Vandalism/destruction #s of christian displays on govt. ground versus non-christian?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Explorer, Dec 24, 2015.

  1. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    I'm always fascinated by the narrative spun by some about claimed persecution of christians in the US, especially when the "persecution" is just that other groups are given the same rights as christians.

    One of the biggest indicators of who is attempting to suppress whom can be found in court cases regarding someone of one belief system attempting to impose their religious beliefs upon others. I don't believe there is more than a handful wherein the person imposing the beliefs is *not* a christian.

    This year, now that more groups have had more success setting up non-christian displays alongside nativity scenes in and on government-owned spaces, I've been watching various news stories regarding vandalisms and outright removals.

    And it's looking like the groups and individuals targeting one type of display over another only target non-christian displays.

    I know that some claim that such facts contain some kind of antichristian bias, but that implicates *all* christians as being violence-prone and intolerant, which is not the case, just as it's not the case for muslims.

    But there are definitely extremists who are against the American values of free speech, and who perceive the Constitution to be their enemy.

    In one good example, Texas governor Abbott ordered a display honoring the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights removed from a government buiding because it was offensive to him, while leaving up a nativity scene.

    ----

    Although I don't think it is possible to change the minds of those who hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I do think it's worthwhile to call out such behavior. Calling attention to those who oppose (whether openly or from the shadows) freedom of speech and religion for Americans helps others make decisions about whether they also support getting rid of the Bill of Rights and its freedoms.

    And that makes it harder for enemies of the Constitution to use religious freedom as camouflage for their actions.

    ----

    Anyway, I've been keeping an eye on news reports about how non-christian displays have been fariing this year, and also about those places where rather than allow non-christian displays to have equal access, christians in government have shut down *all* access while blaming non-christians for wanting that equal speech.

    And, given that there are many more christian displays on government grounds than non-christian, it stands to reason that if the persecution narrative is true and not just camouflage, then there must be more cases of christian persecution to outweigh the non-christian persecution.

    I welcome stories of where christian displays were vandalized or removed while leaving up displays from other religions unharmed.

    If they don't exist... that's pretty telling.
     
  2. SeditiousDissent

    SeditiousDissent i drove bus

    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    Location:
    Tejas
    Goddamn, dude. Why do you constantly have a major hard on for ....ting on christians?
     
  3. chaneisa

    chaneisa Marc Spector

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Location:
    Bargersville, IN
    What is the percentage of Christians in the U.S. Relative to the total population?
     
  4. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Hmm.

    So, using your logic, talking about racists like the KKK lynching blacks is denigrating all white people, or talking about the Nazi Holocaust is denigrating all Germans.

    I wish you hadn't skipped the part where I pointed out that fallacy before you pulled it out.

    Could you explain why you think that criticism of those who are violence-prone and intolerant should be extended to cover those who are not?

    If you can't think of a reason to apply criticism of violence and intolerance to those who aren't actually engaging in those actions... why are you attempting to apply my criticism of such to those who are innocent of such? That just seems ill-considered.

    I'm genuinely curious, assuming you're up to defending your extension of the guilt to innocent parties.

    According to Gallup, in 2008, membership in christian religions was at 80.6%, in non-christian religions at 5.1%, and non-religious at 14.6%. As of 12/20/2015, the numbers are now at 75.2% for christian, 5.% for non-christian, and 19.6% for non-religious.

    Which would mean that for every four non-christian display removed from government space or vandalized, there should be one christian display treated the same... assuming that such groups have the same percentages of potentially intolerant and violent people.

    And that's why I welcome stories of where christian displays were vandalized or removed while leaving up displays from other religions unharmed. Again, if they don't exist... that's pretty telling.
     
  5. chaneisa

    chaneisa Marc Spector

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Location:
    Bargersville, IN
    Except I'm sure that such situations exist. I'm just saying that it's similar to saying that colorblindness is more common in right-handed people. There's more right-handed people, so it's a semi-skewed sample. Yes, there's bound to me more situations regarding Christians doing something like that than non-Christians, because there's a much lower number of non-Christians. Christians as a whole are not intolerant and violent, and saying that it's telling of Christians is just as skewed. Searching the internet I find a much higher ratio of atheist to Christians attacking the other, but that doesn't speak to all atheists. Just as those intolerant Christians, do not speak to all Christians.
     
  6. chaneisa

    chaneisa Marc Spector

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Location:
    Bargersville, IN
    And while I know you said you're not stating anything negative about Christians as a whole, stating that a lack of opposite stories is "pretty telling" IS applying negativity to all Christians. Which, given you're intentionally doing so, makes you as intolerant as you claim them to be.
     
  7. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    First off, i noted that these people did not represent all christians. I even stated my thought that these extremists are merely using christianity as camouflage for their bigotry.

    You made an assertion that you have just what I'm looking for. Could you post the counterexamples, wherein atheists are attempting to remove all voices but their own from government spaces?

    Or, do you mean that atheists are criticizing christianity in greater numbers than christians have been attacking those who don't live according to the christians' beliefs... like the whole opposition to equal rights for LGBT citizens? (Gee, aren't there even presidential candidates who have argued against non-christians?)

    I pointed out (in the Orson Scott Card topic, and in others) that some attempt to claim that intolerance of bigotry is also bigotry, or attempt to handwave away the difference between bigotry and intolerance of bigotry.

    Using your example, those who were intolerant of the KKK lynching blacks were just as intolerant as the KKK, and America's intolerance of the Nazis' attempts to exterminate the Jews made America just as intolerant of the Nazis.

    Is that really the best case you can make?

    I'm not destroying anything, or stating that my viewpoint should be the only one allowed in government spaces, so your claim equating those two different approaches is badly supported.
     
  8. chaneisa

    chaneisa Marc Spector

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Location:
    Bargersville, IN
    You misread. I didn't say that you being intolerant of that specific group of people makes you as bad as them, I said being intolerant of the group as a whole because of that small group makes you just as bad as that small group. Also, I didn't state that atheists were trying to remove all but there own voices from government spaces. I said that just looking about the Internet, I see more atheists attacking Christians, but that doesn't speak to atheists as a whole. Read that last bit. You're nitpicking pieces of a statement, and using those for your argument, out of context.
     
  9. chaneisa

    chaneisa Marc Spector

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Location:
    Bargersville, IN
    Also, I'm not being aggressive or in any way argumentative. I'm being conversational and posing a point. Where you are being passive aggressive and doing exactly that.
     
  10. chaneisa

    chaneisa Marc Spector

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Location:
    Bargersville, IN
    I will restate that I know you said that you were not speaking to Christians as a whole, but to an extreme group. But, you're statement of saying that a lack of counter arguments is "pretty telling" is implicative that you are speaking against them as a whole.
     
  11. Action

    Action SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Location:
    USA
    I don't think that most sources for reports of vandalism are going to be consistent with how much vandalism actually happens (all vandalism, actually, not just religious). I fear you're not going to approach the real story, even if you had a database of police reports. It is the nature of vandalism, that a lot of it goes unreported. At the same time, I imagine the media, and those who absorb it, find it much more newsworthy when a non-christian display is vandalized, and would be more apt to report it as something less typical. How do we compensate for any of that? So, I don't think anything telling can be learned here. Even a small amount of intolerant and/or intentionally disrespectful people is enough to explain all instances of religious vandalism.
     
  12. Grand Moff Tim

    Grand Moff Tim Some call me... Tim

    Messages:
    7,220
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Location:
    Cheongju, SK
    I'm not so sure. A church being vandalized sounds exactly like the kind of thing the media would report on to get those precious clicks.

    I know this isn't really a high-quality scientific metric or anything, but I did I google search to see how many results I got for each of the following searches:

    Non-christian display vandalized. 152k results
    Non-religious display vandalized. 195k results
    Synagogue vandalized. 360k results
    Mosque vandalized. 364k results
    Church vandalized. 487k results
    Religious display vandalized 736k results

    Of course, there are other things to consider here. Some of the results for "Church vandalized" were for Satanic or Luciferian churches, and obviously there are likely far more churches and religious displays out there than the opposite, so even if vandalization of them is under reported, a small percentage of vandalizations reported could still outnumber the entirety of non-religious vandalizations.

    I don't really have any thought on what Explorer is or isn't trying to say here, I just don't really think the part of your post I quoted is very likely to be the case.
     
  13. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    230
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    But you didn't give any evidence either way. And as far as what Explorer is or isn't trying to say...

    Atheist 'Nativity' Removed from Texas State Capitol

    http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/12/22/abbottsneed122215aas.pdf

    ...what he's not telling you is more important than what he is telling you. Ironically, that stunt implies the founding fathers thought the bill of rights is holy; probably not what the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" intended. :lol:

    This whole thread is based off a dishonest spin of that 1 story. That no one bothered to look it up is what's really "telling" here. That the op continues to cherry pick and spin it--and even equivocates it with muslim fundamentalists KILLING people--is also telling...
     
  14. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    I was surprised at Texas Governor Abbott ordering a non-christian display removed from the Texas State Capital building while leaving a nativity in place in the same government building. He was very direct in his statements about havng done it for religious reasons.

    That led me to wonder if there were any instances where only non-christian holiday displays were allowed based on religious discrimination.

    ----

    I also had been watching stories of where, having won the right to have a parallel display, non-christian displays on government grounds were vandalized.

    It just seemed a bit one-sided when it came to displays on government property, contradicting the persecution narrative which is invoked by parts of the population.

    Last year or the year before, i had a topic asking for examples of where christians were stopped from putting up displays based on their religion while other groups were allowed to do so. This year, there is only one place I'm aware of where christians didn't apply early enough for a space, but that wasn't based on their faith, but purely on their only submitting an application months after submissions were accepted, and the christians assuming that they would get preference on their late application.

    ----

    In any case, it looks like yet another year has passed with no examples to support the persecution narrative, and multiple counterexamples to show that the persecution (as defined by those pushing the narrative) is actually against non-christians.

    Edit:

    Here's a news story about the removal by governor Abbott.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/22/freedom-religion-display-ordered-removed-capitol/

    Here's the display.[​IMG]

    Here's the nativity.

    [​IMG]

    Here's Abbott's words about the display which educates about church/state separation:

    The Freedom from Religion Foundation had previously used just this same display in another state capital, where it was stolen.

    One more bit.

    So, now there is the story with pictures, the sponsorship and approval of the alternate display using the established process, and the offense taken by someone who decided to take action based on his faith instead of his oath of office.

    Me personally? I'm very much against religionists who take action against things which they offensive against their faith, which allows me to easily be consistent with my reaction against both this kind of stuff and the shootings at Charlie Hebdo... but am willing to hear arguments justifying such on the part of christians while arguing against such actions by, say, muslims.
     
  15. Grand Moff Tim

    Grand Moff Tim Some call me... Tim

    Messages:
    7,220
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Location:
    Cheongju, SK
    Well, no scientific evidence, no :lol:, and I admitted as much.

    I wasn't trying to definitively prove anything. I just saw dude say that news outlets would be more likely to report on vandalism of non-religious displays than of religious ones, which didn't sound right to me, so I checked the interwebz to see what I could find more reports on.

    I don't think I've proven anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, but what I found certainly supports my thoughts on the matter more than the original statement. I'm of course more than open to being proven wrong.

    Or were you saying I pulled those numbers out of my ass and gave no evidence? If that's the case, I'm happy to report that my research can be easily and quickly repeated by anyone with the internet.
     
  16. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    230
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    No, that's not what you saw. Scroll back up. :lol: And since your google searches evidence nothing either way--you even threw in a bunch of death knell caveats--there's no need for anyone to repeat them. We believe you. :yesway:

    This is all diversion. The real story is atheists put up a display in a govt building that simultaneously promotes the 1st amendment and mocks christianity, the governor had it removed, and the organization that put it up is weighing its legal options. The *rational* ;) thing to do is simply wait and see if they have a case and win, and put aside the high drama about “enemies of the constitution” or who’s being “persecuted” more or drawing lines to massacres…
     
  17. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,351
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Sevenstringj, do you think it's possible that the FFRF has had more than one successful lawsuit in this kind of case?

    Just as an aside, my grandfather the attorney would always advise against asking a question to which you don't know the answer in court.

    That aside leads to my second question: Do you think *I* know about the FFRF being successful in various actions against government officials who tried to impose their own religious beliefs while keeping other beliefs out of government buildings and ceremonies?

    Would the existence of such cases make you change your stated position that this is just "high drama" and not actually happening? Or would evidence have no effect on your stance?
     
  18. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    230
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    I love how you're the one who obscured what really happened in this case so you can indulge in drama & drag people into worthless arguments until *I* posted links to the actual situation, and now you wanna pretend that my position is it's "not actually happening." :nuts:
     
  19. Grand Moff Tim

    Grand Moff Tim Some call me... Tim

    Messages:
    7,220
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Location:
    Cheongju, SK
    :scratch:

    Am I reading that wrong? Is that not saying that the media is more likely to report vandalization of non-christian displays? Or at least that it's more likely to report them as being less typical? Is that distinction the thing that's making you think I'm off base here? I'm not arguing to be difficult or because I disagree with your side or agree with Explorer here. I really have no dog whatsoever in this fight, I'm just talking about that one point, completely apart from whatever the rest of the thread's about. :lol:


    I dunno, man. I still think being able to find more articles about the vandalization of religious displays than the that of non-religious displays at least suggests that the media is more likely to report on one than the other, even with the "death knell caveats."

    Why does it bug you so much that I feel this way? I really don't know what I'm missing here. You usually only go on your tirades against people with whom you disagree on a fundamental point in a thread topic, but as I said, I'm not making any statements either way about the topic of the thread.

    Do you disagree that the media is more likely to report vandalization of religious displays? Is that the issue here? Do you think that the bit I quoted from the original post I was discussing isn't suggesting that the media is more likely to report vandalization of non-religious displays?

    Seriously, I wish you'd come out and directly say what the issue is here. I'm used to seeing you jump on people that are taking a stance that opposes yours, but this seems to be mostly semantic, and I'd like to know where we're differing on our interpretation of what homeboy originally said.

    Do you think you can point that out to me without being condescending or insulting, or pointing out to everyone that google searches aren't real evidence?
     
  20. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    230
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    Yes. "Non-religious" & "non-christian" don't mean the same thing and are not interchangeable.

    There you go again. [Reagan voice] Besides the fact that your searches are littered with results that are irrelevant to the searches themselves, we're talking about religious displays in public spaces, not churches & mosques & synagogues. You also lumped christian displays into "religious displays," so you're literally not citing anything contrary to what Action said, even though you insist that you are. You also admitted that christian religious displays far outnumber displays of other religions or atheist displays. So even if you found more reports of christian display vandalism/removal, you still don't have any evidence as to whether it's underreported relative to others.

    I did. In fact, I was the first to provide a link to the actual story along with a link to gov Abbott's letter in its entirety.

    I said your google searches aren't evidence of any kind, whether "real" or scientific or otherwise, and explained why. What's condescending & insulting to my intelligence is that you invite us to repeat your useless, straw man google searches. It's hard to see how you're "not arguing to be difficult."

    Like I said, these needless arguments and indignation stem from Explorer's spin, not the news story itself. So I suggest everyone just read gov Abbott's letter and keep an eye out for developments. Here's the link again: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/12/22/abbottsneed122215aas.pdf
     

Share This Page