Christians Oppressed in The US

A

Agnosticus_Caesar

Fuck You Too
I've hear of exactly ONE non-christian politician...that guy who was recently sworn in on a Koran. Can anyone else think of any others?

Can a religious group that utterly dominates government honestly claim to be "oppressed"? C'mon people. It's the most ridiculous claim EVER.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
I've hear of exactly ONE non-christian politician...that guy who was recently sworn in on a Koran. Can anyone else think of any others?

Can a religious group that utterly dominates government honestly claim to be "oppressed"? C'mon people. It's the most ridiculous claim EVER.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is some atheist dude too. I'll see if I can find it.
 
Well, I think the problem comes from the public backlash against the crazy, fundamentalist Christians--- the regular, normal Christians sometimes feel a little angry about being lumped in the same group as the fundies.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Most atheists are aware that most Christians are moderates. If not, this would not be a secular nation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it doesn't matter what the intentions are if the perception is wrong-- that is what many politicians and would-be orators don't realise....if the public misinterprets you, it doesn't matter what you said.
 
The public has a short attention span, and lesser comprehension skills. Democracy isn't all it is advertised to be. The freedom to choose representation is a great thing, unfortunately, those who choose to refrain from educating themselves on the issues do not refrain from voting.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
The public has a short attention span, and lesser comprehension skills. Democracy isn't all it is advertised to be. The freedom to choose representation is a great thing, unfortunately, those who choose to refrain from educating themselves on the issues do not refrain from voting.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are arguing with me or not, but comprehension is not the issue...the issue is perception. You need to learn what people hear when you say something, not the literal interpretation of your message.

It has nothing to do with the comprehension, it has to do with the life of language and connotation...each word in our language carries a certain weight, a certain rhetorical vision all its own, as do phrases and cliches--- because of this your words can have unintended consequences, even if you believe that you are being taken entirely out of context...that is one reason the political sphere is such a tricky place.
 
That is true, to a certain extent, as is what I said.

Even smart people can misconstrue intended meaning. Said unfortunate situation is far more likely with those who don't quite rate to be called "smart".
 
It is true...and even the smartest people are capable of alienating an audience simply through their use of overly complex terminology or phrases...while most adults of average intelligence are CAPABLE of discerning the message amidst the verbosity, most of them are also unwilling to do so--- and through no real fault of their own. It is human nature to want to take a complex message and reduce it to a sound bite.

That is why language is such a powerful tool...but we are getting slightly off subject.

I would say that the problem with the Christian oppression stuff lies with the language and the perception of atheists...most atheists are like most Christians, I agree-- they are moderates that do not wish to push their beliefs on others and are content to let the rest of the population do as it desires.

However, you have the Richard Dawkinses and the Jerry Falwells causing both the sides to distrust one another.
 
I don't recall Dawkins ever implying that those who think differently from him deserve to die. Even "because it makes mommy and daddy mad" atheists, generally don't voice such opinions.
 
Whenever Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion", a number of people critiscized him for writing about something he didn't have a degree in.

His response?

"Do I have to read up on Leprachonology before I can disbelieve in Leprachaun's?"

I love it. :cof1:
 
Watermark said:
Whenever Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion", a number of people critiscized him for writing about something he didn't have a degree in.

His response?

"Do I have to read up on Leprachonology before I can disbelieve in Leprachaun's?"

I love it. :cof1:
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't. However, in the academic world one must read up on the subject being discussed to act as an authority on the subject-- in other words, he would not have to read up on "Leprechaunology" to disbelieve in them, but he would have to read up on it in order to present himself as an authority on leprechauns and why they don't exist.
 
I think your talking about Obamma (sworn in on the koran)
Mitt Romney is the only other non Christian I know of that is running (mormon)

Christians and people like gonzojournals (calling people on the right nutz) are all so dominently pushing their agendas, it is cultish. A Cult is a Cult is Cult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top