Ratzinger - "Christians most persecuted religious group in the world"

Improbable

Getting back to the OP a bit, I'd love to see the sources for the evidence that there are anywhere between 200 and 300 million christians being threatened with daily threats of murder, beating and imprisonment because they are christian. That is the issue. Saying that people are threatened and that they're christian just isn't good enough.

Also, the implication that I get from that statement is that christians are being persecuted mainly by people of other religions. Even if those numbers were supported in a real way, which I doubt they are, I wonder how much of that actually comes from other christian denominations?

PDN

Improbable wrote: »

Getting back to the OP a bit, I'd love to see the sources for the evidence that there are anywhere between 200 and 300 million christians being threatened with daily threats of murder, beating and imprisonment because they are christian. That is the issue. Saying that people are threatened and that they're christian just isn't good enough.

Also, the implication that I get from that statement is that christians are being persecuted mainly by people of other religions. Even if those numbers were supported in a real way, which I doubt they are, I wonder how much of that actually comes from other christian denominations?

The problem with vague and fuzzy language is it can mean almost anything, particularly in an area where different sets of statistics are bandied about. Are there hundreds of millions of Christians who each receive daily threats of murder, beating or imprisonment as the Vatican spokesman (not Ratzinger himself, but almost certainly speaking on his behalf) claimed? No, there aren't.

What about Christians living in countries where believers are sometimes singled out for murder, imprisonment or beating, and the possible threat of that exists daily? Yes, there are plenty, and a quick bit of arithmetic could probably stretch to 200 million of them (though probably not without a lot of squabbling as to which figures are valid).

As for the argument as to whether it is 'because they are Christian'. That phrase is easily twisted as we have seen in this thread. There are, of course, political and racial reasons and such behind most persecutions. However, the motives are a bit of a red herring. Such persecution occurs because people are Christians and do the things Christians do (worshipping according to their beliefs and consciences, possessing Bibles, teaching their faith to their children etc).

And, no, I don't think the Vatican was referring to inter-denominational conflict between Christians.

Improbable

PDN wrote: »

What about Christians living in countries where believers are sometimes singled out for murder, imprisonment or beating, and the possible threat of that exists daily? Yes, there are plenty, and a quick bit of arithmetic could probably stretch to 200 million of them (though probably not without a lot of squabbling as to which figures are valid).

That is a bit unfair. Obviously christians in some countries are persecuted. That's fair enough. But the distinction is that if those people are being persecuted, that does not automatically mean that all 200 million of them are at simultaneous risk of being murdered etc. It's slightly analogous to saying that because a particular group hates everyone except for christians, that the 4.6 billion people who aren't christians are the most persecuted group. It's not actually taking into account the actual persecution that is occurring. I know you admitted that in the previous bit but what I fail to understand is why make a statement to the effect of "there are 200 million christians who might be persecuted". You could conceivably extend that to all christians everywhere seeing as it's highly probably that there's at least a few people in every country who want to kill a few. It's just wishy-washy.

PDN wrote: »

As for the argument as to whether it is 'because they are Christian'. That phrase is easily twisted as we have seen in this thread. There are, of course, political and racial reasons and such behind most persecutions. However, the motives are a bit of a red herring. Such persecution occurs because people are Christians and do the things Christians do (worshipping according to their beliefs and consciences, possessing Bibles, teaching their faith to their children etc).

I'm confused by this. Could you possibly explain it differently because I'm not sure where you stand. You say that persecution occurs for political and racial reasons. But that the persecution occurs because people are "acting christian" so to speak. While not mutually exclusive, you can certainly have one without the other.

PDN wrote: »

And, no, I don't think the Vatican was referring to inter-denominational conflict between Christians.

I wonder how much of that goes on.

PDN

Improbable wrote: »

That is a bit unfair. Obviously christians in some countries are persecuted. That's fair enough. But the distinction is that if those people are being persecuted, that does not automatically mean that all 200 million of them are at simultaneous risk of being murdered etc. It's slightly analogous to saying that because a particular group hates everyone except for christians, that the 4.6 billion people who aren't christians are the most persecuted group. It's not actually taking into account the actual persecution that is occurring. I know you admitted that in the previous bit but what I fail to understand is why make a statement to the effect of "there are 200 million christians who might be persecuted". You could conceivably extend that to all christians everywhere seeing as it's highly probably that there's at least a few people in every country who want to kill a few. It's just wishy-washy.

That tends to be the nature of persecution. For the most part, it acts like terrorism. Most persecutors (there are a few notable exceptions) lack the resources to systematically eradicate or supress their target. So they carry out sporadic attacks that leaves the minority group never knowing where the next strike will come from.

Think of the Jewish people for much of the last 2000 years. In most parts of Europe there was no systematic persecution of Jews - but no-one really knew when a pogrom might kick off. Therefore it would be correct to say that most generations of Jews lived with the threat always in the background. It was not systematic persecution like the Holocaust - but it was persecution none the less.

And that is how it is with many Christians today. I recently visited a friend who pastors a very large congregation (10,000 each Sunday) in a majority Muslim country. He has recently built a highly visible cathedral - and you would look at that and say that there is obviously no persecution there and freedom of religion exists. But then I chatted to the security detail outside his office, and discovered that he has received a number of death threats that, according to the police, are 'highly credible'. Another pastor from the same city had his church burnt down by radical Muslims. Another two of our pastors in a rural area of that country were attacked and beheaded last year. Do you understand how every Christian in that country feels threatened, because they never know if they will be the next to be targeted? Yet you have churches, evidently growing and doing well financially, operating openly. It doesn't fit the popular concept of how we often imagine persecution to be like - but that is the reality.

I'm confused by this. Could you possibly explain it differently because I'm not sure where you stand. You say that persecution occurs for political and racial reasons. But that the persecution occurs because people are "acting christian" so to speak. While not mutually exclusive, you can certainly have one without the other

OK, the key distinction here is between:
a) What motivates the persecutors.
b) What makes someone a target for the persecutors.

Again, think of the Jews. Jews were persecuted for many reasons throughout history. Sometimes the motive was purely religious. Sometimes the motive was a totalitarian regime suppressing everyone who had a loyalty other than to the State (eg Stalinist Russia). Sometimes the motive was financial - to seize Jewish assets.

Of course, if you were Jewish, it didn't really matter why you were being targeted. Your Jewishness meant that you lived in fear of being murdered, imprisoned or beaten. And only a complete ass, or a dyed-in the wool anti-Semite, would argue, "Ah, the Jews weren't really being persecuted because some of that persecution was not religiously motivated."

The same with Christians today. They are targeted for different reasons. Christians might be persecuted in Iraq because their religion is seen as 'American' (even though there have were Christians there 1300 years before Columbus was born). They might be persecuted in China because the government does not tolerate groups whose loyalty is to anything other than the State. They might be persecuted in India because Hindu fundamentalists think India should be a country just for Hindus.

This is where the likes of monosharp likes to insert his red herrings. The motive behind the persecution makes little difference to the Christians. A bullet in the head kills you irrespective of whether it's fired by a Chinese executioner trying to protect the State or a Hindu farmer doing it for the glory of Shiva. And, in each case, your Christianity has made you a target.

What is important is what makes the average Christian in these countries more likely to be murdered, imprisoned or beaten than the average non-Christian. And in each case the differentiating factor is clearly their Christianity. Sometimes it is enough to simply be identified as a Christian (eg as in parts of Pakistan) at other times it is by practising your Christianity according to your conscience (eg if you hold a prayer meeting in your living room, or give your child a Bible for their birthday in China).

Either way, for 200 million or so Christians their faith makes them more at risk of being murdered, beaten or imprisoned than their non-Christian neighbours and compatriots. That would be a valid point to make. I don't know if the Vatican spokesman made it in the qualified way I have (we all know that the media reduces such statements to soundbites) or whether he made it in a misleading way. Knowing the Vatican's abysmal PR I would suspect the latter.

I wonder how much of that goes on.

There's certainly some of it. The Balkans and Northern Ireland spring to mind. Also in Eritrea unregistered churches are treated very harshly. But, in numerical terms, such interdenominational conflict would be very small beer compared to that handed out by Communists, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.

Also, of course, I am not ignoring the fact that there are parts of the world where professing Christians have committed violence against other groups (without going back centuries - the Balkans are an obvious example).

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking47.html

Ratzinger has issued a fairly strongly worded statement on the Vatican's "World Day of Peace", saying that christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. Unbiased, sourced statistics, needless to say, are thin on the ground, but this hasn't stopped him from claiming thusly:A spokesman further clarified:Feelings of persecution are nothing new to christianity -- in fact, persecution is almost a central dogma -- but I have to say that I'm finding Ratzinger's tone increasingly unhelpful, narky and paranoid, and it's beginning to bug me.

Has anybody here actually witnessed anything that they could fairly call unprovoked "persecution"?

Ratzi being an obnoxious git shocker.

But he reserved his strongest words for Europe, where the Church says it is under assault by some national governments and European institutions over issues such as gay marriage, abortion and the use of Christian religious symbols in public places.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking47.html

I'm sure the people being killed or burned out of their homes in certain parts of the world appreciate his focus.

sponsoredwalk

Imagine that, he reserves his worst condemnation for the West where the
attack on christians is not a violent one but a secular one :rolleyes:

The pope truly fears the pen more than the sword.

Nodin

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Imagine that, he reserves his worst condemnation for the West where the
attack on christians is not a violent one but a secular one :rolleyes:

The pope truly fears the pen more than the sword.

'Excuse me, you aren't in charge anymore'

'O Noes, I iz Perseekuted'

Considering just what can happen in areas of sectarian conflict - Nigeria, for instance, where you'd be lucky if you met your end through a bullet - its a shocking bit of divorced-from-reality whinging.

Galvasean

I wonder if the Vatican's definition of 'secular' is different from ours. They seem to percieve it as being purely 'anti-Christian'. I suppose if you're used to being unchallenged, anything that appears to challenge the status quo is seen as specifically gunning for you. I'm sure Muslim leaders in Muslim countries see secularism as being especially out to get Islam.

sponsoredwalk

Galvasean wrote: »

I wonder if the Vatican's definition of 'secular' is different from ours. They seem to percieve it as being purely 'anti-Christian'. I suppose if you're used to being unchallenged, anything that appears to challenge the status quo is seen as specifically gunning for you. I'm sure Muslim leaders in Muslim countries see secularism as being especially out to get Islam.

IT IS!!! I explained!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Herr Ratzinger wrote:

religious fundamentalism and secularism (:mad:) are alike in that both represent extreme forms of a rejection of legitimate pluralism and the principle of secularity ()

I think this illustrates the beautiful double standard of X-ianity perfectly.
Most christians are basically secular as the rest of us, including the
more ardent ones, but if they get a whiff of that major sin - the sin of
atheism & all the secularism that comes with it - they instantly denounce it.

So while secularism is associated with 100 million graves due to communism
secularity is the most noble thing in the universe (consisting of the
heavens & the earth). The 100 million graves of capitalism has no
association to christianity whatsoever while the 100 million communist
graves highlight the unbreakable bond to baby eaters. Secularity is
living life the way everyone does normally anyway but just not as
one of them secularists.

The fundamental difference between secularism & secularity is there, it
just takes religi-goggles to see it.

I'm very proud of noticing this His own words indicate that he sees
secularity as christian but secularism as the devils communist trap...

PDN

I think part of the problem here is that the word 'secularism' has two distinct meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

In discussions on culture and society, 'secularism' normally refers to the separation of Church and State. Therefore a secular society, in this sociological or political context, is one where religion gets no special privileges. Churches operate on a level playing field where they have the same rights and opportunities as other voluntary associations, lobby groups etc.

In philosophy, 'secularism' refers to the concept that life is best lived with as little reference to religion as possible. Therefore a secular society, in the philosophical context, is one where the church is marginalised and excluded from society. Rather than a level playing field, the field is deliberately slanted to disadvantage churches.

So this can be confusing enough in English, without even getting into the distinction between 'secularism' and 'secularity' - a distinction that nobody seems able to agree on. Google it and you'll find a range of explanations - many of them contradictory.

Now take a guy who is very much at home in the rarified atmosphere of medieval history and philosophy, whose first language is German but who writes in Latin. Now translate his words into English, to be read by people with a great interest in society but very little knowledge of philosophy.

Without seeking to make excuses for Ratzinger - I suspect that much of the time when he talks about 'secularism' he is not referring to the principle of Church/State separation that I value so greatly.

Here's an interesting, and positive, take on secularism from an Irish Catholic perspective: http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=2&art=119

strobe

That's a good point on whether what he says is understood in the way it's meant PDN. It's possible what you say is true but as God's representative on Earth I would have imagined that shouldn't be much of an issue. God has form for ensuring the message of his spokespeople is understood as intended, going so far as to use magic to make certain of this. I would like to hear how the Pope would reconcile this with his intent being lost in translation.

rockmongrel

In a sense I would say he's right, in so far as secularism had gained seriously ground in the Western World, which is of course primarily Christian. Persecuted is of course too strong a word and entirely inflammatory.

PDN

strobe wrote: »

That's a good point on whether what he says is understood in the way it's meant PDN. It's possible what you say is true but as God's representative on Earth I would have imagined that shouldn't be much of an issue. God has form for ensuring the message of his spokespeople is understood as intended, going so far as to use magic to make certain of this. I would like to hear how the Pope would reconcile this with his intent being lost in translation.

Well, obviously I don't think he's God's representative in any shape or form.

But, looking at it from the Pope's perspective, he's never claimed to have the theological equivalent of the gadget in Star Trek that used to translate alien languages.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

Well, obviously I don't think he's God's representative in any shape or form.

But, looking at it from the Pope's perspective, he's never claimed to have the theological equivalent of the gadget in Star Trek that used to translate alien languages.

True, I'm not saying he made that claim but you would think, if he was indeed gods rep on Earth, that the big guy would give him a dig out like, having done similar before.

recedite

PDN wrote: »

I think part of the problem here is that the word 'secularism' has two distinct meanings depending on the context in which it is used.

In discussions on culture and society, 'secularism' normally refers to the separation of Church and State. Therefore a secular society, in this sociological or political context, is one where religion gets no special privileges. Churches operate on a level playing field where they have the same rights and opportunities as other voluntary associations, lobby groups etc.

In philosophy, 'secularism' refers to the concept that life is best lived with as little reference to religion as possible. Therefore a secular society, in the philosophical context, is one where the church is marginalised and excluded from society. Rather than a level playing field, the field is deliberately slanted to disadvantage churches.

So this can be confusing enough in English, without even getting into the distinction between 'secularism' and 'secularity' - a distinction that nobody seems able to agree on. Google it and you'll find a range of explanations - many of them contradictory.

Now take a guy who is very much at home in the rarified atmosphere of medieval history and philosophy, whose first language is German but who writes in Latin. Now translate his words into English, to be read by people with a great interest in society but very little knowledge of philosophy.

Without seeking to make excuses for Ratzinger - I suspect that much of the time when he talks about 'secularism' he is not referring to the principle of Church/State separation that I value so greatly.

Here's an interesting, and positive, take on secularism from an Irish Catholic perspective: http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=2&art=119

PDN's post only makes sense when the word philosophy is replaced with the word theology. Theologians are well known for confusing the two, which is understandable, given their particular religious convictions.
Muddying the waters by arguing about alternative meanings of words is also a religious ploy. Consider L. Ron Hubbard, and the number of words he made up, or tried to introduce an alternative meaning for.
There is only one meaning for secularism; the separation of Church and State interests.

Check out his link above to catholicireland where secularism is thankfully taken at face value, but this passage;
"By September 2002 one research study found that average weekly Mass attendance had declined to 48 per cent overall, with higher attendance in rural areas masking an even steeper decline in the cities. As younger generations are also generally less observant, this decline seems set to continue over the next two decades"
makes much more sense if you replace the word "observant" with "blinkered".
Now, I would consider myself an observant person, but I don't go to mass. It's another example of the special religious use of language which is divorced from the actual meaning of words.

mikhail

recedite wrote: »

...Now, I would consider myself an observant person, but I don't go to mass. It's another example of the special religious use of language which is divorced from the actual meaning of words.

While I agree with your other point, observant in that context is simply a contraction of "to observe a ritual". I think the point of the text you quoted is that even young self-identifying Catholics in Ireland are less observant of the ritual of attending mass. "Blinkered" is not an appropriate subsitute, and is little more than a value judgement on their religious beliefs on your behalf. I'd like to think the level of debate here is above that sort of thing.

recedite

Fair enough, I concede that the religious usage of "observant" is equally valid; my comment was a light hearted one.
But I still find it annoying that if I fail to say the angelus prayer at six o clock ,for example, there seems an implication that I failed to hear the gong or failed to notice what time it was, not that I chose to ignore my "obligation". This arises becausethere are 2 alternative meanings to the word in a secular context, but only one from a (religious fundamentalist) subjective viewpoint.

PDN

recedite wrote: »

PDN's post only makes sense when the word philosophy is replaced with the word theology. Theologians are well known for confusing the two, which is understandable, given their particular religious convictions.

No, the use I referred to is philosophical, not theological. In fact I'm rather baffled as to why you feel the need to argue about something (philosophy) that you obviously don't understand very well.

The term 'secularism' was originally coined by George Holyoake, who, far from being a theologian, was an atheist philosopher (also notable for being the last man in England to be convicted of blasphemy in a public lecture, for founding the Co-op movement, and coining the word 'jingoism'). He defined secularism as being the principle that life is best lived without any reference to religion or deities whatsoever.

However, today most people (including the inhabitants of this forum) tend to use the term (as I do) to refer to a society where religion is given no special privileges and is according the same status (no more and no less) than ideologies and special interest groups such as vegetarianism.

Muddying the waters by arguing about alternative meanings of words is also a religious ploy.

For goodness sake, take off your ideological blinkers and try reading a bloody dictionary:

dictionary.com wrote:

sec·u·lar·ism
   /ˈsɛkyələˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2.
the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

There is only one meaning for secularism; the separation of Church and State interests.

Now, you're just making stuff up, aren't you?

"In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence" (wikipedia)

"Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

"secu·lar·ism:noun.
1. worldly spirit, views, or the like; esp., a system of doctrines and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith and worship
2. the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education. (yourdictionary.com)

Finally, I suggest you read what Austin Cline (a prominent atheist and secular humanist) has to say about the dual meaning of secularism in his blog: http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/a/Philosophy.htm

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

Ok, try to concentrate really hard now. I'm going to try to help you understand an important distinction:

PDN wrote: »

In fact I'm rather baffled as to why you feel the need to argue about something (philosophy) that you obviously don't understand very well.

PDN wrote: »

take off your ideological blinkers and try reading a bloody dictionary

I find your sanctimonious god complex to be wildly amusing and on so many levels....but that aside...

PDN wrote: »

I couldn't give a toss what bad things the likes of you says about God - so I suggest you take your silly little accusations of sensitivity and put them back into your arsenal of strawmen.

Ah yes, the concept of a strawman. A logical fallacy and the very definition of any god (not just yours).

PDN wrote: »

When it comes to people, however, I have spent too many hours sitting with the widows and orphans of murder victims to have anything but contempt for those who find persecution of anyone, irrespective of their religion or lack of such, to be funny. Your comments in post number 5 ignored a very real point, that Christians are being murdered daily, to mock the 'poor Christians'.

When reading original posts, try to concentrate please.
The pope said christians were under particular attack in Europe and while this was not physical attack, he puts the ideological attack in question ahead of the physical ones you described. This raised a level of mirth in my head, given the obvious hypocrisy and hence my comment. I can only imagine in your head, you may have assumed me to have "no morals", not believing in magic and all that.
Let me tell you a little story myself. I've sat beside the deathbeds of many people, people I've loved and people I never met before, listening to them tell me that they "deserve" the agonizing pain and suffering they go through; that it's all part of a loving gods plan. Well I don't buy it. The loving god thing is just PR and I will never understand anyone who worships a god who, if he did exist, would be the biggest persecutor of the human race full stop - putting the likes of what we do to each other in the shade.

So if you're going to get on your high horse, try not to outdo the thing you chant to every day.

JimiTime

smokingman wrote: »

I find your sanctimonious god complex to be wildly amusing and on so many levels....but that aside...

Nah, my guess is that you're pissed off that he's actually dealt with the facts, and left all your rhetoric and nonsense for dust, and some of you looking dim.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

A bullet in the head kills you irrespective of whether it's fired by a Chinese executioner trying to protect the State or a Hindu farmer doing it for the glory of Shiva. And, in each case, your Christianity has made you a target.

Such pathetic nonsense.

If someone is a member of religion X and lives in the UK for example and they beat their wife because she doesn't/does do X which is not allowed in their religion. She then reports it to the police and they go to prison for it.

Is he been persecuted for his religion ?

If Fred Phelps gets arrested tomorrow for a hate crime is that religious persecution ?

If a Chinese person starts a pro-democracy movement and he goes go prison for it and he happens to be christian then you would claim he was a persecuted christian.

Christians are not been persecuted in China for been Christian. Christians among many groups are been persecuted in China for their stances against the state.

There are millions of christians in China who live quite happily in China without taking stances against the state and face no persecution whatsoever. I'm good friends with many of them.

What is important is what makes the average Christian in these countries more likely to be murdered, imprisoned or beaten than the average non-Christian.

Completely untrue.

Falon gong practitioners on their own would easily beat the Christian figure in China and they face far far more opposition than Christians do. It is relatively easy to be an unofficial house church Christian in China compared to been a falon gong practitioner.

Sometimes it is enough to simply be identified as a Christian (eg as in parts of Pakistan) at other times it is by practising your Christianity according to your conscience (eg if you hold a prayer meeting in your living room, or give your child a Bible for their birthday in China).

Completely untrue. http://www.amityprinting.com/

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Such pathetic nonsense.

If someone is a member of religion X and lives in the UK for example and they beat their wife because she doesn't/does do X which is not allowed in their religion. She then reports it to the police and they go to prison for it.

Is he been persecuted for his religion ?

So your position is that in many countries of the world Christians are more likely to be beaten, arrested and murdered because they themselves have brought it upon themselves by doing something as objectionable as beating their wives?

Thank you for that measured contribution to the debate.

If a Chinese person starts a pro-democracy movement and he goes go prison for it and he happens to be christian then you would claim he was a persecuted christian.

Not in the slightest. Because starting a pro-democracy movement is not an integral part of anyone's Christian faith and practice. In fact, in my encounters with thousands of leaders and members of Chinese underground churches, I've never heard anyone that was the slightest bit interested in discussing Chinese politics.

Christians are not been persecuted in China for been Christian. Christians among many groups are been persecuted in China for their stances against the state

Now you are acting as an apologist for a repressive regime and for violations of human rights.

The "stance against the State" that you refer to involves people meeting together to pray, read the Bible, instruct their children, and to talk to others about their faith. All of these activities are recognised by the United Nations as basic human rights - not anti-State activities.

There are millions of christians in China who live quite happily in China without taking stances against the state and face no persecution whatsoever. I'm good friends with many of them

Again, you're missing the point (and quite deliberately so in your apologist role for the Communist State). The fact that a minority of the Christians in China choose to comply with the State restrictions does not negate the truth that the majority of believer feels those restrictions are incompatible with their understanding of Christianity.

Your point is no different from an apologist for the English in 17th Century Ireland saying, "Lots of Christians live happily under the penal laws, so it's nonsense for the Catholics to claim they are being persecuted. The priests that are executed aren't being killed because of their faith, but because they break the law of the land and are committing treason against the crown."

Completely untrue.

It is not untrue. The average Christian in China and those other countries is more likely to suffer persecution than the average non-Christian in the same countries.

Falon gong practitioners on their own would easily beat the Christian figure in China and they face far far more opposition than Christians do. It is relatively easy to be an unofficial house church Christian in China compared to been a falon gong practitioner.

Again, maybe you should read what people have written before introducing irrelevant red herrings.

I already agreed with Zillah, several pages ago, that Falung Gong suffers worse persecution than Christianity (in terms of risk per person - not raw numbers). However, even you are surely not going to argue that a Falung Gong practitioner represents the average Chinese person?

And I cannot believe that anyone would advance the chillingly bone-headed argument that one group cannot possibly be really suffering persecution because, after all, there's another group that gets treated even worse.

Let's use that logic in other areas:
Person A: "I hear polar bears are becoming an endangered species."
Moron B: "Polar bears aren't an endangered species at all!"
Person A: "How can you say that?"
Moron B: "It's obvious that Siberian tigers are more endangered!"

Completely untrue. http://www.amityprinting.com/

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove?

It is illegal in China to share your faith or give religious instruction to anyone under the age of 18. The Chinese government admits this openly, so I'm genuinely surprised that one of their apologists would deny it.

Giving a Bible to your child in China constitutes a criminal offence. Most Christians feel it is an essential part of their Christianity to teach their faith to their children, and the United Nations agrees that this is an unalienable human right. Yet, according to you, Christians who violate this law are not being persecuted but are rather indulging in anti-State activities.

You need to stand in front of a mirror and take a long hard look at yourself, mate. If you want to be an atheist then that's your choice, and I woiuld defend to the hilt your freedom to do so and to express your beliefs. But the way you are acting as an apologist for the actions of a repressive regime does you no credit whatsoever. You really are coming across as a stooge and a shill for the Communists.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Giving a Bible to your child in China constitutes a criminal offence.

Is this true for all bibles, or just the ones that are provided by religious organizations which are not approved by the Chinese state?

Regardless of the law's generality, it's hard not to see parallels in how the Christian government of the USA treated membership of the Communist party during the 1950's, or even how the US government would have treated the propagation of Mao's Little Red Book, had it existed during McCarthy's Red Scare.

As I've pointed out before several times, it's much easier to understand the distrust of the Communists in political terms, viz, the suspicion with which one absolute authority views the activities of an encroaching alternate absolute authority. And fundamentalist christianity and chinese communism view themselves as absolute authorities, both competing -- violently if necessary -- for brainspace within the chinese population.

That, and the historical warning that the chinese communists take from the ~20 million who were killed the last time that fundamentalist christianity let rip within China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Is this true for all bibles, or just the ones that are provided by religious organizations which are not approved by the Chinese state?

The restriction is against all religious instruction of under-18s. Therefore it applies to all Bibles (and Korans etc).

As I've pointed out before several times, it's much easier to understand the distrust of the Communists in political terms, viz, the suspicion with which one absolute authority views the activities of an encroaching alternate absolute authority. And fundamentalist christianity and chinese communism view themselves as absolute authorities, both competing -- violently if necessary -- for brainspace within the chinese population

That isn't actually true. The underground churches have issued statements of their position, and they clearly advocate a separation between church and State. They claim or want no authority whatsoever in the political realm.

Also, your apparently even-handed phrase "both competing -- violently if necessary" is unworthy of you. Can you give us some incidences since the Communist Revoltion in 1949 where the underground churches in China have used violence to 'gain brainspace' with the chinese population?

That, and the historical warning that the chinese communists take from the ~20 million who were killed the last time that fundamentalist christianity let rip within China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

I don't think that even many of the Chinese Communists would pretend that the activities of a heterodox cult in a pre-modern society 150 years ago has any relevance to the denial of basic human rights to people in a rapidly-modernising society in 2010. In fact, I would be amazed if anyone trying to understand the real world (as opposed to scoring points in an ideologically driven internet forum) would go down the route.

Still, we have people on the Christianity Forum who see connections between the Holocaust and being expected to work on a Sunday, so I guess its understandable that you get similar stuff here.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So your position is that in many countries of the world Christians are more likely to be beaten, arrested and murdered because they themselves have brought it upon themselves by doing something as objectionable as beating their wives?

Yah that's what my point was. Nicely avoided.

You know perfectly well what I meant. If a person of any religion breaks the law in a country they go to prison. The reason is they broke the law, not because of their religion.

Not in the slightest. Because starting a pro-democracy movement is not an integral part of anyone's Christian faith and practice.

In your opinion.

In the opinion of other Christians X, Y and Z are an integral part of their faith.

Take Mr Phelps, spreading hatred is an integral part of his faith. Yet if he broke the law by doing this it would be religious persecution under your definition.

Now you are acting as an apologist for a repressive regime and for violations of human rights.

I am doing no such thing.

I support people who want change in China as well as many other countries. I'm just not going to let people deceitfully try and use people suffering under such a regime for their own personal little propaganda games.

The "stance against the State" that you refer to involves people meeting together to pray, read the Bible, instruct their children, and to talk to others about their faith. All of these activities are recognised by the United Nations as basic human rights - not anti-State activities.

1. People meeting together to pray in an unregistered churche etc is not an integral part of Christianity in the opinion of a lot of Christians. It is your opinion and the opinion of others that this is an integral part of it.

2. These activities are against the law in China regardless of the reason for meeting. The authorities don't care if it's Christianity or Buddhism or politics or a midget gang bang club.

3. I take it that you believe Ireland is oppressing Christians human rights because in the opinion of SOME christians abortion should be legal and it is not an integral christian belief that it is wrong ?

The fact that a minority of the Christians in China choose to comply with the State restrictions does not negate the truth that the majority of believer feels those restrictions are incompatible with their understanding of Christianity.

So in countries where abortion is legal and the majority of Christians oppose this that country is persecuting them for their christianity ?

Your point is no different from an apologist for the English in 17th Century Ireland saying, "Lots of Christians live happily under the penal laws, so it's nonsense for the Catholics to claim they are being persecuted. The priests that are executed aren't being killed because of their faith, but because they break the law of the land and are committing treason against the crown."

Utter nonsense again. Christians who are not happy with the current registered churches are perfectly free to register their own new church that does conform to their particular brand of nonsense.

I listed the requirements for a registered church before and you were silent on the issue. Are you going to answer this time ?

It is not untrue. The average Christian in China and those other countries is more likely to suffer persecution than the average non-Christian in the same countries.

So a Christian attending a registered church in China is more likely to be persecuted than a Falon Gong practitioner or a buddhist or anyone else ?

I already agreed with Zillah, several pages ago, that Falung Gong suffers worse persecution than Christianity (in terms of risk per person - not raw numbers).

Last time it was recorded there were 70 million falon gong practitioners in China. How many christians are there in non-registered churches ?

And I cannot believe that anyone would advance the chillingly bone-headed argument that one group cannot possibly be really suffering persecution because, after all, there's another group that gets treated even worse.

Nice strawman. I said no such thing.

Chinese people who are Christian as well as any other number of religions or non-religions are persecuted. But they are not persecuted for their particular brand of nonsense or lack thereof.

It is illegal in China to share your faith or give religious instruction to anyone under the age of 18. The Chinese government admits this openly, so I'm genuinely surprised that one of their apologists would deny it.

Who does evangelism? What form does it take and where does happen? Chinese Christians are encouraged to demonstrate Christ's love in the way they live, and most evangelism happens in one-to-one contacts. Evangelism also occurs when non-believers come to churches, either invited by friends or relatives or drawn by a special service or religious event. By law foreigners are not allowed to proselytize.

Is it only old people who go to church? No. Although many worshipers are older, large numbers of younger people also attend and declare their faith in baptism. Some congregations also have Sunday School classes for children of Christian families.

http://www.amitynewsservice.org/page.php?page=456

Giving a Bible to your child in China constitutes a criminal offence.

Proof ?

Most Christians feel it is an essential part of their Christianity to teach their faith to their children, and the United Nations agrees that this is an unalienable human right.

Which doesn't mean they are been persecuted for their Christianity.

You need to stand in front of a mirror and take a long hard look at yourself, mate. If you want to be an atheist then that's your choice, and I woiuld defend to the hilt your freedom to do so and to express your beliefs. But the way you are acting as an apologist for the actions of a repressive regime does you no credit whatsoever. You really are coming across as a stooge and a shill for the Communists.

You know what. I have tried to have a calm discussion with you about this several times now and each time you just refuse to accept the facts. You just cannot get away from playing the victim game.

There are serious problems in the PRC and there are serious violations of human rights and there needs to be serious change there. But I cannot accept religious people hijacking it for their own propaganda purposes.

Why must you insist on using the term 'christians' are been persecuted. Aren't PEOPLE been persecuted ? Aren't people of other faiths or none just as important ?

It is wrong. It is against human rights. It is evil and it must be changed. But it is NOT religious persecution anymore than a state like the UK disallowing muslim practices common under sharia law, for one example.

I'm moving to China early next year actually and will likely be there for a considerable amount of time.

recedite

PDN wrote: »

The term 'secularism' was originally coined by George Holyoake, who, far from being a theologian, was an atheist philosopher (also notable for being the last man in England to be convicted of blasphemy in a public lecture, for founding the Co-op movement, and coining the word 'jingoism'). He defined secularism as being the principle that life is best lived without any reference to religion or deities whatsoever.

However, today most people (including the inhabitants of this forum) tend to use the term (as I do) to refer to a society where religion is given no special privileges and is according the same status (no more and no less) than ideologies and special interest groups such as vegetarianism.

That's a very fair description. So we both have a clear understanding of the two separate dictionary definitions. But that is different to saying the word has a "dual meaning". One meaning is archaic, and all dictionary references to it refer to the past. That meaning has been superseded in modern usage by the terms atheist and/or agnostic. You say that the archaic definition is now a "philosophical definition", which I maintain is incorrect.

PDN wrote: »

For goodness sake, take off your ideological blinkers and try reading a bloody dictionary:

"Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

If I rearrange the bold type, you see my perspective more clearly;

"Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Here's a useful piece of philosophical advice which I sometimes quote to those who feel victimised because various other people are "out to get them", when in reality the victim is suffering from a self induced persecution complex;

Most people you meet in this world are neither for nor against you; they are merely indifferent, acting in their own interests.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The restriction is against all religious instruction of under-18s. Therefore it applies to all Bibles (and Korans etc).

It's certainly arguable that the state should step in to protect the integrity of innocent, unformed and uncritical minds, when there exist religious and political organizations which take advantage of that innocence. Though in the case of the Chinese goverment, I can't see them extending that protection to political indoctrination (which they certainly should).

PDN wrote: »

The underground churches have issued statements of their position, and they clearly advocate a separation between church and State. They claim or want no authority whatsoever in the political realm.

Well, in the past you've said -- you'll forgive me if I can't find the post -- that you believe that the rules of your religion are more important than state law.

So, while the Chinese churches might very well have issued statements saying that they want to stay out of politics (where? I haven't seen any, though I'm sure they have), I'm afraid that these are straightforwardly voided by the earlier, and no doubt commonly-expressed, authority claims.

PDN wrote: »

Also, your apparently even-handed phrase "both competing -- violently if necessary" is unworthy of you. Can you give us some incidences since the Communist Revoltion in 1949 where the underground churches in China have used violence to 'gain brainspace' with the chinese population?

Well, here's an account from early last year in which a number of christians used violence, albeit indirectly, as a propaganda tool:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59911601&postcount=1

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Yah that's what my point was. Nicely avoided.

You know perfectly well what I meant. If a person of any religion breaks the law in a country they go to prison. The reason is they broke the law, not because of their religion

And it was a poor point that was poorly put.

They broke the law because the law forbids them from doing something that is part and parcel of their religion.

It's like in Iran where homosexuality is illegal. You wouldn't argue, "Ah, but gays in Iran aren't being persecuted for being gay - they're being persecuted for breaking the law!"

In your opinion.

In the opinion of other Christians X, Y and Z are an integral part of their faith.

Take Mr Phelps, spreading hatred is an integral part of his faith. Yet if he broke the law by doing this it would be religious persecution under your definition.

Not sure what Fred Phelps has to do with the guys who get arrested in China for attending a prayer meeting - but, hey, why not pull out the whole crate of red herrings instead of relying on one or two?

I am doing no such thing.

I support people who want change in China as well as many other countries. I'm just not going to let people deceitfully try and use people suffering under such a regime for their own personal little propaganda games.

My only 'propaganda game' is to point out the dishonesty of the Communists, and their apologists such as you, in referring to people who meet to pray together as engaging in anti-State activities.

1. People meeting together to pray in an unregistered churche etc is not an integral part of Christianity in the opinion of a lot of Christians. It is your opinion and the opinion of others that this is an integral part of it.

Your opinion, or mine, of what is integral to Christianity is unimportant. The only opinion here is the people themselves. They believe that meeting together to pray in their homes is an integral part of their faith. And, in the opinion of any sane person, neither you nor the Chinese government has the right to deny them that belief.

2. These activities are against the law in China regardless of the reason for meeting. The authorities don't care if it's Christianity or Buddhism or politics or a midget gang bang club.

That red herring is really starting to smell bad at this stage. Give it a rest.

The reason for the law is immaterial. What is relevant is that the persecution is being attracted on account of Christians doing what they (not you, or Fred Phelps, or a gang-banged midget) feel is an integral part of their faith.

You really don't get this. Religious freedom does not consist of being allowed to do what the government, PDN, or monosharp decides should be part of your faith. Religious freedom means the freedom to worship in the way that you believe to be right.

3. I take it that you believe Ireland is oppressing Christians human rights because in the opinion of SOME christians abortion should be legal and it is not an integral christian belief that it is wrong ?

I really can't be held responsible for what you 'take' due to your poor understanding of logic. I have never met or heard of any Christian in Ireland who believes that their faith means that, in order to worship God, they should abort babies.

But congratulations, that is certainly a very original red herring.

So in countries where abortion is legal and the majority of Christians oppose this that country is persecuting them for their christianity ?

If they were arrested for refusing to have abortions, then that would be a reasonable position to argue. It would help if you could point us out some examples of where people are being arrested for refusing to abort their babies. Which countries are the worst offenders in your opinion?

Utter nonsense again. Christians who are not happy with the current registered churches are perfectly free to register their own new church that does conform to their particular brand of nonsense.

They are not free to do so, because registration would mean agreeing to forms of worship and restrictions that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

You are advancing an argument that is the same as saying, "Well, if the Catholics under the Penal Laws had agreed to change their doctrines and practices to those of the Protestants then they would be perfectly free to worship."

I listed the requirements for a registered church before and you were silent on the issue. Are you going to answer this time ?

You really don't get this concept of separate forums, do you?

I'm not quite sure what you're on about here. The unregistered churches see the requirements for registration as contrary to their consciences and their religious beliefs. What is so hard to understand about that?

So a Christian attending a registered church in China is more likely to be persecuted than a Falon Gong practitioner or a buddhist or anyone else ?

Nobody has said anything remotely like that. Look up 'average' in a dictionary.

Last time it was recorded there were 70 million falon gong practitioners in China. How many christians are there in non-registered churches ?

Chinese Government figures for both Falung Gong and unregistered Christians vary wildly. Before 1999 they claimed there were 70 million, more recently they've said there are 2 million (as if anyone believes that).

Chinese Government figures for the number of Christians vary from 10 million to 130 million. There are 30 million members in the State-controlled registered churches.

But I think you are laboring under a bit of misapprehension, probably caused by posting before reading. My statement to Zillah was that Falung Gong practioners probably suffer more persecution on a percentage basis, but that more Christians are persecuted in terms of raw numbers. This was in a discussion about the worldwide situation - in fact I don't think anyone had mentioned China at that point. You are the one with the rather peculaiar obsession to defend the boys in Beijing and make everything about China.

http://www.amitynewsservice.org/page.php?page=456

There's always something remarkably touching about the blind faith of those who swallow Communist propaganda.

I hear that the North Koreans say their country is full of well-fed people who find it delightful to live in a worker's paradise.

Have we really not learned the lessons of the stream of intellectuals in the 1930s who used visit Moscow and then return to tell the rest of the West how wonderful live was under Stalin in Soviet Russia? And there I was thinking the new atheism was a bit more realistic.

Why must you insist on using the term 'christians' are been persecuted. Aren't PEOPLE been persecuted ? Aren't people of other faiths or none just as important ?

And why must you insist on ignoring the occasions (at least twice in this thread) where I've said that persecution of anyone is abhorrent? Your implying that I believe anything else is extremely dishonest.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

It's certainly arguable that the state should step in to protect the integrity of innocent, unformed and uncritical minds, when there exist religious and political organizations which take advantage of that innocence.

I see, so in your opinion it is 'certainly arguable' that a State should deny its subjects the right to practice their faith as outlined by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While I must admit that I find it frightening that we have people in Ireland who think that, congratulations for having the balls to stand up and day so in an increasingly PC society.

Well, in the past you've said -- you'll forgive me if I can't find the post -- that you believe that the rules of your religion are more important than state law.

That's a complete distortion of what I've said.

What I have said is that on matters of conscience (including those informed by religious views) there is a limit to how much we should obey the State. Obvious examples of this would conscientious objectors who disobey the State when it commands them to fight in wars, or concentration camp guards who refused to obey orders to execute Jews.

I find it interesting that you would try to twist that view (which I suspect most posters even here would find eminently reasonable) in order to score cheap points in a discussion.

So, while the Chinese churches might very well have issued statements saying that they want to stay out of politics (where? I haven't seen any, though I'm sure they have), I'm afraid that these are straightforwardly voided by the earlier, and no doubt commonly-expressed, authority claims.

http://www.chinaforjesus.com/StatementOfFaith.htm

I draw your attention to the following:
We are against the alliance between the church and politics, or any politics intermingled into the church.

We are against the church’s dependence on foreign political powers for its growth.

We are against the church’s participation in any activities that undermine solidarity of national people groups or the unification of the state.

Well, here's an account from early last year in which a number of christians used violence, albeit indirectly, as a propaganda tool:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...01&postcount=1

Ah, so when you said, "And fundamentalist christianity and chinese communism view themselves as absolute authorities, both competing -- violently if necessary -- for brainspace within the chinese population."
what you really meant was that one side competes violently by inflicting violence on others, while the other side competes violently by having violence inflicted on them.

That's quite an Orwellian use of language. Is there a College somewhere that teaches you how to do that?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

And it was a poor point that was poorly put.

They broke the law because the law forbids them from doing something that is part and parcel of their religion.

In your and their opinion,it is part and parcel of their religion.

I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't part of christianity with you because all I have to do is point out the millions of Christians to whom it is NOT part and parcel of their religion.

If it was something that was actually integral to the religion then I could agree with you. But clearly, it is not.

You saying it is does not make it so.

It's like in Iran where homosexuality is illegal. You wouldn't argue, "Ah, but gays in Iran aren't being persecuted for being gay - they're being persecuted for breaking the law!"

Don't be ridiculous it is nothing like that at all.

A more apt comparison would be chinas one child policy, where christians argued that it was integral to their religion to procreate and/or refuse abortions.

Again. That law, however wrong it is, is nothing to do with the religion itself. i.e. it is not religious persecution.

Not sure what Fred Phelps has to do with the guys who get arrested in China for attending a prayer meeting - but, hey, why not pull out the whole crate of red herrings instead of relying on one or two?

Why don't you answer the question ?

You claim that these peoples religion (as they view it) is been persecuted because part of what they think their religion requires of them is against the law in China.

I asked you if Fred was arrested for doing something which he viewed as integral to his religion but illegal in the US would that be religious persecution ?

Your opinion, or mine, of what is integral to Christianity is unimportant. The only opinion here is the people themselves.

Answer the question about Fred.

If he was arrested for a hate crime, committed as an integral part of his religion as viewed by him, would that be religious persecution ?

They believe that meeting together to pray in their homes is an integral part of their faith.

Well hooray for them. Good luck finding that in the Bible.

And you still have to answer my question. If lunatic X believes idea Y is an integral part of his religion and it is illegal in country Z then is that religious persecution or not ?

When is it religious persecution or just some nut with an idea in his head ?
By how many adherents there are ? By how sane/insane the idea is ? By what is legal in the West ? By been something you personally agree with ?

Come on PDN what are the requirements ?

And, in the opinion of any sane person, neither you nor the Chinese government has the right to deny them that belief.

I AGREE WITH YOU It IS wrong.

But been wrong does not automatically make it religious persecution just because it suits your purposes.

The reason for the law is immaterial. What is relevant is that the persecution is being attracted on account of Christians doing what they (not you, or Fred Phelps, or a gang-banged midget) feel is an integral part of their faith.

Why won't you answer the question PDN ? Because it's one rule for christians you agree with and another for christians you don't ?

You really don't get this. Religious freedom does not consist of being allowed to do what the government, PDN, or monosharp decides should be part of your faith. Religious freedom means the freedom to worship in the way that you believe to be right.

So answer my simple question.

Some people in the UK believe it is part of their religion to beat their wives if they are disobedient. If they do so and get arrested for such an action is that religious persecution or not ?

How does it NOT fit your description above ?

I really can't be held responsible for what you 'take' due to your poor understanding of logic. I have never met or heard of any Christian in Ireland who believes that their faith means that, in order to worship God, they should abort babies.

I didn't say that. I said if their belief was that abortion is OK and the state was denying it that that was religious persecution ?

If they were arrested for refusing to have abortions, then that would be a reasonable position to argue. It would help if you could point us out some examples of where people are being arrested for refusing to abort their babies. Which countries are the worst offenders in your opinion?

Again. The law has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity or religion. So how is it religious persecution ?

They are not free to do so, because registration would mean agreeing to forms of worship and restrictions that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

Point them out. Tell us what they are.

I'm not quite sure what you're on about here. The unregistered churches see the requirements for registration as contrary to their consciences and their religious beliefs. What is so hard to understand about that?

Can a church in Ireland be set up and not register itself with anyone ?

What are these requirements they claim to be opposed to ?

There's always something remarkably touching about the blind faith of those who swallow Communist propaganda.

So this woman is a communist propagandist ? http://www.internationalministries.org/missionaries/99

And why must you insist on ignoring the occasions (at least twice in this thread) where I've said that persecution of anyone is abhorrent? Your implying that I believe anything else is extremely dishonest.

And your insistence on falsely claiming this as religious persecution is absurd.