely happen in N. Ireland as no doctor would be forced to take part in abortions or anything of the like.

Why did you put Catholic in front of pro-life in your question? Ask him again if the same would apply to one of his colleagues who was sacked because he was an atheist pro-life doctor. Of course it would. So the discrimination is against pro-lifers, nothing to do with Christianity (the topic of this thread)

Jester Minute wrote: »

That's from the front line, somebody who knows what he's talking about, not some smart alecs on an internet forum trying to wind up Christians with disingenuous and fallacious reasoning.

Look, that is all there is to it. I'm not going to entertain any further discussion on this topic.

Ah, resorting to schoolyard insults and the "I'm right, you're wrong" line of arguing

Jester Minute

A planned code of conduct for UK teachers risks imposing a “test of professional commitment to secularism”, a leading employment lawyer says.

John Bowers QC, a leading employment lawyer, says the draft code does not do enough to safeguard the religious liberty of Christian teachers.

It could “lead to a ‘chilling effect’, creating a culture where teachers hide their faith, fearing adverse consequences”, he says.

The Church of England, The Catholic Education Service and the Association of Christian Teachers have raised similar concerns.

The draft code has been prepared by the General Teaching Council for England (GTCE). It says all teachers must “promote equality and value diversity”.

Christian teachers are concerned that ‘valuing diversity’ will mean that even answering students’ questions about faith could result in disciplinary action including dismissal.

-- http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=949

Game. Set. And match. Thanks David.

28064212

So you're sticking with the "ignore any arguments, I know I'm right" method then?

Jester Minute wrote: »

-- http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=949

Game. Set. And match. Thanks David.

An opinion article about a draft code of conduct, hardly game, set and match. More like a first serve fault. I'm guessing you didn't go looking for the actual text of what the code says? Here's the 'diversity' principle mentioned in your article (source, and this is what's actually in use at the moment, not a draft of any sort):

Fourth Principle: Demonstrate respect for diversity and promote equality.

Registered teachers:

• act appropriately towards all children and young people, parents, carers and colleagues, whatever their socio-economic background, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, race, religion or belief
• take responsibility for understanding and complying with school policies relating to equality of opportunity, inclusion, access and bullying
• address unlawful discrimination, bullying, and stereotyping no matter who is the victim or the perpetrator
• help create a fair and inclusive school environment by taking steps to improve the well-being, develoment and progress of those with special needs, or whose circumstances place them at risk of exclusion or under-achievement
• help children and young people to understand different views, perspectives, and experiences and develop positive relationships both within school and in the local community.

Could you point out to the persecution of Christians in that? Or even anything remotely objectionable?

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

My points all stand. Wiki - you are being deliberately provocative and raising silly examples versus my real and pressing case studies.

Your point doesn't stand.

You have claimed there is discrimination against Christians. My examples highlight that this isn't discrimination at all, if a non-Christian behaved the same way they would be fired as well.

So (again) how is this Christian discrimination?

Jester Minute wrote: »

The point is, a Christian doctor or pharmacist WILL be discriminated against in the workplace because they refuse to participate in the culture of death, that is, by aiding or doing abortions or dispensing abortifacients. This is beyond dispute.

That is not discrimination. If they were non-Christian and behaved the same way the same thing would happen to them. There are plenty of non-Chrisitan people who feel abortion is wrong and contraception is wrong. If they do this they too will be let go.

You are inventing an oppression that doesn't exist simply as a way to attack secularism.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Those docs or chemists will find themselves either sidelined or dismissed cos they won't comply with the culture of death directives, which incidentally go against the hippocratic oath.

Any employee will find themselves sidelined or dismissed if they don't comply with the job requirements, as my examples highlighted.

You wouldn't cry discrimination if a vegan who refused to serve customers in McDonalds was let go from her job? So why cry discrimination if a doctor who refuses to provide contraception is let go from theirs?

This is not discrimination, the person is refusing to do their job.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I have a doctor friend and he tells me about these things so I know what I am talking about.

I've no doubt your doctor friend if he is a Christian has hard choices to make. But trying to make this out as discrimination against Christians simply because you don't like the way society is going is nonsense.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I also cited the example of Patrick McCrystal who was a pharmacist but then he had to leave the profession cos nobody wanted a pro-life pharmacist. He know works full time for Human Life International Ireland.

Again, not discrimination. No one wants a vegan burger chief either.

Jester Minute wrote: »

That fits my definition for discrimination.

I'm sure it does. The problem is your definition of discrimination is trumped up nonsense, which you seem to be using purely to attack secular government.

Jester Minute wrote: »

And yes, most secularists/atheists are 'pro-choice' whereas all real Christians are pro-life. SO yes the thing is very much relevant because it is one of the most serious aspects of our problem here in Ireland and in the UK.

Which has got nothing to do with religious discrimination. Your distaste for contraception and morning after pills is not a discrimination against you. It is your personal choice.

Zombrex

Jester Minute wrote: »

If a Christian doctor is sacked cos he won't have ought to do with abortion in the hospital, that is discrimination.

In what universe?

If you refuse to do your job and are fired because of this how are you being discriminated against?

Do you expect employers to pay people who do not do work?

Jester Minute wrote: »

You are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

You are being utterly disingenous to suggest that being let go for refusing to do your job is discrimination, and it is rather insulting to those who have faced actual discrimination cases. people who are happy and willing to work in a job but are turned away not because they are unsuited or cannot perform the job, but because of their skin color, religion, or political affiliation. This happened to family members of mine and they would be laughing out loud if they heard this nonsense.

This trumped up nonsense is a rant about secularism not discrimination. You simply do not like that we live in a secular country and are trying to make out this is some how persecuting Christians. You say yourself this would happen to anyone so again how the heck is this religious discrimination?

Many people on this forum want to know why atheists care so much about what theists get up to. Well it is this sort of nonsense that keeps us up a night. Imagine if Jester was making laws ... i shudder to think

Jester Minute wrote: »

It would also be discrimination if he was an atheistic pro-life doctor and was sacked for the same reason. It is discrimination.

Then it is not discrimination. If it is applied equally no matter who it is or what their religion is (ie the result is based on the actions of the individual not the group they belong to) then it is not discrimination.

Jester Minute wrote: »

I just asked my doctor friend on Skype if he was sacked because he is a Catholic pro-life doctor, would that be discrimination. He said it would be discrimination but it wouldn't likely happen in N. Ireland as no doctor would be forced to take part in abortions or anything of the like.

You didn't ask him the actual question. You didn't ask him what would happen if he refused to do his job. You says that woudl never happen, so then obviously it is never going to arise if his employer would never ask him to do this.

Ask him if he refused to do his job (never mind why) and was sacked because of this would it be "discrimination"?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

How are you going to stop people concluding that Christianity is false?

Have bigger guns than they do.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Have bigger guns than they do.

Ah, I see. Well here is hoping the view that Christianity isn't true doesn't become common, I guess :pac:

PDN

It does seem like some Christians have a persecution complex, whereby any time they don't get their own way they start claiming they are being persecuted.

There are instances of discrimination in the UK, and probably every religion and special interest group feels at times that they have something to gripe about. But to call it 'persecution' would be a real stretch.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

It does seem like some Christians have a persecution complex, whereby any time they don't get their own way they start claiming they are being persecuted.

There are instances of discrimination in the UK, and probably every religion and special interest group feels at times that they have something to gripe about. But to call it 'persecution' would be a real stretch.

Indeed. I think it undermines us in relation to things that MAY be of genuine concern too, when we jump in with such terms. The whole shouting 'persecution' could become a bit like the boy who cried wolf. We could make ourselves impotent by such decries. There are certain things that I would see as being causes of concern, a precursor even, for more serious things down the line. Being over eager to shout 'persecution' will have the opposite of the intended effect IMO.

Jester Minute

PDN wrote: »

It does seem like some Christians have a persecution complex, whereby any time they don't get their own way they start claiming they are being persecuted.

There are instances of discrimination in the UK, and probably every religion and special interest group feels at times that they have something to gripe about. But to call it 'persecution' would be a real stretch.

I never said that discrimination was the same as persecution.

Discrimination is a first step on the road to persecution. We haven't reached that stage yet here in the UK or Ireland, but we will. Soon we will see priests, teachers, and others fined for preaching Christian sexual morals. Then they will be jailed.

If Christians wants to try to halt the tide, then they need to make a stand now, which will include being dismissed from their jobs.

PDN

Jester Minute wrote: »

I never said that discrimination was the same as persecution.

And I never mentioned you. I was responding to the OP.