Zobel said:

---

who declared me oppressed?

"Western Europe" gave rise to Nazism, did it not? Fascist Italy? Eastern European atheism and Chinese atheism gave rise to the horrors of Communism.

It's outright stupid to say - we want to untether our morals from Christianity - and not see that immediately there's all kinds of horrible outcomes that can and have come from that. Pre-Christian and post-Christian history are replete with examples.

---

You are the one goal tending my post which was explicitly about Christians acting oppressed here, with an inane comparison to Stalin.

We have plenty of examples of post Christian societies doing quite well also.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

no, its a perfect example that moral values come from somewhere, and the moral values of Christian societies are preferable to explicitly atheist regimes. a neutral society doesnt exist.

---

It's a laughable notion that can't be taken seriously to argue that we can only have a Christian oppression or atheist oppression. As if Western Europe doesn't exist.

Yes morals come from somewhere they are subjective as demonstrated in so many threads before. The Christian societies you mention are largely post Christian

Declaring yourself oppressed is laughable

---

Where did Zobel say he was oppressed?

barbacoa taco said:

---

This thread has really been a sobering insight into the mind of a Christian nationalist.

From zobel not understanding the difference between a secular government and an atheistic government

To derm pulling the nationalistic, predictable "well if you don't like it you can just giiit out" in response to the unforgivable sin of criticizing America

To Bob Lee complaining that any lack of special treatment of Christians or any secular environment is oppression against Christians.

A reminder of how this country has for so long coddled white Christian republican men for so long, and now that we are moving past that, those people who received favorable treatment their whole lives now are the ones who think they are oppressed. A reminder that Christian nationalism is not a proactive view, but a reactive one. A group of people who no longer get what they want all the time and therefore turning to fascism and authoritarianism to enforce it.

---

Where did I say I was oppressed? Where did I say it was a sin to criticize America?

I know if I was not happy where I was I would leave. Makes sense.

And may I ask what is different about you imposing your views on me than me imposing mine on you?

To be honest I think it's really ****ty to tell someone to leave a country if they have complaints about it. You don't know anyone else's situation or how hard it would be to do so. This is especially true for people who don't have the means to do so. But if Texas continues down the road of Christian nationalism as it likely will, I obviously will not remain here and certainly won't raise my kids here

And it's a logical fallacy to equate your Christian nationalist beliefs with my beliefs. You really don't know much about my beliefs. You probably assume I'm a registered democrat who loves Biden and Kamala.

I'm an American who has seen abundant evidence that this country is broken and is not working for most people. I want a country that works for everyone, not just rich white men. CN will take us backwards in so many ways.

I have no desire to control you or stop you from practicing your faith. But I have a big problem with you trying to control others with your personal beliefs. A huge one. We are not the same, derm.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The deep irony here is that if they get the big government they desire that can enforce religion they will end up victims of it

---

this you or nah?

the problem with your stance is 'quite well' assumes a definition of the Good. Rome thought they were doing 'quite well.' The Aztecs too. As did the Communists.

---

Yes it's me. Where do you disagree?

Of course it has a definition of good. Just as your post complaining about governments has a definition of bad. There is very likely quite a bit of overlap of our definitions. But if you find many of the post Christian nations of Western Europe today "bad" I'm unlikely to find that very compelling as a counterpoint to arguing against a post Christian society.

Let's start with step one. Are Christians in the US oppressed?

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

Not at all.

Are you?

And I am not a complete idiot. I do not need oppression defined to me. C'mon. This is silly. No need for elitist snarky stuff.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

But what is freedom, and what is justice? If freedom is the ability to choose, and any restrictions are unjust, then any law that's prohibitive is oppressive.

I think abortion is oppressive. You think restrictions on abortion are oppressive.

Zobel said:

---

What is your obsession with this idea of oppression?

---

Agree. Who has said they are oppressed?

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

But what is freedom, and what is justice? If freedom is the ability to choose, and any restrictions are unjust, then any law that's prohibitive is oppressive.

I think abortion is oppressive. You think restrictions on abortion are oppressive.

---

Exactly.

Reminds me of this

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

Not at all.

Are you?

And I am not a complete idiot. I do not need oppression defined to me. C'mon. This is silly. No need for elitist snarky stuff.

---

Nope.

But you have Christians in the very thread comparing non religious or secular as an equivalent to anti Christian. There is a clear difference, and you certainly weren't one of the voices pointing that out to your own.

Zobel said:

---

What is your obsession with this idea of oppression?

---

Because that's what anti Christian actually looks like.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

Not at all.

Are you?

And I am not a complete idiot. I do not need oppression defined to me. C'mon. This is silly. No need for elitist snarky stuff.

---

Nope.

But you have Christians in the very thread comparing non religious or secular as an equivalent to anti Christian. There is a clear difference, and you certainly weren't one of the voices pointing that out to your own.

---

Do you not understand that non religious and secular groups can force their views on others just like Christians can?

Maybe they do not think they are "anti Christian" but are not the results the same?

Forcing their views on Christians? It goes both ways.

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

But what is freedom, and what is justice? If freedom is the ability to choose, and any restrictions are unjust, then any law that's prohibitive is oppressive.

I think abortion is oppressive. You think restrictions on abortion are oppressive.

---

Sure if you are speaking of the envelope of any and all actions. It seems rather clear we are speaking of religious freedom.

There are some freedoms like killing others that we universally restrict. Some like abortion that we argue about. Some like the right to political speech which we mostly agree on. And some like religious freedom that we are talking about here.

Traditionally in this country we think of free exercise so long as other rights aren't infringed and the establishment clause.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

Not at all.

Are you?

And I am not a complete idiot. I do not need oppression defined to me. C'mon. This is silly. No need for elitist snarky stuff.

---

Nope.

But you have Christians in the very thread comparing non religious or secular as an equivalent to anti Christian. There is a clear difference, and you certainly weren't one of the voices pointing that out to your own.

---

Do you not understand that non religious and secular groups can force their views on others just like Christians can?

Maybe they do not think they are "anti Christian" but are not the results the same?

Forcing their views on Christians? It goes both ways.

---

Not only do I understand it, I warned of this in my first post. Once you give the government this power you open up the chance for them to turn it on you. Remember the post that only received a response of a boorish comparison to communist regimes?


But didn't you tell me you weren't oppressed? Are your rights infringed? You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Yeah because atheist governments have such a stellar track record in human rights.

---

You actually think that's a point? That a perfect example of conflating western secularism with true oppression. They are different

---

Is it "true" oppression if "western secularism" imposes its views on say Christians? Or is it only "true" oppression if say Christian Nationalists impose their views on others?

---

Oppression is about the force used and freedoms restricted not the direction. Both can be oppressive both might not be dependent on the context.

So let's start basic. Are you oppressed?

---

Not at all.

Are you?

And I am not a complete idiot. I do not need oppression defined to me. C'mon. This is silly. No need for elitist snarky stuff.

---

Nope.

But you have Christians in the very thread comparing non religious or secular as an equivalent to anti Christian. There is a clear difference, and you certainly weren't one of the voices pointing that out to your own.

---

Do you not understand that non religious and secular groups can force their views on others just like Christians can?

Maybe they do not think they are "anti Christian" but are not the results the same?

Forcing their views on Christians? It goes both ways.

---

Not only do I understand it, I warned of this in my first post. Once you give the government this power you open up the chance for them to turn it on you. Remember the post that only received a response of a boorish comparison to communist regimes?


But didn't you tell me you weren't oppressed? Are your rights infringed? You seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth

---

I am not oppressed. You are saying I am saying I am oppressed and I am not saying that. I am not talented enough to talk about both sides of my mouth.

I do not understand the obsession with oppression.

Bowing out. I need a drink.

You are using the words "forcing their views"

What does this mean to you?

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are using the words "forcing their views"

What does this mean to you?

---

Forcing their views.

Does not mean I am oppressed. I refuse to be oppressed.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are using the words "forcing their views"

What does this mean to you?

---

Forcing their views.

Does not mean I am oppressed.

---

How about you answer what it does mean since that's what I asked? Let's eliminate the confusion of terms.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are using the words "forcing their views"

What does this mean to you?

---

Forcing their views.

Does not mean I am oppressed.

---

How about you answer what it does mean since that's what I asked? Let's eliminate the confusion of terms.

---

I did answer. They are trying to force their views on me. I am not oppressed.

This is not hard.

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are using the words "forcing their views"

What does this mean to you?

---

Forcing their views.

Does not mean I am oppressed.

---

How about you answer what it does mean since that's what I asked? Let's eliminate the confusion of terms.

---

I did answer. They are trying to force their views on me. I am not oppressed.

This is not hard.

---

Actually it is. I'm asking what "forced their views" means. I have no idea what you mean by that. Give me an example.

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You are using the words "forcing their views"

What does this mean to you?

---

Forcing their views.

Does not mean I am oppressed.

---

How about you answer what it does mean since that's what I asked? Let's eliminate the confusion of terms.

---

I did answer. They are trying to force their views on me. I am not oppressed.

This is not hard.

---

Actually it is. I'm asking what "forced their views" means. I have no idea what you mean by that. Give me an example.

---

Legalized abortion. Does not oppress me. Kills babies.

But how is that forcing your views?