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

[Liquid]

Wasn't there something about Christians claiming victimhood for being persecuted by people who are also persecuting everyone else? Let's get back to that.

This thread's original title was "Which is the most persecuted people in the world?", or something similar, possibly in the hope that the rest of us would unilaterally say Christians. It didn't go that way and the title change has reflected the change in thread direction.

If we are really are going to go by discussing groups of people, which is always easy and never sweeping (!), it'd still be difficult to look past homosexuals as some of the most persecuted people in the world; where they are persecuted it is exactly because they are homosexuals. Some other groups are persecuted because they are not something.

 

[Scaff]

- Shia Muslims
- Sunni Muslims

Oh they are, by elements of each other!

The 'fun' of religion.

 

[Scaff]

Hi there. Would love to respond but I've been going off topic, and don't want to get nailed.
I've already violated the multiple posts rule.
Let me know if it's okay to pm you, thanks.

So I will take it that you have no intention of answering the questions you have been asked.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This thread's original title was "Which is the most persecuted people in the world?", or something similar, possibly in the hope that the rest of us would unilaterally say Christians. It didn't go that way and the title change has reflected the change in thread direction.
If we are really are going to go by discussing groups of people, which is always easy and never sweeping (!), it'd still be difficult to look past homosexuals as some of the most persecuted people in the world; where they are persecuted it is exactly because they are homosexuals. Some other groups are persecuted because they are not something.

The thread has never been about figuring out who is the most persecuted. It's been clearly stated in the OP from the beginning and it hasn't changed, that the thread was about discussing the perception of media silence around the persecution of Christians. @KSaiyu tried to bring it back on track a couple of times like below, to no avail, and then I suspect he just gave up. This is from the day the thread was created after several posts from people that obviously just wanted to beat their own anti-religion drum:

What bothers me most is the silence. As has been pointed out, people will always find justification. But that doesn't excuse or explain the under reporting of an international persecution. Squadops probably got it in one - we seem ashamed of admitting Christians can be the targets. Why is this the case

Several people, including mods, have been happily enjoying dragging the thread completely off topic.

 

[Scaff]

The thread has never been about figuring out who is the most persecuted. It's been clearly stated in the OP from the beginning and it hasn't changed, that the thread was about discussing the perception of media silence around the persecution of Christians. @KSaiyu tried to bring it back on track a couple of times like below, to no avail, and then I suspect he just gave up. This is from the day the thread was created after several posts from people that obviously just wanted to beat their own anti-religion drum:


Several people, including mods, have been happily enjoying dragging the thread completely off topic.

Threads change and evolve, a point I believe the OP acknowlegded with a change of title.

Lets be honest I think it has been shown that is not a 100% certainty that Christianity is either the most persecuted or that its under reported (rather it actually seems to be rather widely reported by all sections of the media).

 

[Imari]

It's been clearly stated in the OP from the beginning and it hasn't changed, that the thread was about discussing the perception of media silence around the persecution of Christians.

And to finish that sentence, "...the perception of media silence around the persecution of Christians considering that they're the most persecuted people in the world".

The media isn't silent on the persecution of Christians, we can all find examples of that being reported on. The thread highlights the relative silence compared to the scale of persecution that Christians face.

Given that no one has actually established that the media coverage given to Christian persecution is disproportionate to the persecution that they actually receive, I'm not surprised that the thread has gone nowhere. I pointed out early and repeatedly that there needed to be data to support these claims before any reasonable discussion could be made, but it fell on the deaf ears of those who would rather play the victim.

Because if someone actually brought together the data, there's the real danger that they could be forced to conclude that actually Christians might be getting just the right amount of media coverage, or even more coverage than they deserve.

And that doesn't suit the OP's agenda. Or yours, apparently. Why have a logical, rational discussion based on facts when we can just assume that Christians are over-persecuted and under-reported and go from there?

The thread never had it's premise solidly established from the get go. As such, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion because nobody knows if what we're discussing is even a thing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And to finish that sentence, "...the perception of media silence around the persecution of Christians considering that they're the most persecuted people in the world".

The media isn't silent on the persecution of Christians, we can all find examples of that being reported on. The thread highlights the relative silence compared to the scale of persecution that Christians face.

Given that no one has actually established that the media coverage given to Christian persecution is disproportionate to the persecution that they actually receive, I'm not surprised that the thread has gone nowhere. I pointed out early and repeatedly that there needed to be data to support these claims before any reasonable discussion could be made, but it fell on the deaf ears of those who would rather play the victim.

Because if someone actually brought together the data, there's the real danger that they could be forced to conclude that actually Christians might be getting just the right amount of media coverage, or even more coverage than they deserve.

And that doesn't suit the OP's agenda. Or yours, apparently. Why have a logical, rational discussion based on facts when we can just assume that Christians are over-persecuted and under-reported and go from there?

The thread never had it's premise solidly established from the get go. As such, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion because nobody knows if what we're discussing is even a thing.

You've been just as off topic as everyone else. The point of the OP is media coverage of Christian persecution, not establishing whether Christians are disproportionately persecuted relative to everyone else, which was your agenda in your first few posts. It's clear in the OP that the discussion is about the media coverage of this persecution, it's mentioned twice in fact and the links point to it as well.

It appears to me that everyone is so hot to trot about trying to prove that Christians should shut up because they aren't any worse off than anyone else, that the OP has been completely lost in the discussion.

 

[Imari]

You've been just as off topic as everyone else. The point of the OP is media coverage of Christian persecution, not establishing whether Christians are disproportionately persecuted relative to everyone else, which was your agenda in your first few posts.

No, the topic is whether the media coverage of Christian persecution is disproportionate to the persecution that they receive.

You tell me how you establish that without reference to media coverage of other religions/persecution/whatever. To be proportional, it has to be proportional to something.

[Made up numbers for the sake of example incoming.]

If I tell you that there are 0.2 media coverage events (defined however you want) for every incident of Christian persecution (again, defined however you want), is that proportional coverage? You tell me how you use those two numbers to decide.

Myself, I'd want to also know how many media coverage events are generated for incidents of persecution for other faiths, and then compare whether Christians were receiving greater or lesser coverage.

Talking about whether media coverage of Christian persecution is proportional at the very least means referencing data on other religions. We don't have to talk about their persecution or make it a big part of the discussion, but we need the data at the bare minimum.

It's clear in the OP that the discussion is about the media coverage of this persecution, it's mentioned twice in fact and the links point to it as well.

And you seem to be repeatedly missing how I'm attempting to lead people into actually talking about it by pointing out the information that they need to frame the discussion in a sensible manner. Nothing has happened in 7 pages because nobody can be sure if the media is being silent on the topic of Christian persecution.

It appears to me that everyone is so hot to trot about trying to prove that Christians should shut up because they aren't any worse off than anyone else, that the OP has been completely lost in the discussion.

I don't think I've said that once, and if I have then I retract it. I want the data that would allow someone to decide rationally whether Christians are getting proportional media coverage to be included as a natural starting point for the discussion.

I don't think any discussion that simply starts with the assumption that the premise is correct is worth anyone's time. Shall we have a discussion about high immigrant crime rates where we simply assume that immigrants commit more crimes than other people without even bothering to check? What happens if they happen to be more law abiding than the average?

Ironically, many of the Christians in the thread don't seem to have any problem with accepting the premise on faith without any data. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.

 

[jimipitbull]

You've been just as off topic as everyone else. The point of the OP is media coverage of Christian persecution, not establishing whether Christians are disproportionately persecuted relative to everyone else, which was your agenda in your first few posts. It's clear in the OP that the discussion is about the media coverage of this persecution, it's mentioned twice in fact and the links point to it as well.

It appears to me that everyone is so hot to trot about trying to prove that Christians should shut up because they aren't any worse off than anyone else, that the OP has been completely lost in the discussion.

A Christian feels persecuted, seeks media coverage. He/she starts a discussion on social media. Every view and every comment thus provides additional media coverage. A second Christian joins discussion, feels persecuted due to this additional media coverage.

Obviously, the problem here is media coverage.

Solution. If the Christians did shut up, there would be less media coverage. As such, less of them would feel persecuted.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm going to post quotes from someone written decades ago:

"Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed."

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts...." "It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law, and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity. These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

So Christians are distorted from Christ's message of tolerance and compassion, Muslims spread their faith and intolerance by the sword and Jews should start by looking at themselves for reasons as to maybe why they've been persecuted for millennia.

Powerful stuff. Can you guess which two the modern Western World would have a problem with?

 

[Dotini]

Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.

So Christians are distorted from Christ's message of tolerance and compassion, Muslims spread their faith and intolerance by the sword and Jews should start by looking at themselves for reasons as to maybe why they've been persecuted for millennia.

"There's a beast in every man, and it stirs when you put a sword in his hand." - Ser Jorah Mormont, Game of Thrones

As a student of fencing, I can affirm there's a tendency to become "amped up" when you have a sword in your hand, even a practice sword.

"He who lives by the sword shall die the same way." - Matthew 26:52

 

[jimipitbull]

I'm going to post quotes from someone written decades ago:

"Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed."

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts...." "It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law, and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity. These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

So Christians are distorted from Christ's message of tolerance and compassion, Muslims spread their faith and intolerance by the sword and Jews should start by looking at themselves for reasons as to maybe why they've been persecuted for millennia.

Powerful stuff. Can you guess which two the modern Western World would have a problem with?

Johnny Penso has already excluded non current (ie. pre 2015) events, people and things from being relevant in this discussion.


With Jesus as a role model, and with him being persecuted, would persecution not assist towards the immersion of everyday christians?

 

[Imari]

Can you guess which two the modern Western World would have a problem with?

The one that isn't a part of everyday life? The one that almost every country in the West hasn't had at the core of it's government or rule for most of the last few hundred years? I think you underestimate the extent to which Christian values are the core values of Western countries, because history. Of course anything that conflicts with that is going to be an issue.

Can you guess which of the two the modern Muslim World would have a problem with? I'm guessing the same, the one that doesn't mesh with their culture and history.

If you ask a question of a biased audience, you're going to get a biased answer.

 

[KSaiyu]

The one that isn't a part of everyday life? The one that almost every country in the West hasn't had at the core of it's government or rule for most of the last few hundred years? I think you underestimate the extent to which Christian values are the core values of Western countries, because history. Of course anything that conflicts with that is going to be an issue.

Can you guess which of the two the modern Muslim World would have a problem with? I'm guessing the same, the one that doesn't mesh with their culture and history.

If you ask a question of a biased audience, you're going to get a biased answer.

Confusing. By that logic the "modern Muslim world" would have a problem with the anti Christian and anti Jewish statements, but not the one criticising Islam..

You are seriously suggesting this with a straight face.

EDIT: ahhh you've misread my question. Read again - which two of the observations quoted would the West have a problem with?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

which two of the observations quoted would the West have a problem with?

Your question is fallacious and leading. You can't prove in any capacity that the "west" would have issues with exactly two of your statements. It's a silly question and there's no point in answering it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Your question is fallacious and leading. You can't prove in any capacity that the "west" would have issues with exactly two of your statements. It's a silly question and there's no point in answering it.

Go on, you know you want to

 

[Scaff]

Powerful stuff.

Indeed, written by a man who at that time was responsible for ordering the use of Chemical weapons in Russia and again tried to use them in Iraq in the '20s; then it is alleged, became so enamored with Islam that his family wrote to him out of fear he would convert.

So while we are throwing quote from Churchill around let not forget this one...

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

So as long as you are uncivilized (a description that it would seem he was quite happy to apply to Russians) then the use of chemical weapons was fine. That was not just Churchill's view, but also the view laid out in the British Rules of War at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allege...al_weapons_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920#cite_note-2

What about his thoughts on Ghandi:

“ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back. Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed.”

Or

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

Now this puts quite a different context on the use of speeches and actions from near a hundred years ago and I hope illustrates the issues with using out of context speeches from a very, very different world.

Can you guess which two the modern Western World would have a problem with?

Why would it only be two the Modern Western World would have a problem with?
On what basis can you ensure that every part of comments written over 60 years ago are still valid?
Why do you presume to speak for the entire modern western world?

(and on the last part, given the leading nature of your question, that is what you are doing)

 

[KSaiyu]

Indeed, written by a man who at that time was responsible for ordering the use of Chemical weapons in Russia and again tried to use them in Iraq in the '20s; then it is alleged, became so enamored with Islam that his family wrote to him out of fear he would convert.

So while we are throwing quote from Churchill around let not forget this one...

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

So as long as you are uncivilized (a description that it would seem he was quite happy to apply to Russians) then the use of chemical weapons was fine. That was not just Churchill's view, but also the view laid out in the British Rules of War at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allege...al_weapons_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920#cite_note-2

What about his thoughts on Ghandi:

“ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back. Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed.”

Or

“I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

Now this puts quite a different context on the use of speeches and actions from near a hundred years ago and I hope illustrates the issues with using out of context speeches from a very, very different world.



Why would it only be two the Modern Western World would have a problem with?
On what basis can you ensure that every part of comments written over 60 years ago are still valid?
Why do you presume to speak for the entire modern western world?

(and on the last part, given the leading nature of your question, that is what you are doing)

Those statements only, which are reasonable observations to make in a world not corrupted by political correctness. Which would be acceptable to say now in the modern West. Let's just say....America and Britain to keep things simple.

 

[Scaff]

Those statements only, which are reasonable observations to make in a world not corrupted by political correctness. Which would be acceptable now in the West. Let's just say....America and Britain to keep things simple.

And which part of my post is that actually an answer to?

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...llion-ransom-for-christian-hostages-in-syria/

Another few hundred heads on the chopping block.

 

[jimipitbull]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...llion-ransom-for-christian-hostages-in-syria/

Another few hundred heads on the chopping block.

And it's being covered by the media. Is this proof of the silence mentioned in the OP?

Or are you shifting the goal posts of this thread again?

 

[KSaiyu]

And which part of my post is that actually an answer to?

I can agree with parts of Hitler's thinking - that doesn't mean I agree with everything Hitler says. Your point is irrelevant to the argument.

I asked a simple question, but then got a reply out of left field and an accusation that I'm speaking for the entirety of the Western World.

Simple perspective:

Which of those statements would the consensus of American and British opinion have a problem with.

 

[Scaff]

I can agree with parts of Hitler's thinking - that doesn't mean I agree with everything Hitler says. Your point is irrelevant to the argument.

I have to disagree, the point is not irrelevant, the context in which a speech is made is never irrelevant and can have quite a significant bearing on the speech.

I asked a simple question, but then got a reply out of left field and an accusation that I'm speaking for the entirety of the Western World.

The question was anything but simple given that it made a number of presumptions and posed the question is quite a leading manner.

Simple perspective:

Which of those statements would the consensus of American and British opinion have a problem with.

What does the consensus of American and British opinion look like?

 

[TenEightyOne]

...an accusation that I'm speaking for the entirety of the Western World.

...

Which of those statements would the consensus of American and British opinion have a problem with.

You really don't see that you're doing it, do you?

 

[KSaiyu]

Oh dear, I can see I'm not going to be getting an answer any time soon.

So to answer my question, you get arrested for quoting the passages from the book about Islam and Churchill himself didn't publish the opinions on the Jews (they were actually ghost written by a Mosley supporter, and remarks about it being "anti-semitic" continue to this day).

The remarks on Christianity? Fair game!

 

[Joel]

In America you wouldn't be arrested for any of those.

I understand what you're getting at (we all do), but that's a false equivalency. The remarks about Christianity are tempered by the rest of the quote about protecting men from fanatical fever. The others claim that Islam is inherently violent and will always be so, and that Jews are partly responsible for antisemitism. These are not equivalent claims and it's not a grand hypocrisy to think the claims about Islam and Judaism are worse than the claims about Christianity.

 

[KSaiyu]

In America you wouldn't be arrested for any of those.

No you wouldn't - you're a lot more free (gotta love the 1st Ammendment). That doesn't discount the fact that in public it is generally (likely) more acceptable culturally to rag on Christians rather than the other Abrahamic faiths.

Look at South Park for an example. They can take the mick out of everyone (barring Tom Cruise it seems), but Comedy Central had to censor them showing Mohammad even though they made an episode years ago with him in it.

If we want to live in a secular society it's about time we drop these stupid unwritten rules and sometimes written laws that mean we're forced to treat certain cultures and religions with kid gloves. It only leads to worse discrimination and fractured societies. I know the Left mean well with protecting minorities, but sometimes you have to think further down the line about unintended consequences. My hospital is going through a rough time with a HCA currently where it's hard to fire her because she can pull the Race/Religion card.

 

[Joel]

No you wouldn't - you're a lot more free. That doesn't discount the fact that in public it is generally (likely) more tolerated to rag on Christians rather than the other Abrahamic faiths.

I'm not American either, in Canada we have similar but as far as I know a little less strict hate speech laws.

It isn't a grand hypocrisy of the west or "PC gone mad" or whatever that it's more acceptable in the UK and USA to criticize Christianity. It's always more acceptable to criticize your own culture, because you're a part of it and understand it in a nuanced way. It's the same thing as black comedians making jokes about black people that white comedians wouldn't say. Consider why we're harder on Nazi Germany than Imperial Japan.

Look at South Park for an example. They can take the mick out of everyone (barring Tom Cruise it seems), but Comedy Central had to censor them showing Mohammad even though they made an episode years ago with him in it.

If we want to live in a secular society it's about time we drop these stupid unwritten rules and sometimes written laws that mean we're forced to treat certain cultures and religions with kid gloves. It only leads to worse discrimination and fractured societies.

Of course I think it's silly that they censored the Mohammad episode. But I think that was less out of political correctness and more out of a fear of genuine repercussions, as we saw in Paris a few months ago.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

in public it is generally (likely) more acceptable culturally to rag on Christians rather than the other Abrahamic faiths.

You've never been to America, have you?

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm not American either, in Canada we have similar but as far as I know a little less strict hate speech laws.

It isn't a grand hypocrisy of the west or "PC gone mad" or whatever that it's more acceptable in the UK and USA to criticize Christianity. It's always more acceptable to criticize your own culture, because you're a part of it and understand it in a nuanced way. It's the same thing as black comedians making jokes about black people that white comedians wouldn't say. Consider why we're harder on Nazi Germany than Imperial Japan.

Yes it's more acceptable, but what isn't acceptable is when it becomes dangerous to criticise others and/or you are effectively gagged from it. That is the line.

The problem also is that it can persist when it's a majority. For instance non-White is a majority in my area. If I complain saying: "That Arabic/Polish music is bloody annoying" there will be the screams of "Racist! UKIP voter". Change that to "Turn that bloody Christian Rock (I don't think anyone plays that here but whatever) music down!" and it's a-ok. A crude example (since you'd just shout "Turn it down" etc) but I'm making a point - our culture is pretty borked.