What do you hold in high respect?

[Tenshot13]

I don't really understand who your post is directed at.  You asked a question from a term that has an open-ended definition, specifically about Christians.  I answered that question, and you're like "you don't know what open prejudice is, let me educate you, blah blah blah."  If that was your end game, why go through all the song and dance?  What you're really asking is who gets shit on more, and that is a different kind of discussion.

Your last quote, can you explain what you think privilege is?  I want to make sure we are on the same page before things get twisted by you again.

[Spider-Dan]

You are claiming that some random people posting mean tweets, or saying mean things on an internet forum, is strong evidence that Christians suffer the most "open prejudice" in the country.  Meanwhile, the most powerful elected officials in the country regularly speak against other groups and even pass laws restricting their civil rights, and to you, this does not count as "open prejudice."  Absurd.

In this instance, "privilege" is Christians thinking that not only should the government enforce their belief system on people who do not share those beliefs, but that any criticism of that position is the real prejudice.  The idea that open criticism of your beliefs is akin to oppression or bigotry (i.e. prejudice)... that is the very essence of privilege, as virtually every other group deals with that kind of criticism all the time (particularly from the right!). In America, Christians like CF appear to believe that not only should they be allowed to force their faith-based beliefs (e.g. prohibited gay marriage) on everyone else, but that if we don't shut up and accept it quietly, that's open prejudice against Christians.

Which brings us back to who are the real snowflakes in this country...

[Tenshot13]

You are claiming that some random people posting mean tweets, or saying mean things on an internet forum, is strong evidence that Christians suffer the most "open prejudice" in the country.  Meanwhile, the most powerful elected officials in the country regularly speak against other groups and even pass laws restricting their civil rights, and to you, this does not count as "open prejudice."  Absurd.

In this instance, "privilege" is Christians thinking that not only should the government enforce their belief system on people who do not share those beliefs, but that any criticism of that position is the real prejudice.  The idea that open criticism of your beliefs is akin to oppression or bigotry (i.e. prejudice)... that is the very essence of privilege, as virtually every other group deals with that kind of criticism all the time (particularly from the right!). In America, Christians like CF appear to believe that not only should they be allowed to force their faith-based beliefs (e.g. prohibited gay marriage) on everyone else, but that if we don't shut up and accept it quietly, that's open prejudice against Christians.

Which brings us back to who are the real snowflakes in this country...

You don't know if I count that as open prejudice or not, you're assuming so though.  You specifically asked if I felt Christians had the most open prejudice in the country, but did not ask my opinion on the other topics.  Aside from that, I think you are confusing prejudice with oppression.  Good try on the obvious loaded questions though.

I can only speak for myself, but I think most people can accept if you don't believe in God, it's when you start calling God the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or tell people they're idiots for being duped by religion.  I can just go through post history on this site for examples of that.  It is also way more complicated than "Christian = oppressing gays but don't say bad stuff about them or they cry".  You live in a country where most of the population is Christian and has been since it was founded, with deeply ingrained laws.  Personally, I don't care if two people of the same sex get married, it's not my place to judge those people. 

[Dolphster]

I spent about 10 years of my adult life really deeply entrenched in the Baptist church.  I eventually had an intellectual parting of the ways with the concept of a supreme being, but that isn't the point of my post.  During my time as a devout Christian, I learned that playing the oppressed/martyr game is a huge part of pretty much all religions.  It is a motivational technique.  We see the exact same strategy used in sports.  How many times do you see fiery locker room speeches about "we only have each other" "it is us against the world" "they don't respect us" etc. etc. etc.?  Religions play the same card.  It is a way to keep people under your control.  The goal is to make them think that the whole world is against them and they need to stick together (under their leader's watchful and controlling eye of course).  It is a way to keep them "on fire for the Lord" as my old church used to say or just to keep them together that makes them easier to control and their unity (no matter how fake it might be) makes them a stronger group. 

[Sunstroke]

I can only speak for myself, but I think most people can accept if you don't believe in God, it's when you start calling God the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or tell people they're idiots for being duped by religion.  I can just go through post history on this site for examples of that.  It is also way more complicated than "Christian = oppressing gays but don't say bad stuff about them or they cry".  You live in a country where most of the population is Christian and has been since it was founded, with deeply ingrained laws.  Personally, I don't care if two people of the same sex get married, it's not my place to judge those people. 

The answer seems so simple...keep your God in your Churches and Prayer Groups, and out of legislation that governs people (like me) who don't believe in your God.

Additionally, I feel that if you want your kids to learn religion in schools, you should send them to some religious school, rather than a public elementary that (in a perfect world) would serve children of all religions (and none at all)

Should the day come when mankind can actually prove the existence of God, I'll be glad to capitulate. Until then, every time I hear someone say "it's God's will," I am either going to snicker or get pissed, depending on the seriousness of the issue that God's will has been mistakenly attached to.

[CF DolFan]

The answer seems so simple...keep your God in your Churches and Prayer Groups, and out of legislation that governs people (like me) who don't believe in your God.

If it is something that requires a vote then you have to vote your conscience. Yours would be a liberal view and mine would likely come from my Biblical view.  That is NOT forcing religion on anyone. That is both of us exercising our rights as an American citizen.

I also think it's funny that people saying to keep religion out of government but also want government to force people to give to those who do not work. I as a Christian should already be doing that so no need to govern. You are free to give to the needy so there's that. Lastly why force someone who does not share that value to do so if you don't want anyone like myself ... forcing my values on you? 

[Dolphster]

Should the day come when mankind can actually prove the existence of God, I'll be glad to capitulate. Until then, every time I hear someone say "it's God's will," I am either going to snicker or get pissed, depending on the seriousness of the issue that God's will has been mistakenly attached to.

So, I have a funny/not funny story about that.  When I was deployed to Iraq, we had a team of Iraqi nationals embedded with my team.  Laziest bunch of computer porn hounds (that religious hypocrisy thing again) I have ever seen.  Every time we would tell them to do something, instead of just saying "no", they would say (phonetic spelling) "Yes, sir, en sha allah".  This translates to "I will do it if it is god's will."    What they really meant was "I'm going to sleep in, not bother even coming to work and just making leering comments and gestures to all of the American female soldiers all day. But you can't get upset at me about it because it was clearly god's will that I do these things."   "It's God's will" is like the ultimate get out of jail (responsibility) free card.

[Sunstroke]

If it is something that requires a vote then you have to vote your conscience...

Except when your conscience is unreasonable to people who have different beliefs...in which case, I hope you'll choose good over conscience.

I'm not holding my breath though...

[masterfins]

If it is something that requires a vote then you have to vote your conscience.

Well, no, you need to vote to represent your constituents. If 75% of your constituents are in favor of a proposed law, then you should vote for it.  A politician is elected to represent the people in their district, not to impose their personal beliefs in place of a majority.

[Fau Teixeira]

a politician should absolutely impose their personal beliefs. that's what they got elected on.

We don't live in a democracy, we're a representational republic,
what that means is that this is very specifically not a majority rules system. You elect a representative, and you expect them to make decisions of their own recognizance and not to bow to public opinion.

[Spider-Dan]

If it is something that requires a vote then you have to vote your conscience. Yours would be a liberal view and mine would likely come from my Biblical view.  That is NOT forcing religion on anyone.

...unless the item being voted on is whether the government will force your religious code on people who don't share it, in which case it IS forcing religion on others.

Consider: if "my conscience" says that women should not be allowed be in public without a head covering, and enough people agree with me, then ALL women - even the ones who don't agree - have to wear head coverings in public.

I also think it's funny that people saying to keep religion out of government but also want government to force people to give to those who do not work.

It shouldn't be any funnier than people who are against a war being forced to pay for it.