Christians Are Being Persecuted & No Evidence Would Change His Mind!

[celtics23]

From: www.davidpakman.com

[greyl]

1. I liked the patient build up to dropping the hammer at about 11:20.

Good video about illogical right-wing discrimination.

[Warpy]

2. OK, I skipped through most of the thick headed silliness

from a man who thought the whole line of questioning was very uncomfortable but after the 11:00 mark, the nail got hit very, very hard by a very heavy hammer.

Talk about a deer in the headlights..

[Skip Intro]

3. LA Times: Sudan woman sentenced to death after refusing to renounce Christianity -

http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-sudan-court-sharia-christianity-20140515-story.html

A pregnant Sudanese woman who refused to renounce her Christianity was sentenced to death by hanging Thursday in a Khartoum court, provoking outrage from human rights groups.

Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, who has a young son and is married to a Christian from South Sudan, violated Islamic sharia law, the court said. She insists she was raised Christian, not Muslim.

The court also ordered Ibrahim to be flogged for having sexual relations with her husband, since her marriage is not recognized by officials.

Ibrahim refused a court order Sunday giving her several days to renounce her Christian faith, which resulted in the sentencing Thursday.

--------------

So they're going to flog her, then put her to death for being a Christian.

And you were saying?

[Prophet 451]

4. Christians certainly ARE being persecuted

in Sudan, for example, or Saudi Arabia. In the US? No, not at all.

[JDPriestly]

5. A couple of offhand comments (not well thought through so

criticism is welcome).

1) Christians (and members of other religions) are persecuted around the world. Egypt comes to mind as does maybe Saudi Arabia, and those are just a couple of examples.

2) But with regard to the Supreme Court's disapproval of putting the Ten Commandments on the lawn of City Hall somewhere while the Court has the Ten Commandments on its own walls, the confusion, I suspect (and could be wrong) arises from a misunderstanding about the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Here is the text:

U.S. Constitution › First Amendment
. . . .
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

If a local government places or sponsors the placement of a symbol or language or a specifically religious artifact on public property to endorse a religious holiday or belief but does not permit other religious groups to place their symbols, artifacts, etc. on its public property to endorse their religious (or atheist) ideas or holidays, then that local government is establishing a religion. That is prohibited by the First Amendment. That is why a local government may not place the Ten Commandments on its lawn. Because that is the establishment of a religion -- the Jewish or Christian religious traditions.

The Supreme Court has as yet not been considered to be establishing a religion due to the display of the Ten Commandments on its walls. That is because the friezes on the walls of the Supreme Court represent the most revered lawgivers in history.

"Cass Gilbert (1867-1934), architect of the Supreme Court Building, selected Adolph A. Weinman (1870-1952), a respected and accomplished Beaux-Arts sculptor, to design the marble friezes for the Courtroom. Weinman’s training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building. Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court Building. Faithful
to classical sources and drawing from many civilizations, Weinman designed a procession of “great lawgivers of history” for the south and north walls to portray the development of law. Each frieze in
the Courtroom measures 40 feet long by 7 feet, 2 inches high and is made of ivory vein Spanish marble.

Weinman’s sculpture begins on the South Wall Frieze with Fame and moves from left to right. Included among the great lawgivers are allegorical figures whose names are included below the images in
italics.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

I think this is such a great historical tribute that I will list all the great lawmakers honored on the walls of our Supreme Court and mentioned in the article I cite:

Menes -- Egypt
Hammurabi -- Babylon
Moses -- Mosaic law (which some think was somewhat inspired or related to Hammurabi's code). They are different.
Solomon -- Israel
Lycurgus -- Sparta
Solon -- Athens
Draco -- Athens
Confucius -- China
Octavian -- Rome
Justinian -- Byzantine Empire
Mohammad -- Prophet of Islam (Muslim religion)
Charlemagne -- Franks and Roman Empire
King John -- signed Magna Carta
Louis IX -- St. Louis
Hugo Grotius -- Dutch and wrote on international law
Blackstone -- great British legal scholar
John Marshall -- American
Napoleon -- Napoleonic Code

The Ten Commandments appears on the walls of the Supreme Court not to symbolize the establishment of the Jewish or Christian religion as the religion of our country but to recognize its historic importance. That is why it is not a violation of the First Amendment.

As for evolution, anyone who questions the scientific basis for the "theory" of evolution should read "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. Evolution is called a theory, but it is a pretty well established and proven theory.

Cleaning house last week, I discovered a copy of an old National Geographic magazine from Feb. 2009. The front teases the reader with the title "What Darwin Didn't Know." The magazine contains an article, "Darwin's First Clues" followed by the article "Modern Darwins." The theory of evolution is simply based on the idea that the plants and animals that survive and reproduce successfully are most likely those most favorably adapted to the current environment. Over time, traits like human speech, give biological beings such an edge that the successful species with the advantageous traits distinguish themselves as a new sort of biological life form. (Personally, I believe we are ultimately all a part of life itself and linked in more ways to other animals, plants and living beings than we realize, so survival of the fittest is survival of life itself and that includes all of us.)

There isn't anything complicated about evolution. It's just common sense backed up by DNA.

Here is an excerpt from that National Geographic article, "Modern Darwins."

". . . off the Gulf Coast of Florida, beach mice have paler coats than mice living on the mainland. This camouflages them better on pale sand: owls, hawks, and herons eat more of the poorly disguised mice, leaving others to breed. Hopi Hoekstra . . . and her colleagues traced the color difference to the change of a single letter in a single gene, which cuts down the production of pigment in the fur. The mutation has occurred since its beach islands formed less than 6,000 years ago."

National Geographic, Feb. 2009, at pages 58-59. (May be available in some electronic form from National Geographic or your library.)

Clearly, if the lighter beach mice are not eaten as frequently as are the darker ones, the lighter mice breed and reproduce themselves more successfully. Thus the beach mice become differentiated based on color with the lighter ones forming a special group and living on the light colored sand. That is a step in the process of evolution -- the separation of the beach mice by color and location.

As more information and understanding are acquired, the errors in the nascent theory that Darwin espoused about evolution are set aside.

Another quote from that Feb. 2009 edition of National Geographic at page 71:

"Though modern genetics vindicates Darwin in all sorts of ways, it also turns the spotlight on his biggest mistake. Darwin's own ideas on the mechanism of inheritance were a mess -- and wrong. He thought that an organism blended together a mixture of its parents' traits, and later in his life he began to believe it also passed on traits acquired during its lifetime. He never understood, as the humble Moravian monk Gregor Mendel did, that an organism isn't a blend of its two parents at all, but the composite result of lots and lots of individual traits passed down by its father and passed on from their own parents and their grandparents before them.
citation above.

The gift of gab, being able to speak and communicate well on the radio, TV or internet is a wonderful thing. I love talk radio, but some of the hosts on talk radio need to research the topics they plan to discuss. Opinions on political issues -- even those should be based on research and facts.

Theories that are not based on research and facts should be identified as such or part of a conversation of theories that could give rise to research and compiling facts. It is not helpful just to assert that you do not believe in evolution unless you understand the current state of the research supporting the theory of evolution. A person with a large audience who spouts ideas without checking to find out whether maybe those ideas are wrong does a grave disservice to his listeners. He is spreading ignorance and misunderstanding.

On that note, all religions meet up with intolerance. So do self-described atheists. We all need to work together to be more sensitive to the religious beliefs of others. And we need to make sure that our government guarantees our freedom of religion by making it clear that our government does not endorse or establish any particular religion. That is my opinion. I believe that idea best complies with the First Amendment.

I respect all religious beliefs. I also respect atheists' ideas and suspicion of religion. But I cherish my own spiritual sense and my own study of what is common to all religions and to atheism.

Sorry my posts are long and maybe ranting, but I'm very detail-oriented and don't want to spend a lot of time editing posts that will be read once if that often.

[defacto7]

8. I appreciate you view...

Thank you for showing educated respect for definitions that are so important to communication. It's become too easy for some to bludgeon their antagonist by disregarding defined concepts as a way to cheapen another's position.

I have respect for your position and trust that you understand what you say because you write with respect. The detail is concise and full of useful information that I will take to heart.

D7

[intaglio]

10. What "Historical importance of the 10 Commandments"?

Only 2 are fully a part of the law and the false witness one is partly against the code but otherwise there is silence. Taking the individual elements (because the numbering varies), how much of the Commandments is in the law?

Well 2 and a bit out of 15 - see below

In actual practice all documented legal systems have prohibitions against murder, theft and perjury whether they are Biblical, non-Biblical or pre-Biblical. Essentially the Abrahamic faiths have been selling the importance of these 10 purely as evidence of divine inspiration.

[hr]

Fragment 1
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
accepted as part of 1 by Talmud, Catholic Catechism and possibly Calvin's reform no other part of the Biblically governed faiths uses this

Nope, not there.

Fragment 2
“You shall have no other gods before me.
accepted as part of 1 except for the Talmud has it as part of number 2

Nope, not there.

Fragments 3, 4 and 5
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Accepted by everyone as part of number 2 except the Augustine, the Catholics and the Lutherans which have it as part of 1

Nope, not there

Fragment 6
“You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
Augustine, the Catholics and the Lutherans have this as 2; others as 3

Nope, not there

Fragment 7
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Number 3 for Catholics, Lutherans and according to Augustine; number 4 for everyone else

Nope, not there

Fragment 8
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
Lutherans. Catholics and Augustine has it as 4; others as 5

Nope, not there

Fragment 9
“You shall not murder.
Number 5 for Catholics, Lutherans and Augustine; part of 7 for Philo; part of 6 for everyone else

Yay, a hit!!!

Fragment 10
“You shall not commit adultery.
Part of 6 for Philo, Augustine, Catholics and Lutherans; 7 for the Septaguint, The Talmud and Calvin's reform

Nope, not there

Fragment 11
“You shall not steal.
Lutherans. Catholics and Augustine has it as 7; others as 8

Yay! a hit

Fragment 12
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
Augustine, the Catholics and the Lutherans have this as 8; others as 9

Well, so broad as to be meaningless: could include slander (which is mainly not criminal); perjury which is criminal; or just gossiping which is not criminal.

Fragment 13
“You shall not covet your neighbor's house
Part of 10 for everybody except Calvin who has it as part of 9

Nope, not there

Fragment 14
“you shall not covet your neighbor's wife,
Part of 10 for all except Augustine and the Catholics who have it as part of 9

Nope, not there

Fragment 15 (or following the idea in 13 and 14 then 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
“or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”
Unanimously part of 10.

Nope, not there

[JDPriestly]

12. We haven't adopted the Hammuratic Code either. And with the exception of

maybe Louisiana and California, the Napoleonic Code has little to do with our law. The Ten Commandments were a milestone in the development of the law. I think that is the point.

I doubt that the people who put the Ten Commandments up there cared about how historically accurate their version was. It's history. That's why it is there. It is not there because it is right or accurate. It's like one of the statues in the Washington Mall. It symbolizes something.

[intaglio]

13. I did not claim that the Code of Hammurabi had been adopted

On the other hand you have claimed that the 10 Commandments are historically important to which the question must be raised how so? My post demonstrated the futility of the assumption that the 10 Commandments are in anyway important to current laws, they are merely a list of largely ignored instructions pertinent only to a certain group of religions.

Oh you might want to claim that the Founding Fathers were Christian - a few were but most were Deist. The other argument you might employ is that English Common Law was founded on the 10 - untrue, the foundations of English Common Law lie in the pre-Christian pagan codes of the Germanic and Celtic peoples.

[JDPriestly]

14. I won't argue with you. I didn't decide to put the Ten Commandments there, but

they are symbols for a step in progress toward having the rule of law. So are the codes and laws of the other people pictured on the walls of the Supreme Court.

Whether they are accurate or not is not very relevant since they are, as you point out, not our law. They merely symbolize one of the steps toward reaching our law.

[intaglio]

15. And I repeat they are not

... symbols for a step in progress toward having the rule of law

At best this is a foolish assertion as you are, in effect, claiming an role for these priestly decrees far beyond any actual influence they may have had. These incoherent theocratic rules were largely unknown outside Judea until long after true legal systems and written laws were in effect; it is the Roman Lex Civilis that should be commemorated.

In actual practice the 10 Commandments became an excuse for a step backward in Jurisprudence, where the administration of the Law was left in the hands of theologically trained clerks. They are symbols for a theocratic theory of law and as such should not be commemorated

[SamKnause]

6. Atheism is not a religion.

The religious people in the U.S. can;

Pray in their homes 24/7.

Pray in the homes of their religious friends 24/7.

Pray in the homes of their religious relatives 24/7.

Pray in your houses of worship 24/7.

Pray in your private religious schools 24/7.

You will not be bullied, shamed, harmed, hunted, arrested, or prosecuted for doing any of these things.

When religious people force their doctrine into our government, public schools, the commons, women's health issues, try to rewrite the history of this country, try to rewrite the history of the founding fathers, they scream persecution when we stand against them.

Maybe someone should explain the definition of persecution to Christians.

They seem to be having trouble understanding the concept.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. Christians. They're either persecuting, or being persecuted. No other choice is possible.

IMHO

[defacto7]

9. Persecution is everywhere

and produced by almost every dogmatic institution. "Christian" in this context is a device and doesn't represent the vastness of the problem of persecution in humanity either historic or modern. In the end, it's pity by exclusion.

[panfluteman]

11. These "Persecuted" Christian Punks Are Like Whiny, Colicky Babies!

I'm sick and tired of these whiny Christian punks complaining about how they are always discriminated against. First of all, there's discrimination, and then there's DISCRIMINATION! I wonder how they would take it if they were the victims of real hate crimes like the Sikhs and their temple or Gurudwara in Wisconsin, who suffered a killing rampage just because some ignorant right wing teabagger thought they were Muslims just because they wore turbans. Or all the political fire that our president has come under just from people who suspected that he MIGHT be a Muslim. Colin Powell, in his initial endorsement of Obama for president, hit the nail on the head when he said that "even if Obama were a Muslim..." When a religion like Islam is barely even given the permission to exist by the right wing rabble, you know that it's the Christians who are the real persecutors.