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

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

That's quite a good idea. Genius even, allowing young minds to form before bombarding them with fairytales.

It's like the one good thing about China, previously I had no positive impressions of the place.

Unfortunately it's not entirely true. He likes to say things like this are true to get others to hop on the propaganda bandwagon.

It's not true in all provinces in China, or at very least it is ignored in some. The Chinese girl I work with isn't sure if it's illegal or not, she just knows she went to sunday school when she was in her mid-teens.

monosharp wrote: »

Surely even you must be willing to admit this is something which has been abused in the past and continues to be abused by religious people worldwide.

Yes, as is democracy, freedom of speech and a host of other good things.

Do you really want to argue that any principle that can be abused is wrong?

How'd that work out ?

It worked out quite badly for my friend's father. He ended up in a concentration camp himself.

It's amazing how you can only think of good examples isn't it ?

Yes, because in a discussion about what would be the most moral course of action we all try to think of bad examples, don't we? :rolleyes:

Oh hang on a second. Didn't a certain priest or pastor from the other forum go to China regularly causing the authorities to take notice of him and his activities ?

Nicely phrased with 'foreign political powers' though as opposed to 'foreign' anything else. One of the party's main objections to independent unregistered churches is precisely that, meeting with foreigners and foreign organisations.

Thankfully, in the circles I move in, xenophobia is not normally considered a virtue.

Entertaining visitors from overseas isn't quite the same as being controlled by foreigners - although I guess anything is possible in the mind of someone who portrays people praying together as "anti-State acivities".

Like the one child policy which is quite arguably necessary for China at this time ? Or setting up independent unregistered churches against the laws of the state ?

Actually, I've never heard a church in China teaching against the one child policy. But I find it revealing that you would describe such a policy as "Quite arguably necessary for China at this time". I don't think there's ever going to be much danger of anyone describing you as a libertarian, is there?

PDN wrote: »

It worked out quite badly for my friend's father. He ended up in a concentration camp himself.

Sorry to hear that.

Thankfully, in the circles I move in, xenophobia is not normally considered a virtue.

Come on now you know I didn't suggest it was. I stated it was and continues to be a part of the party's mentality. They are xenophobic.

Entertaining visitors from overseas isn't quite the same as being controlled by foreigners - although I guess anything is possible in the mind of someone who portrays people praying together as "anti-State acivities".

To the suspicious minds of the party you really think it's that different ?

Actually, I've never heard a church in China teaching against the one child policy. But I find it revealing that you would describe such a policy as "Quite arguably necessary for China at this time". I don't think there's ever going to be much danger of anyone describing you as a libertarian, is there?

I'm a realist and the reality is that there are too many people in China. You either fix the problem now or have a bigger problem later.

PDN wrote: »

No, it is reasonable to allow an exception where the exercise of a religious belief or practice would cause a greater infringement of human rights for someone else. Female genital mutilation performed on children would be a good example of this.

So if a religious belief is against human rights for example, the right for a woman to choose abortion if pregnancy endangers her life, then it is not persecution to have a law against it ?

No, because it is a dumb question and a red herring. I think Phelps is an ass and have no interest in indulging your fascination with him. Although, given your anti-libertarian comments so far, I can see why you like him.

Translation: I don't like Christian X so I won't support him but I like Christians Y so I'll support them.

You have actually lived in Ireland, have you? You don't need to be registered with any government department to do any of those things.

Well first of all I didn't say register with the government. I said register with anyone. And secondly I'm pretty sure you have to register yourself with the government on some level.

Open to correction though.

Your true colours are really shing through now, aren't they? You think it fair that no-one should be allowed to preach in a church unless they have been approved by the State?

Why not ? With the amount of crazies preaching from pulpits some kind of filter is needed.

Now you're deliberately pretending to be stupid. You really think that something is not a religious belief unless you can show what page of the Bible it is on?

No I think that you pick and choose whatever your religious beliefs are or are not depending on what you want to gain.

It is a denial of a basic human right. I should be free to pray and discuss the Bible with others in my home if I wish. I am amazed that anyone except a fascist would think otherwise.

Tell me something PDN.

Do I or do I not have the right to go about my daily business without having to listen to some nonsense monger going on about his or her imaginary friends ?

Just answer this honestly will you.

I have never made such a claim, and you a liar for implying that I have.

You refuse to answer the question about religious beliefs violating other laws such as spousal abuse in the UK and whether or not those laws are then persecution laws.

monosharp wrote: »

So if a religious belief is against human rights for example, the right for a woman to choose abortion if pregnancy endangers her life, then it is not persecution to have a law against it ?

Persecution to have a law permitting abortion? Of course not.

Translation: I don't like Christian X so I won't support him but I like Christians Y so I'll support them.

No, the translation is that I'm discussing the topic of this thread, namely the case of Christians who are being persecuted - not Fred Phelps.

Well first of all I didn't say register with the government. I said register with anyone. And secondly I'm pretty sure you have to register yourself with the government on some level.

Open to correction though.

Well apparently you're not open to correction since I've told you the facts and I should know since I've established a number of churches in Ireland. Our laws are what you would expect in a liberal secular democracy. There is no more registration required to establish a church than there is to establish a Mary Harney fan club or a fantasy football league.

Why not ? With the amount of crazies preaching from pulpits some kind of filter is needed.

Because of free speech. Most of us, but apparently not you, think even crazies should have the right to speak if others are willing to listen to them.

Tell me something PDN.

Do I or do I not have the right to go about my daily business without having to listen to some nonsense monger going on about his or her imaginary friends ?

Just answer this honestly will you.

That depends where you are. If you are in your own home, or another private place, then you or whoever owns the place has the right to determine what is or is not spoken there.

But you do not have the right to censor others in public settings, not unless you are willing for others to equally silence you if they don't agree with your what you have to say.

And, what is much more relevant to what we are talking about, you absolutely do not have the right to enter someone else's property and demand that they refrain from discussing whatever they want to talk about.

It's quite simple really. Some of us support free speech and others support the totalitarian suppression of any speech they find annoying or disagreeable.

You refuse to answer the question about religious beliefs violating other laws such as spousal abuse in the UK and whether or not those laws are then persecution laws.

I haven't refused at all.

Domestic abuse is in itself a denial of someone's basic human rights, Therefore laws to prohibit domestic abuse are not persecution, even if the abuser claims a religious motivation.

PDN wrote: »

Well apparently you're not open to correction since I've told you the facts and I should know since I've established a number of churches in Ireland. Our laws are what you would expect in a liberal secular democracy. There is no more registration required to establish a church than there is to establish a Mary Harney fan club or a fantasy football league.

Again. I refer you back to my question, I didn't say register yourself as a church or as a religious body. I simply said register yourself to anyone.

Because of free speech. Most of us, but apparently not you, think even crazies should have the right to speak if others are willing to listen to them.

Like Jim Jones ? You don't think it would have been nice to have some kind of filter there to stop people like him been allowed to gain such a position ?

But you do not have the right to censor others in public settings, not unless you are willing for others to equally silence you if they don't agree with your what you have to say.

So according to you I must listen to this nonsense on public transport and in public parks etc. ?

Forgive me If I'd be more then happy to have something similar to China's law in this respect implemented worldwide.

And, what is much more relevant to what we are talking about, you absolutely do not have the right to enter someone else's property and demand that they refrain from discussing whatever they want to talk about.

Absolutely agree. But it isn't religious persecution.

It's quite simple really. Some of us support free speech and others support the totalitarian suppression of any speech they find annoying or disagreeable.

Some religious evangelists in public areas are some of the most rude people I have ever met. They will not leave people alone. They need to be told several times to go away.

You really think it's perfectly fine for religious people to go around like this mentally abusing people ?

Domestic abuse is in itself a denial of someone's basic human rights, Therefore laws to prohibit domestic abuse are not persecution, even if the abuser claims a religious motivation.

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights trumps any religious text or religious view ?

monosharp wrote: »

Again. I refer you back to my question, I didn't say register yourself as a church or as a religious body. I simply said register yourself to anyone.

Then you're just playing silly word games since we were discussing the laws in China that require churches to register with the Government, not with the milkman.

Like Jim Jones ? You don't think it would have been nice to have some kind of filter there to stop people like him been allowed to gain such a position ?

No, I think that governmental restriction of free speech such as you advocate is totalitarian. This is not just in respect to religion, but also to politics, vegetarianism, and a host of other subjects.

The best antidote to people like jim Jones is open and honest debate, not govermental control.

So according to you I must listen to this nonsense on public transport and in public parks etc. ?

If you prefer you can have a system where nobody is alllowed to talk to anyone about anything on public transport or in parks. But to advocate that you should be free to talk about what you like, but that others should be restricted from doing so, is the hallmark of a bigot.

Forgive me If I'd be more then happy to have something similar to China's law in this respect implemented worldwide.

Of course you would. That wish you've just expressed is entirely consistent with your totalitarian tendencies and bigotry. I wouldn't expect anything different from you.

Absolutely agree. But it isn't religious persecution.

It is religious persecution if you allow people to meet in their homes for other purposes but not for religious activities. It definitely becomes religious persecution when you set up a Religious Affairs Bureau to regulate such activities by force.

Some religious evangelists in public areas are some of the most rude people I have ever met. They will not leave people alone. They need to be told several times to go away.

Well don't worry, you'll soon be in China where you can report them to the police and soothe your poor offended feelings by imagining how sorry they'll feel once their toenails are pulled out.

You really think it's perfectly fine for religious people to go around like this mentally abusing people ?

No, nor do I think it's fine for you to post ****e on the internet. But I think the principle of free speech is important enough to defend their right to mentally abuse you and also to defend your right to mentally abuse the people on boards.ie who don't like listening to apologists for the Communist regime in China.

So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights trumps any religious text or religious view ?

It should when it comes to framing the laws of a nation State, yes. That's why I believe in a secular society with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. Unlike you I would not advocate or support laws to silence those with whom I disagree.

monosharp wrote: »

Well then you didn't understand my point.

There are some people who think any kind of registration is against their beliefs, yet the government isn't going to allow me to build a house tomorrow without planning permission.

Is that religious persecution ?

No-one has said that any kind of registration is against their beliefs. What was stated was that "the requirements for registration" as a church are contrary to their consciences.

Now, instead of admitting that fact, you are going down the route of arguing that, in your opinion, these requirements should not be against their consciences. It's utter crap as an argument. Instead of understanding that people's freedom of religion is being free to live and act according to their religious beliefs and consciences - you are arguing as if freedom of religion actually means that people are free to live and act according to what monosharp, as a very biased atheist, thinks their beliefs and consciences should be.

And that's why there's no point in engaging with the rest of your post. You are trying to hijack this into an argument about whether the Chinese underground churches should hold the beliefs that they do about registration.

So I don't see where there is any point in further discussion. I have expressed my view that there are millions of Christians around the world who live in fear of being beaten, arrested or murdered. Ratzinger, despite his organisation's less than glorious record in the past when it comes to freedom of religion, has said something similar.

Most atheist posters have questioned whether such abuses of freedom of speech and freedom of religion really happen with the frequency alluded to by Ratzinger. That is a fair question, and one with which I have attempted to engage. You, however, have chosen the very different path of arguing that restricting freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a good thing.

To be honest, now that you've done your bit of justifying the Chinese government's actions, and even expressed your wish that their policies could be extended worldwide, I don't see any value in discussing any of this further with you. It would be no different from trying to discuss race relations policy with someone from the English Defence League.

Now, no doubt you will start up with, "Ah look, PDN is refusing to answer my questions." If that's the way you want to read this then I guess I can't do anything about that. But I genuinely want to have as little interaction with people like you as possible.