I disagreed with the way you framed his argument, that's all. Saying he doesn't want to be ostracized the way we were isn't really relevant. That's all. The important thing is not that people are ostracized, its the why and whether or not its just.

Ok, but to him clearly it's right and just for people like me.

Right - so the argument to make then is not that people shouldn't be ostracized, or the irony in him not wanting to be ostracized. The argument is that the behavior isn't wrong, so society punishing people for those actions/beliefs is.

Ok I guess. Fine. Sure. You win.

Wait no. He wants me treated that way. I don't want him treated that way. That matters.

I'm late to the party, guys.

Has this Seamaster thread run its course, or is there gas left in the tank?

I've stayed out of this thread but the, 'you're not Christian in Afghanistan' argument falls a bit flat to me.

I mean, imagine saying to BB, 'not being able to marry isn't really persecution. It's not like being gay in Saudi Arabia.' This is a really bad situation to use comparative arguments because it's self defeating.

I agree to some extent, and people have made that argument to me many times here, by the way. That's why I think the Christian in America vs. Gay in America hypothetical is more of an apples to apples situation.

In general I think we all understand that true persecution is a much higher bar to clear than discrimination is. The former also gets used in a more figurative way sometimes though.

Beer Baron said:

---

I agree to some extent, and people have made that argument to me many times here, by the way. That's why I think the Christian in America vs. Gay in America hypothetical is more of an apples to apples situation.

In general I think we all understand that true persecution is a much higher bar to clear than discrimination is. The former also gets used in a more figurative way sometimes though.

---

Indeed, that was aimed at Kurt and not you. Perhaps RA too since he I recall him using that argument too.

However Christian or gay in Portland and Christian or gay in Waco are two different things. Portland is a post-Christian city and what Christians face there or in Boulder, CO is different than small town Texas. That's where I think persecution is a reasonable term to use, especially with Jack Phillips and others being forced into compliance. They are chosen for their beliefs and targeted repeatedly, else the customer would simply move on and others wouldn't bother them. And Beto is on that train but happens to be the first to voice what is a commonly held belief on the far left but is politically unprofitable right now. Laws that compel doctors and religious organizations into compliance are persecution, not simply discrimination, because failure to comply has serious consequences to their livelihood in an education-centric society. What can a doctor who incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt do if forced out of their profession? The alternative is never enter medicine, or corporate America, or colleges, etc with where this is headed. That's beyond discrimination, it's marginalization.

AGC said:

---

I've stayed out of this thread but the, 'you're not Christian in Afghanistan' argument falls a bit flat to me.

I mean, imagine saying to BB, 'not being able to marry isn't really persecution. It's not like being gay in Saudi Arabia.' This is a really bad situation to use comparative arguments because it's self defeating.

---

When you think about all of the injustice and oppression in the world and through history, how high do you place modern Christians in the US? That's not to say It's not worth speaking out against I'll treatment of modern American Christians. I am only suggesting that the response to it should be proportional and informed by at least a hint of perspective.

And if BB starts comparing treatment of LBGT in America with Jews in the Holocaust or something ridiculous . . . I'll tell him he's nuts.

I have heard the theory that everyone knows Beto is out, so therefore he is being used as a litmus test. How do people react to the crazy stuff he says. Is the base mortified about him saying the stuff about taking away guns... is the base mortified about the tax exemption.. etc.. that way they can see how far they can go or how much they need to reel back.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I have heard the theory that everyone knows Beto is out, so therefore he is being used as a litmus test. How do people react to the crazy stuff he says. Is the base mortified about him saying the stuff about taking away guns... is the base mortified about the tax exemption.. etc.. that way they can see how far they can go or how much they need to reel back.

---

. I would be surprised if he would allow himself to be used in this way. His statements are a huge political liability and will follow him everywhere and even make him toxic as a VP pick.

I think both sides are arguing about two different things:

Conservatives are concerned about decay of society, and particularly social institutions and mores, not persecution.

Progressives are concerned about persecution and oppression of certain groups and are trying to alleviate that.

So it's preservation of social institutions vs alleviation of oppression.

The conservative views marriage as inherently monogamous and heterosexual since the purpose of the institution is to regulate and govern procreation and the raising of children.

The progressive views marriage as inherently based on romance and companionship which should naturally extend to two people of the same sex.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I've stayed out of this thread but the, 'you're not Christian in Afghanistan' argument falls a bit flat to me.

I mean, imagine saying to BB, 'not being able to marry isn't really persecution. It's not like being gay in Saudi Arabia.' This is a really bad situation to use comparative arguments because it's self defeating.

---

When you think about all of the injustice and oppression in the world and through history, how high do you place modern Christians in the US? That's not to say It's not worth speaking out against I'll treatment of modern American Christians. I am only suggesting that the response to it should be proportional and informed by at least a hint of perspective.

And if BB starts comparing treatment of LBGT in America with Jews in the Holocaust or something ridiculous . . . I'll tell him he's nuts.

---

I disagree with the premise that persecution should rightly be viewed relative to others (via 'perspective'). It exists or it doesn't. We've clearly seen that it exists in Colorado (and Washington, Philadelphia, Michigan). Any attempt to compare it is an attempt to diminish or demean the truth of it. Else why is it so hard would to simply say it exists here and now and needs to be fought? Your response says people should 'speak out.' To what end? Are we just tweeting? Are we writing letters hoping for legislative action? Or are we codifying protection for those with religious beliefs?

If we go across the pond English judges have begun finding Christians guilty not on the basis of belief but by sidestepping it entirely and accusing the adherents of bigotry and doubting that they sincerely have those beliefs.

What is your 'proportional' and 'informed' response to such religious persecution? Propose a solution.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I have heard the theory that everyone knows Beto is out, so therefore he is being used as a litmus test. How do people react to the crazy stuff he says. Is the base mortified about him saying the stuff about taking away guns... is the base mortified about the tax exemption.. etc.. that way they can see how far they can go or how much they need to reel back.

---

. I would be surprised if he would allow himself to be used in this way. His statements are a huge political liability and will follow him everywhere and even make him toxic as a VP pick.

---

So what? Texas was lost as soon as he ran because he wasn't beholden to conservatives anymore. In 10 years I highly doubt they'll be a liability. In the meantime he has a war chest that will he spent somewhere...

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I've stayed out of this thread but the, 'you're not Christian in Afghanistan' argument falls a bit flat to me.

I mean, imagine saying to BB, 'not being able to marry isn't really persecution. It's not like being gay in Saudi Arabia.' This is a really bad situation to use comparative arguments because it's self defeating.

---

When you think about all of the injustice and oppression in the world and through history, how high do you place modern Christians in the US? That's not to say It's not worth speaking out against I'll treatment of modern American Christians. I am only suggesting that the response to it should be proportional and informed by at least a hint of perspective.

And if BB starts comparing treatment of LBGT in America with Jews in the Holocaust or something ridiculous . . . I'll tell him he's nuts.

---

I disagree with the premise that persecution should rightly be viewed relative to others (via 'perspective'). It exists or it doesn't. We've clearly seen that it exists in Colorado (and Washington, Philadelphia, Michigan). Any attempt to compare it is an attempt to diminish or demean the truth of it. Else why is it so hard would to simply say it exists here and now and needs to be fought? Your response says people should 'speak out.' To what end? Are we just tweeting? Are we writing letters hoping for legislative action? Or are we codifying protection for those with religious beliefs?

If we go across the pond English judges have begun finding Christians guilty not on the basis of belief but by sidestepping it entirely and accusing the adherents of bigotry and doubting that they sincerely have those beliefs.

What is your 'proportional' and 'informed' response to such religious persecution? Propose a solution.

---

In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi's tortured and executed millions of Jews. A couple years ago a Christian was sued for not making a cake for a gay wedding. Both are examples of persecution. I would not attempt to defend either. But, I would argue that one of the examples is more troubling than the other. One brings me more sadness than the other. How about you? Murder and petty theft are both wrong. Should the punishment for these wrongs be relative / proportional to the impact of the wrongness? The impact of petty theft is relatively small compared to murder. No?

Persecution clearly happens everywhere. What is so special about Colorado, Washington, Philly, and Michigan? Are these places where Christians were persecuted? Why call them out specifically? Seamaster has all the sympathy in the world for oppressed Christians and zero for anyone else - at least none that I can see. Where do you stand? Is one of those locations the site of a great injustice against Atheists that saddens you and that you feel you must speak out against?

Is the persecution of a Christian worse than the persecution of a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Homosexual, anyone else? If a kid was beat up at school for being gay in Alabama and another kid was beat up for being Christian in Seattle - would you feel the same sadness for both? If someone is killed for being Christian in Sudan and someone is killed for being a Muslim in North Carolina, do you feel the same sadness? If one person believes that homosexuals should have fewer civil rights and another person believes that Christians should have fewer civil rights, is one better than the other?

Perspective does not serve to justify persecution, in my opinion. But I do think its necessary for understanding it. Earlier in this thread, Seamaster showed himself incapable of understanding that homosexuals feel like they've been persecuted and poorly treated by Christians in America, historically. Regardless of whether or not Christians have persecuted gays, the fact that he does not understand this, I think, shows that he is unwilling to understand their perspective. Again, this justifies nothing. Its only an explanation. And this lack of perspective goes both ways. But, saying it goes both ways still doesn't justify being unwilling to understand someone else's perspective.

There's a different between universally condemned persecution like a high schooler beating up a gay kid and state sanctioned persecution. Equating the two is a waste of time. They're both wrong, but they're also completely different in terms of societal impact.

Again maybe your argument is going over my head but I could've sworn this was kurts original point.

I'm not sure. Maybe it was. I just think someone saying "this is persecution" being answered with "well sometimes gays get beat up" or "hey you're not getting crucified like in the Middle East" is talking past one another.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I've stayed out of this thread but the, 'you're not Christian in Afghanistan' argument falls a bit flat to me.

I mean, imagine saying to BB, 'not being able to marry isn't really persecution. It's not like being gay in Saudi Arabia.' This is a really bad situation to use comparative arguments because it's self defeating.

---

When you think about all of the injustice and oppression in the world and through history, how high do you place modern Christians in the US? That's not to say It's not worth speaking out against I'll treatment of modern American Christians. I am only suggesting that the response to it should be proportional and informed by at least a hint of perspective.

And if BB starts comparing treatment of LBGT in America with Jews in the Holocaust or something ridiculous . . . I'll tell him he's nuts.

---

I disagree with the premise that persecution should rightly be viewed relative to others (via 'perspective'). It exists or it doesn't. We've clearly seen that it exists in Colorado (and Washington, Philadelphia, Michigan). Any attempt to compare it is an attempt to diminish or demean the truth of it. Else why is it so hard would to simply say it exists here and now and needs to be fought? Your response says people should 'speak out.' To what end? Are we just tweeting? Are we writing letters hoping for legislative action? Or are we codifying protection for those with religious beliefs?

If we go across the pond English judges have begun finding Christians guilty not on the basis of belief but by sidestepping it entirely and accusing the adherents of bigotry and doubting that they sincerely have those beliefs.

What is your 'proportional' and 'informed' response to such religious persecution? Propose a solution.

---

In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi's tortured and executed millions of Jews. A couple years ago a Christian was sued for not making a cake for a gay wedding. Both are examples of persecution. I would not attempt to defend either. But, I would argue that one of the examples is more troubling than the other. One brings me more sadness than the other. How about you? Murder and petty theft are both wrong. Should the punishment for these wrongs be relative / proportional to the impact of the wrongness? The impact of petty theft is relatively small compared to murder. No?

Persecution clearly happens everywhere. What is so special about Colorado, Washington, Philly, and Michigan? Are these places where Christians were persecuted? Why call them out specifically? Seamaster has all the sympathy in the world for oppressed Christians and zero for anyone else - at least none that I can see. Where do you stand? Is one of those locations the site of a great injustice against Atheists that saddens you and that you feel you must speak out against?

Is the persecution of a Christian worse than the persecution of a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Homosexual, anyone else? If a kid was beat up at school for being gay in Alabama and another kid was beat up for being Christian in Seattle - would you feel the same sadness for both? If someone is killed for being Christian in Sudan and someone is killed for being a Muslim in North Carolina, do you feel the same sadness? If one person believes that homosexuals should have fewer civil rights and another person believes that Christians should have fewer civil rights, is one better than the other?

Perspective does not serve to justify persecution, in my opinion. But I do think its necessary for understanding it. Earlier in this thread, Seamaster showed himself incapable of understanding that homosexuals feel like they've been persecuted and poorly treated by Christians in America, historically. Regardless of whether or not Christians have persecuted gays, the fact that he does not understand this, I think, shows that he is unwilling to understand their perspective. Again, this justifies nothing. Its only an explanation. And this lack of perspective goes both ways. But, saying it goes both ways still doesn't justify being unwilling to understand someone else's perspective.

---

Please note that you're deferring to the subjective (feelings) in response to the objective (the morality of persecution). This is a poor way to sort through these arguments when discussing proportional response. Why? Because it lets you personally be an arbiter of what is right and wrong, justifiable or acceptable, and can't be refuted because it's opinion. You've resorted to decrying murder and assault to excuse simply 'voicing' disagreement about Phillips.

We're talking about the end of someone's livelihood here. That may not seem like a big deal to you but as a parent I'm thinking about what happens to my family if someone comes for me. What happens if I get dragged over a 12 year old tweet or targeted for harassment? My employer will cut me loose because I can be a great employee but it's not worth the trouble. And that can follow me anywhere I go because of the internet, even if the accusation is false and bias ridden (and google promotes cnn). It's not murder but it's damn well worse than robbery and deserves far more attention than you give it credit for.

Or imagine being a foster organization that a city no longer wants to do business with. The persecuted organization not only lays everyone off, children are sacrificed to achieve it. That's worse than what you're imagining. I'm not making up pretend scenarios for discussion. These are real world cases that you're dredging up nazi Germany and the Middle East to dismiss. These are still real wrongs and horrific things to do to people. You keep talking about sadness - that's what you should be filled with no matter who it is.

XUSCR said:

---

Username checks out.

Good grief.

---

Not really. Passive aggressive is more like it. An antagonist

SCHTICK00 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

Username checks out.

Good grief.

---

Not really. Passive aggressive is more like it. An antagonist

---

Bumped a thread just to call me passive aggressive and contribute nothing to actual topic. Username checks out?

Beer Baron said:

---

Also telling that he's never seen posting anything else. Just comes out of the woodwork to jab somebody. It's like when the GB has a gay topic and suddenly there's an influx of Forum 16 posters who never post there otherwise. In many cases when and where you chose to post says as much about you as the words you type do.

---

At 7:30 on a Wednesday night. It's tough being bored between happy hour and dinner at Applebee's.