Our silence on one of the most persecuted people in the world

[Scaff]

I had already read two of those articles and I heard about Scott Lively some time ago, but how much power and influence could he really have? I mean, the idea didn't need to be sold to some already in power and the hatred is nothing new, so some help with organization and money I can agree with. I think you are giving them too much credit however which is why I pointed out the amount of opposition.

And I believe you give too little credit to them, the influence evangelical fervor and money can have has been seen time and time again across history and across all faiths.

I thought I would find something against Christians in this report...
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-HRC-Africa-Report.pdf

No, the fact that we see Christian activists on one side and Obama on the other is not surprising, what would be surprising is if the two didn't nullify one another in their limited ability to influence a foreign government.

I think that the criminalisation occurred (without the death penaltry) and the law is now being enforced shows that's not the case. Keep in mind that African nations have a current history of not responding well to Western governments demands, a long history of colonial power has that result.

All of the Christian groups involved adamantly deny supporting a death penalty of course and I have to wonder why I never hear of any of them expressing that desire here in the U.S. Of course we do have that one crazy guy in California but that's not even close to the same.

Not a big surprise to me.

With the instability in South Africa it's also no surprise to see extremist Muslims, terrorist groups such as al qaeda, and local terrorist organizations all against homosexuality. I wouldn't doubt an influence from Russia either.

Do you mean Southern Africa or South Africa?

Rather big different and personally the area of Africa most at risk from Islamic extremism would be North and East Africa as they are predominantly Muslim. West and Southern Africa are generally Christian (with a few exceptions thrown in of course).

One thing is for sure, Africa will become the new Middle East in the short years to come, all those resources and Governments siding with/going against, the west. Libya was the start, might sway off topic but Gaddafi, despite his record on human rights, was in favor of a united Africa independent from outside influence with a sound infrastructure. That is important to note because we're seeing what direction all human rights start going when a region is in conflict, especially when the region has the interest of super powers.

It may, but North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa are very different places, so I don't think its for sure at all. Its also arguable that many of these countries in SS-Africa have been in civil war for decades already (as they have).

 

[squadops]

I think that the criminalisation occurred (without the death penaltry) and the law is now being enforced shows that's not the case. Keep in mind that African nations have a current history of not responding well to Western governments demands, a long history of colonial power has that result.

Right, the nations aren't going to make law based upon what the west has to say.

Do you mean Southern Africa or South Africa?

Rather big different and personally the area of Africa most at risk from Islamic extremism would be North and East Africa as they are predominantly Muslim. West and Southern Africa are generally Christian (with a few exceptions thrown in of course).

Sloppy on my part there. The countries just south of the Muslim map you posted, I was thinking of Uganda and Kenya. Although, as we are seeing elsewhere, extremism can creep in anywhere. Point being our disagreement on how much influence against homosexuality is from a few Christian groups vs, groups already there, and how much influence these countries need in the first place.

It may, but North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa are very different places, so I don't think its for sure at all. Its also arguable that many of these countries in SS-Africa have been in civil war for decades already (as they have).

Just as in the Middle East, but we stepped up modern involvement with the Arib Spring etc. The U.S. has been preparing for it by sending "training" troops to over 30 countries in Africa and strengthening our alliance with Australia.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...u-s-sending-troops-to-35-african-nations.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/send-the-u-s-navy-to-australia-1409760664

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Whoops. Better remember that probably had nothing to do with their faith, now let's preach tolerance and make sure we in Europe ensure those 15 poor, poor refugees will have a safe future.

Let's just assume for the moment that the inverse were true, and the the Christians had thrown the Muslims overboard. How do you think the Right would portray it? Either:

A) They would ignore the story outright.
B) They would report on it, but would not mention the religious dimension to it.
C) They would insinuate that the Christians were justified in their action because they feared for their lives; if they hadn't done it, then they would have been killed.

The Right loves the notion that the Qu'ran calls for non-believers to be converted or killed, because then they can then say A Christian Wouldn't Do That. And if they can say A Christian Wouldn't Do That, then they automatically position Christianity as a superior faith. It's a fallacy dressed up as a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the irony being that while they act shocked and outraged at What The Muslims Are Doing, they're doing exactly the same thing - the means might be different, but the ends are ultimately the same: Christianity is positioned as the "right" way to live. It simply takes out the violence and swaps in subversion, which is arguably a worse evil - violence can be prosecuted, but the subversion fuels a social attitude.

I think Umberto Eco put it best in The Prague Cemetery when he wrote "people are never so completely and enthusiastically evil as when they act out of religious conviction". And before you jump to the wrong conclusion, Eco is not some poster-child of the touchy-feely, wishy-washy double-decaf mocha latté-sipping liberal left; to be honest, I don't know what his politics are. But Simone Simonini, the protagonist of The Prague Cemetery is the embodiment of the conservative Right, dismissive and disdainful and distrusting of anyone who isn't him.

 

[huskeR32]

It's not so much a boogie monster as a reality when you work for the NHS. And these are perfectly reasonable observations, so I ask what your point is?

My point is that we're discussing religious persecution, and you keep railing against this vague idea of "the left" as some huge oppressive machine. And you're starting to imply that anybody not on board with your claims is part of that group. IMO, it's a cheap way out of having a real debate.

And especially since a member was confronted with evidence of an atrocity taking place right now and his only response was "lulz Daily Fail".

Maybe it's just me, but I still fail to see what the NHS Wales situation has to do with Christian persecution.

Oh and I like the convenient airbrushing with some people "objecting to your claims" and asking for substantiation as if that's anywhere close to reality...

Painting all who question your assertions as being a member of the faceless "Left," and then accusing me of airbrushing is just rich.

So far I am at the last count at least a bigot, "Islamaphobe" and so transparent that it's pretty sad.

And now you're attributing these slights to all of us. Who's airbrushing again?

But do continue, I'm still waiting which claim in particular I'm having to substantiate.

Personally, I'd love for you to address the excellent question posed to you by @Imari on the very first page of this thread.

I'll be waiting a while as it seems only @Scaff can be bothered anymore to back up his opinions with logic.

You've got this irony thing down to a science.

 

[Danoff]

Since we know Christians aren't the most persecuted group on the planet. Who is? Atheists? Gays? Transsexuals? Drug addicts? Prostitutes? Midgets?

How about the rich?

 

[Omnis]

Biggest by number... probably Christians. Biggest by percentage? I would think gays most likely.

 

[Danoff]

Biggest by number... probably Christians. Biggest by percentage? I would think gays most likely.

Biggest by number is probably women. I was going for percentage though.

I'm thinking rich people actually.

 

[Omnis]

Biggest by number is probably women. I was going for percentage though.

I'm thinking rich people actually.

Women can be a subset of Christians though. And there aren't enough rich people. But you're right. Women make a huge group, and rich people are driven to extinction however possible.

 

[Lizard]

Biggest by number is probably women. I was going for percentage though.

I'm thinking rich people actually.

And in what way are they persecuted? They just disappear from society because as long as you are not famous money allows you to do that.

Also are you by any chance really rich?

 

[Danoff]

And in what way are they persecuted? They just disappear from society because as long as you are not famous money allows you to do that.

Also are you by any chance really rich?

First of all.. ad hominem.

Secondly, think about it. The US, and many many other nations around the world actually have institutionalized laws persecuting rich people. In the US your taxes go up as your income goes up. Not just the tax percentage but also a reduction of tax deductible options. By contrast when your income goes down, taxes go below zero.

What other group actually has laws on the books in so many countries that actively discriminate against them? Sure there are laws in the middle east that discriminate against women, but rich people are attacked more uniformly.

 

[Omnis]

Nobody has it worse than the rich white man. If he makes $435,000 or more, then 39% of it is taken by the US government. That's 170 grand stolen overnight. And he can't complain about it because he's rich. And he isn't appreciated because he's a white man.

I laugh at the lefties that get stuck on the "check your privilege" nonsense. How many of them paid taxes, nevermind more than a dozen other people's "fair share"?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Since we know Christians aren't the most persecuted group on the planet. Who is? Atheists? Gays? Transsexuals? Drug addicts? Prostitutes? Midgets?

How about the rich?

I'm going to go with Midgets. They're always being short changed.

 

[KSaiyu]

Since we know Christians aren't the most persecuted group on the planet. Who is? Atheists? Gays? Transsexuals? Drug addicts? Prostitutes? Midgets?

How about the rich?

Homosexuals, most likely. The thing is we hear about it. Loudly.

Why should I take the time and the effort to address each of your points individually when you so frequently resort to anecdotal evidence and hypothetical scenarios designed to prove your point rather than substantiate an argument? You have been asked repeatedly to stop doing this under the AUP, and yet you continue regardless

Duck and dive, and juke and jive!

Has the investigation on that one concluded and the court reached a verdict that provided full details on the evidence and cause or are you simply speculating?

As unless you have access to the investigation you are also engaging in the exact same level of speculation that you are complaining others are.

The article, and outrage is based purely on speculation.

The facts, as they are of April 18 is that they were killed over a parking dispute, and the federal authorities are investigating whether it qualifies as a hate crime. We have NO OTHER details from the prosecution or authorities to show there was a hate crime motive. Indeed, if we were to speculate at this time it seems more likely to be a parking dispute:

Dozens of firearms were found in the condominium Mr Hicks shared with his wife, in addition to the handgun he had when he turned himself in, prosecutors said.

He also kept pictures and notes on his computer about parking activity in the lots around his home, according to police search warrants.

Neighbours described him as an angry man who had frequent confrontations over parking or loud music, sometimes with a gun holstered at his hip.

As for hate crime, so far we can maybe say he had a hatred for religion - not Muslims:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/13/fbi-inquiry-north-carolina-shooting-muslim-students

Hicks’s Facebook page is filled with quotations attacking religion – all organised religion, not just Islam.

Yes, I should have said "likely transpired", but that is nowhere near the same level of dishonesty (I misread haven't ruled out as have ruled out) as publishing that article (which I may add is stupidly peurile, do you know how many times patients have refused to see me because of my colour, or how much white members of staff have been abused by Muslim patients?) or devoting an inordinate amount of coverage in a national British newspaper.

And if these news groups had not also ran significant pieces on the Christian persecution that is occuring around the world you might have a point, but they did.

OK you and I know it is nowhere near the same level! Not even close.

An opinion on Christian persecution...all the way from June 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-persecution-christians-meriam-ibrahim-sudan

Now type "Islamophobia" in The Guardian or "anti-semitism" in The Times.

Find this nugget from yesterday!

Christians in the West stop complaining, give up your beliefs and treat everyone equally. Don't mind us while we ignore the Orthodox Jews and many mainstream Muslims.

* Bunch of stuff done to death already

Dude do you know how long it takes to do these replies. If you want some numbers or percentages, check my post or Squadops. If you want even more, use Google.

In the meantime get over the fact that it's impossible to prove who the most persecuted in the world are definitively and argue the thread title - why the relative silence.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Duck and dive, and juke and jive!

I'm sorry, are you getting frustrated? Poor you. Would it help if I started posting unverified anecdotal evidence, inventing specific generalisations that are biased to promote my point of view, and relying on sources that everyone else would consider unreliable? It seems to have worked for you so far.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm sorry, are you getting frustrated? Poor you. Would it help if I started posting unverified anecdotal evidence, inventing specific generalisations that are biased to promote my point of view, and relying on sources that everyone else would consider unreliable? It seems to have worked for you so far.

Proof definitely needed for this thank you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Proof definitely needed for this thank you.

I thought you might ask, so here's something that I prepared earlier.

 

[townha99]

Nobody has it worse than the rich white man. If he makes $435,000 or more, then 39% of it is taken by the US government. That's 170 grand stolen overnight. And he can't complain about it because he's rich. And he isn't appreciated because he's a white man.

I laugh at the lefties that get stuck on the "check your privilege" nonsense. How many of them paid taxes, nevermind more than a dozen other people's "fair share"?

I agree with your statement. Taxing someone more than another person is extremely unfair. However, why do you say that it is the "rich white man"? Are there not other people of other races that earn over $435,000? I'm not accusing you of anything here, just wondering. Some people like to draw these things into giant race issues.

 

[squadops]

Since we know Christians aren't the most persecuted group on the planet. Who is? Atheists? Gays? Transsexuals? Drug addicts? Prostitutes? Midgets?

How about the rich?

Do we Know? I don't think there have been any numbers posted in the thread to suggest any group being more persecuted than another, Christian or otherwise. There are also a number of parameters yet to be set, the whole thread is a mess

The rich are definitely persecuted in the U.S., from many sides. I see a similar argument against the premise as 'Christians have lobby in their favor', in daily life when I point it out to friends or colleagues. It's either big business is evil and law makers are corrupt, or they have so many shelters to run to. Is it under reported though? How about almost zero, it's only brought up as a defense. Irrational hatred towards the rich only makes sense to those who hate prosperity in general.

I've thought about it for a while and I cannot see a claim of any one group being substantiated. I'll go with children.

 

[Danoff]

I'll go with children.

I think children might go as the most protected group in the world.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

Wow, really? Dunno about the UK and the rest of the world, but the media pretty much gives attention to Christian victims, or victims to Muslims. This is in their interest, to tarnish the view of Islam. People are dying on the infatadas done by Israel/ No one gives a crap, only when a non-Muslim dies. It pisses me off, even though I should be used to it. How can they do this? Charlie Hebdo, the Boston Bombing, 9/11, etc etc! They didn't bother to mention that a Muslim officer was shot, did they? I watch CNN constantly, I know that they didn't. Or how about those 3 Muslims killed? The guy? He wasn't labeled as a terrorist. He was labeled as a man. Those kids, they didn't have marches for them did they? No "Je suis Deah", "Je suis Yusor", "Je suis Razan". That story had 2 days of coverage. The Charlie Hebdo shooting had 2-3 weeks of coverage. 9/11, about 30 Muslims were killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html

And how are these people not following their religion again, when "ISIS is fighting for true Islam" considering the civilians are devout in their religion and most of the ISIS members are brainwashed?

I am not saying killing Christians is OK, that's totally unacceptable. But looking at the Christians and other non-Muslims killed by Muslims all of the time is like trying to swat a mosquito while a lion is right in front of you. I will end this with saying that I am probably going to get a ****storm of replies from people, but just listen to this song. It is powerful, awakening.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Wow, really? Dunno about the UK and the rest of the world, but the media pretty much gives attention to Christian victims, or victims to Muslims. This is in their interest, to tarnish the view of Islam. People are dying on the infatadas done by Israel/ No one gives a crap, only when a non-Muslim dies. It pisses me off, even though I should be used to it. How can they do this? Charlie Hebdo, the Boston Bombing, 9/11, etc etc! They didn't bother to mention that a Muslim officer was shot, did they? I watch CNN constantly, I know that they didn't. Or how about those 3 Muslims killed? The guy? He wasn't labeled as a terrorist. He was labeled as a man. Those kids, they didn't have marches for them did they? No "Je suis Deah", "Je suis Yusor", "Je suis Razan". That story had 2 days of coverage. The Charlie Hebdo shooting had 2-3 weeks of coverage. 9/11, about 30 Muslims were killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html

And how are these people not following their religion again, when "ISIS is fighting for true Islam" considering the civilians are devout in their religion and most of the ISIS members are brainwashed?

I am not saying killing Christians is OK, that's totally unacceptable. But looking at the Christians and other non-Muslims killed by Muslims all of the time is like trying to swat a mosquito while a lion is right in front of you. I will end this with saying that I am probably going to get a ****storm of replies from people, but just listen to this song. It is powerful, awakening.

The Muslim police officer killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was widely reported in all the North American media sources I frequent, including CNN, as soon as it was known. His full identity was not initially revealed.

 

[KSaiyu]

Wow, really? Dunno about the UK and the rest of the world, but the media pretty much gives attention to Christian victims, or victims to Muslims. This is in their interest, to tarnish the view of Islam. People are dying on the infatadas done by Israel/ No one gives a crap, only when a non-Muslim dies. It pisses me off, even though I should be used to it. How can they do this? Charlie Hebdo, the Boston Bombing, 9/11, etc etc! They didn't bother to mention that a Muslim officer was shot, did they? I watch CNN constantly, I know that they didn't. Or how about those 3 Muslims killed? The guy? He wasn't labeled as a terrorist. He was labeled as a man. Those kids, they didn't have marches for them did they? No "Je suis Deah", "Je suis Yusor", "Je suis Razan". That story had 2 days of coverage. The Charlie Hebdo shooting had 2-3 weeks of coverage. 9/11, about 30 Muslims were killed

I know you mean well, but you are referencing Chapel Hill which has been discussed here relatively recently; intifadas which receive extensive coverage in the West; and the Muslim officer in Charlie Hebdo who was identified by name and as a "fellow Muslim" in the front page picture of that "Islamophobe" rag the Daily Mail..

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So because The Daily Mail ran a single headline that was representative of public sentiment, it is a respectable source and all criticism of it is invalid?

 

[KSaiyu]

So because The Daily Mail ran a single headline that was representative of public sentiment, it is a respectable source and all criticism of it is invalid?

Criticism is not invalid, where did you get this from

Also, your link doesn't work. It's just a broken search result..

 

[Bo]

The Daily Mail

Can we add more emphasis on this bit please? Bold and size 7 font may just do.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Also, your link doesn't work. It's just a broken search result..

How is it broken? It's a list of every post you have made in this thread. You wanted evidence of posting unverified anecdotal evidence, inventing specific generalisations that are biased to promote my point of view, and relying on sources that everyone else would consider unreliable, and that's what I delivered.

 

[Scaff]

The article, and outrage is based purely on speculation.

The facts, as they are of April 18 is that they were killed over a parking dispute, and the federal authorities are investigating whether it qualifies as a hate crime. We have NO OTHER details from the prosecution or authorities to show there was a hate crime motive. Indeed, if we were to speculate at this time it seems more likely to be a parking dispute:

And yet you stated as a fact in the past tense.....

"All of this over what transpired to be a parking dispute."

....... and do so again in this very quote (see highlight) if it was your intention to state it as speculation you should have worded it quite differently and really to complain that people take it as you stating it as a fact because that's how you have worded it is an issue with how you present your comments not the other way around. Its is not a fact that they were killed over a parking dispute at all, ts a fact they were killed, why the killing took place is still not fully known. It may have been over a parking issue, it could have been religiously motivated, right now we do not know (which means its not a fact).

As for hate crime, so far we can maybe say he had a hatred for religion - not Muslims:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/13/fbi-inquiry-north-carolina-shooting-muslim-students

I'm well aware, that was not the point I had an issue with.

Yes, I should have said "likely transpired", but that is nowhere near the same level of dishonesty (I misread haven't ruled out as have ruled out) as publishing that article (which I may add is stupidly peurile, do you know how many times patients have refused to see me because of my colour, or how much white members of staff have been abused by Muslim patients?) or devoting an inordinate amount of coverage in a national British newspaper.

No I don't know. Do you have some independently verifiable data to support this?

OK you and I know it is nowhere near the same level! Not even close.

An opinion on Christian persecution...all the way from June 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-persecution-christians-meriam-ibrahim-sudan

An opinion on Christian persecution...all the way from four days ago.....

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-east-christians-islamic-persecution-iraq-war

......do you honestly think I hadn't checked before I make the claim?

Now type "Islamophobia" in The Guardian or "anti-semitism" in The Times.

Why are they not allowed to cover it?

Find this nugget from yesterday!

Christians in the West stop complaining, give up your beliefs and treat everyone equally. Don't mind us while we ignore the Orthodox Jews and many mainstream Muslims.

Do you think that I wouldn't both following the link and read the article?

From it:
"the fact that some people are compelled by their consciences to disagree does not exempt them from behaving as if it were true"
Well that doesn't say give upi your beliefs? Quite the opposite, it simply says don't force them on others as if they were fact.

Oh and on the Guardian not mentinion Christian Percesution since 2014:
"Compared to the monstrous persecution suffered by Christians in Muslim countries like Iraq or officially atheist ones, being asked to ice a cake for a gay wedding is hardly martyrdom."

Hold on that's twice in one week they have spoecifically mentioned it, yet you clearly infered they hadn't covered it since 2014. That means you either didn't read the article you used as a source or you read it and used a misleading piece of text on the link and hoped others wouldn't follow it/read it to completion.

Dude do you know how long it takes to do these replies. If you want some numbers or percentages, check my post or Squadops. If you want even more, use Google.

In the meantime get over the fact that it's impossible to prove who the most persecuted in the world are definitively and argue the thread title - why the relative silence.

You make a claim, you provide the data to support it (from independently verifiable sources) that's how it works and please don't attack the person, argue the point. Telling someone to 'get over it' is not acceptable.



I would also like an answer to this:

Now would you be so kind as to actually answer the questions around why you seem to think that commercial decisions by supermarkets over what they stock is persecution?

As I have asked at least three times and so far you have simply ignored it.

 

[Omnis]

I agree with your statement. Taxing someone more than another person is extremely unfair. However, why do you say that it is the "rich white man"? Are there not other people of other races that earn over $435,000? I'm not accusing you of anything here, just wondering. Some people like to draw these things into giant race issues.

Because it's a jab at the lamentations of the left over "the rich white man".

Rich women and minorities are also usually celebrated, as I explained.

 

[squadops]

How is it broken? It's a list of every post you have made in this thread. You wanted evidence of posting unverified anecdotal evidence, inventing specific generalisations that are biased to promote my point of view, and relying on sources that everyone else would consider unreliable, and that's what I delivered.

It's broken as in this is where it takes you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's broken as in this is where it takes you.

@prisonermonkeys, doesn't work for me either. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment though.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, it worked for me. Maybe it's because I'm using a mobile.