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

[Scaff]

You think I'm going to waste my time replying to the rest of your points when you can't take 2 minutes to search? Let's face it, you're going to dispute these, claim they don't prove Christians are one of the most persecuted and add a little ad hominem in there.

Yep. The Left really "cares about everyone"

You make the claim, you supply the source to back it up, that's how its always worked in this sub-section and the wider site.

I have a bias towards the underdog, which is clear-as-day Christianity in the UK. To debate that all religions are on equal terms as of 2015 is frankly ludicrous.

Sorry the religion with 26 automatic seats in the countries law making body, that is the state religion and have publicly funded daily and weekly broadcasts on a range of media and is the largest religion in the country (with the largest number of faith schools) is the underdog?

Sorry but its not clear as day at all. quite the opposite.

Yes. In the past. What makes Islam so special now?

Nothing makes Islam special and I don't believe I have ever claimed as much so I'm unsure as to why your asking me?

Are you also saying that the last time a Christian carried out a direct action was back in the 80s?

Revised. But there's still a criticism that you you have to address with the whole Chapel Hill debacle, The Times antisemitism stories (search) and the Guardian's Islamophobia articles (search Islamophobia). And frankly any paper that gives Salma Yaqoob a voice should go the way of that paper giving Katie Hopkins a pedestal to speak her drivel.

Chapel Hill? We have talked about this before and unless the investigation and trial has finished I'm not sure what has changed?

I have also now repeatedly answered your point on antisemitism and islamapobia and asked you if these papers (and others) should not cover it? If yes then why (as they are also covering persecution of Christians as well) and if not then why? As I'm at a loss to understand why you keep stating this?

I do however note that you now seem to have an issue with free speech?

It's relative silence. Indeed, as addressed in that article which I keep repeating!

Those of us on the left – who advocate religious acceptance and diversity – must surely speak louder about the persecution of Christians. - Owen Jones, The Guardian.

Which is not what you said. We are supposed to know that its 'relative silence'. How? You are only going to get replies based on the posts you make, if you make absolute statements then that what you are going to get replies on, if you mean 'relative silence' then say it.

The drive for it is. You have two sides, and you have confrontation.

You can have two sides without a confrontation, its not an automatic thing.

Which is gradually going (yay) only to be supplanted by another that we treat with kid gloves (boo)

Citation required. Please detail how another faith is being granted the privileges that Christianity (and specifically the CoE) currently have in the UK.

You're right in believing Trojan Horse is the biggest because it provides no escape for children from Islamist tendencies. In effect, children are being paid for by the West to be educated on rejecting and hating the West. This has created a situation that has led to the parents coming up with ideas for secularism as opposed to the children (who are turning more radical - compare university campuses now to the 60s, 70s, 80s), as they see the very real danger that their faith is having on their children. That certain newspapers sought to distance it from Islam is perhaps even more frightening, but not really surprising.

The reporting of the events are more frighting than the event?

Tower Hamlets is interesting because it is the first time the White population are seeing what happens with Islamic politics. Basically out-breed, then overwhelm, and finally corrupt the system. It's ironic that the freedom associated with democracy is what kills it in such areas. Perhaps now people will see why dictators emerge in Islamic countries. If you worship a Warlord and believe he was a Prophet, and that his way of life was an ideal way to govern you are left with a population that will never embrace Western democracy.

You mean apart from all the ones who do embrace western democracy? Or are we back to 'its all of them' as an approach?

What about all the dictators that have emerged in Christian countries? I mean South America was awash with them and is hardly alone in that regard. What about the LRA? That's lead by a Warlord who people see as a prophet and is Christian?

Does Tower Hamlets represent every incidence of Islamic politics? As you seem to be claiming that every politician that is Muslim is out to "out-breed, then overwhelm, and finally corrupt the system"?

I'm sorry but with pretty much every post you get further away from a convincing argument that you want a secular society.

 

[Dotini]

want a secular society.

I suppose in the ideal secular society, everything would be governed by reason and fact. But perhaps there would then be little or no difference of opinion, and no freedom to hold kooky, anachronistic or divergent views?

 

[KSaiyu]

You make the claim, you supply the source to back it up, that's how its always worked in this sub-section and the wider site.

I did? I quoted it right under (the two posts)

Sorry the religion with 26 automatic seats in the countries law making body, that is the state religion and have publicly funded daily and weekly broadcasts on a range of media and is the largest religion in the country (with the largest number of faith schools) is the underdog?

Yeah I feel it is currently.

Sorry but its not clear as day at all. quite the opposite.

We disagree.

Nothing makes Islam special and I don't believe I have ever claimed as much so I'm unsure as to why your asking me?

Generally asking, with regards to current coverage/events.

Are you also saying that the last time a Christian carried out a direct action was back in the 80s?

What do you mean?

Chapel Hill? We have talked about this before and unless the investigation and trial has finished I'm not sure what has changed?

I have also now repeatedly answered your point on antisemitism and islamapobia and asked you if these papers (and others) should not cover it? If yes then why (as they are also covering persecution of Christians as well) and if not then why? As I'm at a loss to understand why you keep stating this?

Chapel Hill = tons of coverage over pure speculation, desperate to find an "Islamophobic" angle.

Times + Guardian = more prone to cover these stories respectively.

I do however note that you now seem to have an issue with free speech?

Nope. Read again to find my issue.

Which is not what you said. We are supposed to know that its 'relative silence'. How? You are only going to get replies based on the posts you make, if you make absolute statements then that what you are going to get replies on, if you mean 'relative silence' then say it.

How can you prove relative silence?

You can have two sides without a confrontation, its not an automatic thing.

Seems a war. Could be wrong

Citation required. Please detail how another faith is being granted the privileges that Christianity (and specifically the CoE) currently have in the UK.

Modern Britain. Pretty obvious out there.

The reporting of the events are more frighting than the event?

Yes. Because you feed misinformation - inherently dangerous.

You mean apart from all the ones who do embrace western democracy? Or are we back to 'its all of them' as an approach?

It's not "all of them". It's a sizeable proportion. For instance 40% in 2006 last count wanted sharia introduced. Sure it could have gone down since then. Good luck proving that after the polls following Charlie Hebdo however.

What about all the dictators that have emerged in Christian countries? I mean South America was awash with them and is hardly alone in that regard. What about the LRA? That's lead by a Warlord who people see as a prophet and is Christian?

Modern states. Please cite the entirely free and democratic Muslim nations of the world.

Does Tower Hamlets represent every incidence of Islamic politics? As you seem to be claiming that every politician that is Muslim is out to "out-breed, then overwhelm, and finally corrupt the system"?

No (hence why I want a Muslim PM). But look at Muslim politicians in the UK, from Rahman to Warsi, Akram to Galloway.

I'm sorry but with pretty much every post you get further away from a convincing argument that you want a secular society.

Not sure what you mean

 

[huskeR32]

You think I'm going to waste my time replying to the rest of your points when you can't take 2 minutes to search?

As has already been explained to you, that's how debate works. He/she who makes the claim, backs up the claim.

Let's say that I started a thread claiming that Christianity was the largest cause of violence and death in the history of mankind, and you quite reasonably asked me to provide evidence that my claim was true. Would it be okay for me to tell you to go do my homework for me? And that until you did, I wasn't willing to "waste my time" with you?

That would be fantastically arrogant of me to do.

Let's face it, you're going to dispute these...

I do tend to be skeptical of extraordinary claims, such as the one that this thread is based upon, yes.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you used the word "dispute" here, it seems a little defensive. You'll notice that I've never actually stated that you were wrong. Rather, I've asked that you provide even a modicum of evidence that your original claim is correct.

...claim they don't prove Christians are one of the most persecuted...

Funny that you claim to know how I'd react to a situation that hasn't even happened yet.

...and add a little ad hominem in there.

Care to point me to where I've done that?

 

[KSaiyu]

As has already been explained to you, that's how debate works. He/she who makes the claim, backs up the claim.

Oh FFS guys. IT. IS. RIGHT. UNDER. THAT. LINE.

You quoted EVERY point of my post apart from that, which is what you asked for!!!! You then proceeded to lecture me that I don't know how to debate, despite providing what you asked for!! Do you really think we are all blind and/or stupid?

I'm done with the thread. It's blatantly obvious it's going to turn into a "KSaiyu vs Islam" thread again and GTP and I have probably had enough of those.

 

[Scaff]

I did? I quoted it right under (the two posts)

Oh FFS guys. IT. IS. RIGHT. UNDER. THAT. LINE.

You quoted EVERY point of my post apart from that, which is what you asked for!!!! You then proceeded to lecture me that I don't know how to debate, despite providing what you asked for!! Do you really think we are all blind and/or stupid?

I'm done with the thread. It's blatantly obvious it's going to turn into a "KSaiyu vs Islam" thread again and GTP and I have probably had enough of those.

In which case your comment makes no sense at all? Why not just re-port the links or reference your original post number? The passive aggressive comment was as a result both un-needed and confusing.

Neither was the outburst that followed as a result of the confusion you caused, you clearly stated that you were not going to bother posting the sources again, then quoted someone else and then quoted yourself.

It wasn't even remotely clear at all and all you needed to do was say "Here you go" and post the links.

Yeah I feel it is currently.

We disagree.

I noticed, however you have yet to actually add any substance to that feeling beyond 'can't force Tesco to see our Easter Eggs' and 'Novelty Easter Eggs are nasty to Christians'.

Generally asking, with regards to current coverage/events.

Then the answer is, nothing.

What do you mean?

I provided an example which you took issue with because of when it occurred and I then asked you if you were under the belief that no christian had acted out in an anti-social and/or violent manner against a perceived slight again the the Christian religion since that date (as that is the inference in the comment "In the past").

Chapel Hill = tons of coverage over pure speculation, desperate to find an "Islamophobic" angle.

Odd because every bit I've seen has pretty much consistently reported that the Police say its most likely a parking dispute and the family saying it a hate crime? Is that not an accurate representation of the views of both sides?

Times + Guardian = more prone to cover these stories respectively.

Do back that claim up with some data.

Nope. Read again to find my issue.

Then explain what you mean.

How can you prove relative silence?

That's not really my problem, I'm not the one making the claim, you are (and it wasn't releatiev silence you originally claimed it was just silence).

Seems a war. Could be wrong

Modern Britain. Pretty obvious out there.

Then you will have no problem at all showing the laws and privileges specific to Christians that have been removed and replaced by one that is specific to another faith.

Yes. Because you feed misinformation - inherently dangerous.

Only if its the only source available, which its not.

It's not "all of them". It's a sizeable proportion. For instance 40% in 2006 last count wanted sharia introduced. Sure it could have gone down since then. Good luck proving that after the polls following Charlie Hebdo however.

I don't see the details of the poll questions on that link? I know from my own experience that you can easily bias poll results simply by how you word the questions, as such I would like to see the actual poll.

Modern states. Please cite the entirely free and democratic Muslim nations of the world.

Current that would be Tunisia (based on the Freedom House measure), however I was under the impresion we were discussing the UK?

No (hence why I want a Muslim PM). But look at Muslim politicians in the UK, from Rahman to Warsi, Akram to Galloway.

Now aside from the idiot at the end of your list never having been proven as a Muslim I could just as easily show you a list of Christian poloticians who have done idiotic things.

Not sure what you mean

I'm not actually surprised, it is however quite clear.

 

[huskeR32]

Oh FFS guys. IT. IS. RIGHT. UNDER. THAT. LINE.

Right under which line? In which post?

I don't mean that to sound antagonistic, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I genuinely don't have a clue what you're referring to.

I have gone back and read all of your posts in this thread, and I don't see one that contains any data to answer the question that @Imari asked of you all the way back on page 1 of this thread.

The closest I saw you come was here. Is that what you keep referring to? If so, several things, the first of which involves this:

You quoted EVERY point of my post apart from that, which is what you asked for!!!!

I quoted the part of the post that was in response to you quoting me. I did not quote any of the post that seemed addressed to others in this thread. I try to avoid speaking for others.

Next, if the Guardian article in that post is indeed what you were referring to, there's several things to point out:

1. It says that Christians and Muslims are the two most persecuted religious groups. It's a bit of a stretch from there to "the most persecuted people in the world," wouldn't you say?

2. It says that, in 2012:

Christians faced oppression in 110 countries, and Muslims have suffered in 109.

That's it. That's all of the data that article has. How does that answer Imari's original question of proportionality?

Let's say those 110 countries all had one instance of persecution against Christians, and each case had one victim. 110 countries, 110 incidents, 110 victims.

Now let's say in the other 109 countries, there were an average of 4 instances of persecution of Muslims in each, and each instance had an average of 100 victims. 109 countries, 436 instances of persecution, 43,600 victims.

That's the problem with the "data" in that Guardian article. It doesn't truly tell us anything about the scope.

I went ahead and dug a little deeper too, into the Pew report that the Guardian article itself cited. That report dealt in a lot of percentages (i.e., the percentage of countries that had religious persecution/violence, the increase in the number of countries with such events, etc.), and referred to scores on a "Government Restrictions Index," which appeared to be a contrived rating scale attempting to show which nations have governments that are hostile towards religion. None of which helps to definitively establish that any one group is persecuted, proportionally, more than another.

You then proceeded to lecture me that I don't know how to debate, despite providing what you asked for!!

You didn't provide what I asked for (assuming that Guardian article is what you provided).

Do you really think we are all blind and/or stupid?

No. I just think you're making unwarranted assumptions based on some anecdotal evidence, and you're frustrated that the rest of us won't blindly agree to the same assumptions.

I'm done with the thread. It's blatantly obvious it's going to turn into a "KSaiyu vs Islam" thread again and GTP and I have probably had enough of those.

Again? This has happened before? Then may I respectfully suggest that you take some time to reflect on your ability to articulate your position in a debate?

 

[KSaiyu]

Right under which line? In which post?

I don't mean that to sound antagonistic, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I genuinely don't have a clue what you're referring to.

Look at the post you quoted.

Look again at the post you quoted.

Then look at the two quotes immediately below what you quoted.

You should find this:

I can't remember what year the report cited is from, 2012 I'm thinking. I don't think the English version of their webpage helps much but here are a few links if you feel like dealing with the Language.

I did a search for Christian in their archives and this list came out.
http://www.igfm.de/index.php?id=37&tx_kesearch_pi1[sword]=christen+80&x=13&y=15&tx_kesearch_pi1[page]=1&tx_kesearch_pi1[resetFilters]=0&tx_kesearch_pi1[sortByField]=&tx_kesearch_pi1[sortByDir]=

I think this is their homepage.
http://www.igfm.de/

A current pdf report on Christians
http://www.igfm.de/fileadmin/igfm.d...ll/IGFM-Verfolgte-Christen-aktuell-2014-1.pdf

etc.

edit, I'll add a few more links depending how long I mess around on the site, this is a good read.
http://www.igfm.de/themen/religionsfreiheit/christenverfolgung/

Someone asked about the percent of Christians persecuted, I know it's only one source but here it is, and that's enough of this webpage for me lol.
http://www.igfm.de/ne/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1965&cHash=c82d82337f381748a1e2ae8f41cd249c

I'm sorry I just saw this. My agenda? Why is there always this assumption of hidden agendas, it's tiresome.

Let's address it then:

US Department of State:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper
Spectator:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/
This is Malaysia:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/01/catholic-church-150121100311536.html
Kenya:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/12/bethany-blankley-christian-persecution-kenya-what-/

That's just a quick 10 minute search.

Again? This has happened before? Then may I respectfully suggest that you take some time to reflect on your ability to articulate your position in a debate?

You may.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My agenda?

I think I know that one.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper

What does that show? That Christians get off relatively lightly, I think?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/

A piece by a casual contributor to Spectator who was educated as a Franciscan and who specialises in Christian writing. Source feels biased.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/01/catholic-church-150121100311536.html

I'm still not sure where this is going... the argument here is about use of the word "Allah" for "God" by people in whose language the word "God" is pronounced "Allah". Is that really persecution/silence related?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/12/bethany-blankley-christian-persecution-kenya-what-/

Fox News? Are we at that level already? There's some truth in that typically-excitable broad-brush article (even Fox analysts can manage that) but the struggles in Kenya and thereabouts are reported quite often - does this article illustrate silence?

My agenda?

Well, to me it seems that as you claim to be a Methodist Christian your agenda is clear. You aren't selling it with those links for sure, there must be better sources?

 

[KSaiyu]

What does that show? That Christians get off relatively lightly, I think?

You....got that from that?

Well, to me it seems that as you claim to be a Methodist Christian your agenda is clear. You aren't selling it with those links for sure, there must be better sources?

Argh.....my brain....

Turning into Christian denial. Classy.

Hit search "Methodist" with "KSaiyu" as the author. Browse results. Continue looking like the anti-Christian liberal you are.

Also - errr....Squadops post?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You....got that from that?

Meaning that you didn't? Did you read the numbers?

I said that Christians got off relatively lightly and, compared to the figures for Muslims, they do. Arguably there's no practical difference in the severity of the actions against either group though.

(Note: Where a figure was given I included it, where no "owner" was attributed I split the figure between the potential "owners" as named. Some of those figures didn't stand up to further research).

Turning into Christian denial. Classy.

Your opinion. What I'm actually denying is your usual broad-brush (and seemingly quite immature) take on the whole world. Saying that I "deny Christianity" is simply wrong based on the evidence that you can see yourself.

Hit search "Methodist" with "KSaiyu" as the author

I find myself in an awkward position now - raised a Methodist since I can remember and going to a Catholic High School that had more RE lessons than physics, but having always been interested in science. Alas, I didn't turn into a scientist, but the more I discovered the more I questioned the faith ... While doubting, I never lost faith and still continued praying most nights for others (and myself if I'm honest). The turning point was probably a few years ago, realising just how much trouble is routed in religion in some way and the extent of believers hypocrisy. Documentaries explaining reasons for certain Christian doctrines and scientific theories on religious events contributed too. In the end I was left with more questions and the only recurring theme from religion was one of overriding stubborness:

Overriding stubborness. No kidding.

Continue looking like the anti-Christian liberal you are.

Anti-religion, perhaps, Liberal... probably. But that squealing sound doesn't flatter you.

Also - errr....Squadops post?

Meine Deutsche ist nicht so gut.

You started a thread about silence on of one of the most persecuted people in the world. Titular confusion aside (Which person? Did you mean silence about the persecution itself rather than the person?) you've done little to illustrate the topic with real fact. Rather, you've continued to make sweeping assumptions/generalisations which don't seem to give any real idea of why you're still arguing the point.

It all goes, at least in my mind, to your ongoing theme of Christians-are-good-and-Muslamics-are-bad. Which is sometimes true. And sometimes false. You only seem to want it one way though.

Incidentally, wouldn't this be a great thread to bring up Emily Haddock? That's a can of worms, if you'll pardon the expression.

 

[huskeR32]

Look at the post you quoted.

Which one?

Look again at the post you quoted.

Which one?

Enough with the vague references. Be specific about which post you're talking about.

Then look at the two quotes immediately below what you quoted.

You should find this:
* link to this post
* and this post

Finally, I can figure out which posts you're referring to. Here we go, working backward from those posts, since they're "immediately below" something I quoted...

Oh, wait. Neither of those posts follows anything that I quoted. Nor do either of them quote anything that I also quoted.

I don't know why you insist on being so vague. When someone asks you to point them to a post, a simple link will do just fine.

--

As for the links in those posts, none of them comes even close to establishing that Christians are the most persecuted religious group, let alone the most persecuted group on Earth. @TenEightyOne already showed that, so no need for me to beat that dead horse.

 

[squadops]

As for the links in those posts, none of them comes even close to establishing that Christians are the most persecuted religious group, let alone the most persecuted group on Earth. @TenEightyOne already showed that, so no need for me to beat that dead horse.

A few posts above the one you guys are referring to I posted this.

The International Society for Human Rights, a secular observatory based in Germany, claims that 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. If there numbers and research are accurate then it could be said "Christians are the most persecuted people among all religious people" right? I've seen plenty of other similar claims in news pieces along with statistics and numbers to back that up.

I did not spend the time it would take to find what study from The International Society for Human Rights all these news articles quote.(Because German)
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/current-events-trends-the-global-war-against-christians
http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=5934
http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=5624
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Hom...mination-Just-So-Much-Empty-Whining.aspx?p=17
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/
http://gameminecraft.us/tag/acts-1711-sacred-cow-precept-upon-precept-line-upon
http://catchthefire.com.au/2013/10/...ns-is-the-unreported-catastrophe-of-our-time/
http://www.ststephenstonbridge.org/content/pages/documents/1393592595.pdf
http://www.manchester.anglican.org/upload/userfiles/file/pdf/Publications/CRUX 2013/CRUX NOV13 web copy.pdf
http://www.dicksoncatholic.com/news?page=445
http://stpatday.net/tag/bishops-indian-government-inaction-on-minorities-hounding-makes-it-complicit
https://midnightwatcher.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/
http://www.stpatrickwhitewater.org/news?page=671
http://feast2015.com/tag/sacred-and...ons-lamb-dishes-of-old-world-affirm-tradition
http://endoftheage.blogspot.com/2014_03_02_archive.html
https://pray.interserve.org/2013/11/page/2/
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf

Now I did spend enough time on their site to come to a few conclusions, they are a legitimate organization who deals with and is trusted by the international community, and their site is a treasure trove of information regarding discrimination and human rights, studied over a wide range of groups. Anything from religion to ethnicity and all in between.

Of course it is only one source and no one has taken the time to even find the piece. I would suggest browsing through their site even just using google translate, as I did, because I learned quite a bit and found link trails that could keep me occupied for hours(mostly because I like going directly to the source, whether it be U.N. reports or official text of laws and treaties etc. history...).

I hope that clears some things up, but I really wish the site was in English.

Regardless of the numbers or the claims, I believe Christians and the idea of Christianity is something treated differently than other social issues. I would compare it to a trending attitude towards white males in the U.S.. Here is a link to describe what I mean. Is there a mater of privilege and entitlement, or irrational expectations based on the past or status quo? Anyway, you could replace 'white men' with 'Christians' in this piece to see what I mean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-straight-talk-for-white-men.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

1 - http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/current-events-trends-the-global-war-against-christians
2 - http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=5934
3 - http://thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=5624
4 - http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Home-Page-News-and-Views/Are-All-These-Christians-Complaints-of-Religious-Discrimination-Just-So-Much-Empty-Whining.aspx?p=17
5 - http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/
6 - http://gameminecraft.us/tag/acts-1711-sacred-cow-precept-upon-precept-line-upon
7 - http://catchthefire.com.au/2013/10/the-war-on-christians-the-global-persecution-of-christians-is-the-unreported-catastrophe-of-our-time/
8 - http://www.ststephenstonbridge.org/content/pages/documents/1393592595.pdf
9 - http://www.manchester.anglican.org/upload/userfiles/file/pdf/Publications/CRUX 2013/CRUX NOV13 web copy.pdf
10 - http://www.dicksoncatholic.com/news?page=445
11 - http://stpatday.net/tag/bishops-indian-government-inaction-on-minorities-hounding-makes-it-complicit
12 - https://midnightwatcher.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/
13 - http://www.stpatrickwhitewater.org/news?page=671
14 - http://feast2015.com/tag/sacred-and-secular-in-easter-celebrations-lamb-dishes-of-old-world-affirm-tradition
15 - http://endoftheage.blogspot.com/2014_03_02_archive.html
16 - https://pray.interserve.org/2013/11/page/2/
17 - https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf

1) A rework of the John Allen Jr article in spectator. JA Jr is a Franciscan-educated writer who specialises in papal biography and other Christian writing. Not an unbiased source. Original article linked by @KSaiyu.
2) Christian-owned page whose article relies on same JA Jr article.
3) Same page, relies on same article, notes that "11 Christians die an minute somewhere in the world for their faith". The original JA Jr article is unable to support this. With 1500 people dying a minute anyway... this figure is credible... but there's no evidence to show that the stat shows an unusually large number of Christians dying through persecution compared to other religions.
4) This details more anti-Christian attacks and, overall, does a better job of it. No comparative stats though. And it references the Daily Mail without embarrassment.
5) This is the original JA Jr piece, only his second for Spectator. I think I've been over this one...
6) I really didn't get this... ostensibly a Minecraft site full of religious articles. I couldn't see anything relevant on the linked page though.
7) A copy/paste of the JA Jr Spectator article.
8) A local church newsletter that, finally, makes a statistical claim.... but there's no evidence cited to back up the hyperbole.
9) A Christian newsletter covering the Manchester diocese. It makes reference to the persecution of Christians in Pakistan. That's a well-reported area of difficulty for hugely obvious reasons... I didn't see numbers that backed up the "Christians are most-persecuted" argument nor a similar claim.
10) The webpage for a local Catholic Church, no obviously relevant article on the linked page.
11) Another Christian Church page, contents work but all articles are 521. There's a (broken) link to a story about an arson attack on a church, this would demonstrate that Christians can indeed be the victims of crime/violence.
12) Story about the destruction of a synagogue... what's THAT doing here? Ah... below it is a report on the JA Jr story with no additional facts/figures.
13) I couldn't see anything relevant in here... an article about the church defending the rights of migrants, was that what you meant?
14) Definitions of Feast in Christianity and Judaism, couldn't work that one out either.
15) The 11-a-minute stat again, largely a reworking of the JA Jr Spectator article.
16) JA Jr again.
17) This article is about sexism-in-perception, no?

EDIT: Your link is broken in 17, it takes you to the Telegraph sexism article. So, 17 actually gives the Human Rights Watch figures. Still, at +/-680 pages you'll need to direct us more closely to the reason for posting it.

Overall you've demonstrated the following, in my opinion;

a) JA Jr's article spreads more quickly than Ebola
b) That Christians are indeed the victims of crime/violence/persecution
c) Christians are not immortal
d) American churches spend far more on their webpages than British churches do

What I think you failed to demonstrate is;

a) That Christians are the most persecuted people in the world (or, latterly, one of them)
b) Any silence on the matter. If anything you're showing the very opposite.

 

[squadops]

I think you are missing the entire point of my post, that list was simply to point out searching for that 80% figure is only going to lead to what you just described, I tried to save you that time.

I had no intention to demonstrate Christians are the most persecuted people in the world, or whether there is media silence. It's as though you didn't read my post at all.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think you are missing the entire point of my post, that list was simply to point out searching for that 80% figure is only going to lead to what you just described, I tried to save you that time.

I had no intention to demonstrate Christians are the most persecuted people in the world, or whether there is media silence. It's as though you didn't read my post at all.

Fair do's, I think I misunderstood your intention

Looking through the German version of the ISHR site I'm struggling to find the famous 80% stat quoted (and re-quoted, and re-re-quoted) that JA Jr includes. Their English language site is much more sparse and I'm pretty sure it isn't in there.

 

[squadops]

Yeah, if it's to be found it has to be on the German one. I might look later but tbh when I get on there I start reading the first thing that interests me and forget all about it hah.

 

[KSaiyu]

👎 Hmmm, this on the anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide. You couldn't ask for better timing really.

I think the question I had in mind when I started this thread has been answered, so thank you guys.

I guess the last thing to ask is, what did you want to talk about with Emily Haddock?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hmmm, this on the anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide. You couldn't ask for better timing really.

And what does that have to do with anything, except maybe to try and guilt everyone into silence? You might as well mention that it's the centenary of the Gallipoli landings, for all the relevance it has to the discussion.

And didn't you rage-quit this thread?

 

[KSaiyu]

And what does that have to do with anything, except maybe to try and guilt everyone into silence? You might as well mention that it's the centenary of the Gallipoli landings, for all the relevance it has to the discussion.

And didn't you rage-quit this thread?

History lessons...they are your friend.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

History lessons...they are your friend.

You're right. History has taught me that this is your way of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA NOT LISTENING ANY MORE!!" because you gave run out of actual arguments to make.

But please, prove me wrong by responding to this:

What I think you failed to demonstrate is;

a) That Christians are the most persecuted people in the world (or, latterly, one of them)
b) Any silence on the matter. If anything you're showing the very opposite.

Now, that may have been directed at another user originally, but I think that it's a valid point that you should address.

 

[KSaiyu]

But please, prove me wrong by responding to this:


Now, that may have been directed at another user originally, but I think that it's a valid point that you should address.

It's an impossible argument - it is impossible to conclusively prove that one group is the most persecuted as it is impossible to prove a comparative media/societal silence. Basically the thread would go on ad infinitum as the discussion fails to move on from this fundamental point. I was expecting a reasonable acceptance that, yes they are one of the most persecuted and yes there is a relative silence to move forward in the debate but that's what I get for expecting reason.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't think that's called "reason". It's called petitio principii or "begging the question", where you present the conclusion of the argument as its premise. In other words, you stacked the deck to get the outcome that you wanted before having the actual discussion. The only problem is that the argument hasn't gone the way you assumed it would, thereby rendering the conclusion invalid, which has led to your accusation that reason has been lacking.

What's more likely - that everybody here is unreasonable, or that one person decided the conclusion that they wanted the discussion to arrive at before starting?

 

[Scaff]

It's an impossible argument - it is impossible to conclusively prove that one group is the most persecuted as it is impossible to prove a comparative media/societal silence. Basically the thread would go on ad infinitum as the discussion fails to move on from this fundamental point.

Then the nature of some of your own comments are odd if you accept that absolutes can't be proven?

I was expecting a reasonable acceptance that, yes they are one of the most persecuted

In certain parts of the world they are and as far as I am aware that has been accepted, however you have not helped that point by using some quite frankly absurd examples for the UK.

and yes there is a relative silence to move forward in the debate but that's what I get for expecting reason.

On this I disagree, so why would I agree that its relative silence (at least we have made enough progress that its reached this) when you have not, in my opinion, provided evidence to back that up.

History lessons...they are your friend.

Yes they are......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Means_of_killing

.....but that can be played both ways.

 

[KSaiyu]

Wait what have the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides got to do with anything?

* In case it wasn't clear for @prisonermonkeys the Armenian genocide continues to this day to cause controversy because of the unwillingness to call it a genocide. It was also Ottomans (sizeable proportion Muslims) against Armenians (sizeable proportion Christians), hence the relevance and irony.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-for-a-genocide-in-all-but-name-10203090.html

 

[Scaff]

Wait what have the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides got to do with anything?

* In case it wasn't clear for @prisonermonkeys the Armenian genocide continues to this day to cause controversy because of the unwillingness to call it a genocide. It was also Ottomans (sizeable proportion Muslims) against Armenians (sizeable proportion Christians), hence the relevance and irony.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-for-a-genocide-in-all-but-name-10203090.html

You mean just as happens in Serbia and the Catholic and Anglican churches do in regards to the clergies role in Rwanda?

Just as some members of the far right and Islamic radicals do with regard to the holocaust to this day?

Just as the USSR did in regard to Polish and Germans?

Just as the British did with the Boers?

Find a genocide and you will find people who deny it and/or will refuse to identify it as such

Personally as a long time fan of SOAD I am more than aware of the Armenian genocide and despite being one of those grubby liberals more than willing to call it such.

 

[KSaiyu]

You mean just as happens in Serbia and the Catholic and Anglican churches do in regards to the clergies role in Rwanda?

Just as some members of the far right and Islamic radicals do with regard to the holocaust to this day?

Erm not really the same is it, weighing up both logically. You are comparing the continued refusal of leaders of Western nations and Turkey to call a genocide a genocide with "culture of denial in Serbia" and "Nine bishops of the Catholic Church in Rwanda" whilst your article acknowledges that the "Archbishop of Canterbury admits failure of church during massacres in Rwanda"

In like for like terms it would be like Obama and Cameron denying there was ever a genocide in either of your two cases.

There is denial of genocide in all cases, but in my opinion one is so blindingly obviously denied to this day internationally I'm not sure how anyone can refuse to see it

 

[Scaff]

Erm not really the same is it, weighing up both logically. You are comparing the continued refusal of leaders of Western nations and Turkey to call a genocide a genocide with "culture of denial in Serbia" and "Nine bishops of the Catholic Church in Rwanda" whilst your article acknowledges that the "Archbishop of Canterbury admits failure of church during massacres in Rwanda"

In like for like terms it would be like Obama and Cameron denying there was ever a genocide in either of your two cases.

There is denial of genocide in all cases, but in my opinion one is so blindingly obviously denied to this day internationally I'm not sure how anyone can refuse to see it

Now first If you are looking for an exact match your not going to find one, but that would be a quite frankly ridiculous standard and I suspect you know exactly what I was driving at with regard to this.

You talk as if the entire West is in denial about the Armenian genocide, yet that is not true with a number of Western governments quite happy to call it such and the majority of US states also freely acknowledging it as such.

This however important is an aside to the thread and I note that you have not addressed the other points in my post and only this one.

 

[KSaiyu]

Well it's not really an aside, it's a case in point surely?

 

[TenEightyOne]

no escape for children from Islamist tendencies

You're still peddling this minority-is-majority nonsense?