Why Do Christians Think They Are Oppressed?

[phill4paul]

Everybody is "oppressed"..

Get over it!

/end.

 

[oyarde]

I do not feel oppressed because of my religion, but because of govt .

 

[oyarde]

Religion seems more likeable to me than govt. if you want to participate ,give you can , but it is not forcibly taken.....

 

[GopBlackList]

Religion seems more likeable to me than govt. if you want to participate ,give you can , but it is not forcibly taken.....

However there are some trying to integrate religion into politics and law.

 

[pcosmar]

However there are some trying to integrate religion into politics and law.

Yes there are. And that is a great evil.
but it ain't Christian.

I do believe it is a religion, some are dedicated to it and some are just deceived into it.

but it ain't Christian.

 

[GopBlackList]

Just a thought, about how some people have said the majority are not really Christian. So I would like to ask, who are YOU to decide whether they are Christian or not? You don't know what is in their hearts.

 

[otherone]

So I would like to ask, who are YOU to decide whether they are Christian or not? You don't know what is in their hearts.

Matthew 12:33
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit."

 

[oyarde]

I agree with Pete and Otherone.

 

[robert9712000]

However there are some trying to integrate religion into politics and law.

Ya Government trying to enforce the religious Commandments of thou shall not kill and thou shall not steal is clearly a violation of separation of Church and state and thus any resemblance of religion in politics should not be tolerated.I cant believe we've allowed them to enforce there morals on the masses for so long on those who do not believe in God.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

There is an attack on Christianity, and the Military is playing a big role.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The only thing I don't get is why so many libertarian atheists hate government involvement, but then they defend the government when it preaches evolution in schools. It doesn't even make them suspicious that the government is spewing propaganda through media and schools in support of evolution. You would think it might undermine why the theory is so accepted, but no, it's a "fact" because, well, everybody knows that...

Like erowe1 said, it's not really persecution per se, but there is definitely a strong anti-religious bias in government and in society in general. It just amazes me how many times I find myself trying to tell professed libertarians why the government forcing evolution "science" on kids is not a good thing.

What's more, there has been a great muddying of the waters where everyone who claims to believe in God is a Bible thumper or evangelical Christian even though very few of these professed Christians really let God have an influence on how they live their lives or even pay attention to their spiritual well-being.

Also, don't forget that both sides have cried persecution, including the atheists. There are a great many atheists, probably enough to match the Christians, who believe they are the persecuted ones. It's just really quite embarrassing to watch supposed libertarians defend the public school evolution doctrine as if there was nothing sinister about that.

 

[phill4paul]

I rarely, anymore, venture into the religion forum.

I will say this....the reason that Christians feel oppressed is the same reason gays do. Or Tea party members. Or small business owners. Or pot smokers. The reason is that the government is in their business.

 

[otherone]

It's just really quite embarrassing to watch supposed libertarians defend the public school evolution doctrine as if there was nothing sinister about that.

I'll bite. What's sinister about that?

 

[bunklocoempire]

I'll bite. What's sinister about that?

I believe it is the government involvement part that is being described as sinister and government's tendency to be influenced by anything but common sense or good will.

The only thing I don't get is why so many libertarian atheists hate government involvement, but then they defend the government when it preaches evolution in schools.

It can be easy to get a product mixed up with those marketing it (forcing it). Is the product itself sinister? Well, as a Christian I'd say yes. (other's mileage may vary).

Is the force used to push the product sinister? Whether I agree with the product or not I'd say the force used to push it is sinister.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It can be easy to get a product mixed up with those marketing it (forcing it)

This is one of the main reasons I'm often baffled when people throw the term government around so loosely. The Monsanto thing was a clear demonstration of folks defending them actually doing the forcing by assuming the role of government and scribbling up legislation themselves but yet people wanted to gripe about government. Was the screwiest thing to me. I know it's a different subject but just reminded me of it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'll bite. What's sinister about that?

Oh, please. You don't think there's any particular reason the government happens to be pushing that agenda? There has to be a reason they're drilling this into our heads. Why do you think the government took over education in the first place? This is what they want the children to be taught. You don't think there's anything wrong or suspicious about that?

Moreover, it's really just the fact that evolution wouldn't be nearly as widespread as it is now if we weren't constantly bombarded with propaganda in support of it, and yet atheists have the audacity to proclaim it as fact like there's no debate.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I believe it is the government involvement part that is being described as sinister and government's tendency to be influenced by anything but common sense or good will.



It can be easy to get a product mixed up with those marketing it (forcing it). Is the product itself sinister? Well, as a Christian I'd say yes. (other's mileage may vary).

Is the force used to push the product sinister? Whether I agree with the product or not I'd say the force used to push it is sinister.

That, and the fact that the theory of evolution wouldn't be nearly as widespread if it weren't a mandatory part of our education, not to mention the constant propaganda in the media in support of it. It's not so much the idea that evolution itself is sinister (although I think it is in this case), it's the fact that it wouldn't be nearly as widespread if it weren't on the government curriculum.

 

[otherone]

There has to be a reason they're drilling this into our heads. Why do you think the government took over education in the first place?

I've never thought there was an ulterior motive for teaching Darwinism, but I'd be interested in hearing some speculation on your (or other's) part. Government took over education long before Darwinism became popular, btw, unless you are referring to the federal government. The feds don't set local curriculum, at least until Bush's "no child left behind" which unfortunately has led to instructors teaching specifically for the test. One of the motivations for NCLB was a backdoor provision to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in "Science" class as an alternative "theory" to Darwinism.

 

[July]

I've never thought there was an ulterior motive for teaching Darwinism, but I'd be interested in hearing some speculation on your (or other's) part. Government took over education long before Darwinism became popular, btw, unless you are referring to the federal government. The feds don't set local curriculum, at least until Bush's "no child left behind" which unfortunately has led to instructors teaching specifically for the test. One of the motivations for NCLB was a backdoor provision to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in "Science" class as an alternative "theory" to Darwinism.

I'll take a stab at it. It's not really the theory itself, but when it is misapplied to many other fields and aspects of life, and taught as a general principle of how all systems work. What I mean is, when Darwinism is applied to everything, like the study of society, history, culture, politics, or government, etc. There are very broad philosophical implications for that, for example, the idea that society is always progressing and evolving over time. The idea that society itself is evolving denies the possibility that societies can actually backslide at times, or that instead of always becoming more efficient or free over time, freedoms can be lost progressively over time, and in the future. Bureaucracy can become progressively too complex and unwieldy. It isn't always the case that what comes later is necessarily more perfect, more efficient, or better suited to the environment. The tendency to view the state as an artifact of human progress and evolution, as opposed to a relic of the past, or a necessary evil that must be kept in check. The assumption that all change is necessarily positive or inevitable. These are just a few examples.

 

[faithfulfriend]

Seeing as America was NOT founded on Christian principles, nor is it a Christian nation...I think any class of people can probably make the claim that they are "oppressed."

As I'm reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs right now, I must say that the genuine Christians in America are probably only having to face others around them threatening them to be quiet. This happened with the Apostles as well in Acts 4.18 and Acts 5.40. The martyrs of the Dark Ages suffered physical persecution that American genuine Christians have yet to face, thankfully.

As for the chart, that's grossly incorrect. Genuine Christians are in the very small minority, the chart portion that says "Christians" are not even Christians. Many religious people in America, not too many Christians.

What's the dividing line between the false Christian and true Christian? Sin.

Those who commit sin are not Christians (I John 3.8). Those who live a holy and sin-free life (by the power & grace of God, not on our own strength) are in fact Christians.