Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Christian persecution

2009-04-24T19:36:56Z

MikeAndrews: /* Alicia Silverstone is the best you can do? */

Whew, I was worried that this article might be a "war on Christmas" sort of thing. It's actually pretty good, if a bit short. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Needs lots and lots of info ==

This article omits the early persecutions of Christians which in time I hope to add. It also doesn't discuss Christophobia throughout the centuries. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 18:29, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

As far as the historical effort of this page goes, it needs to recognize that Roman persecution was sporadic. The current text implies that it was ongoing. Some additional examples of persecution might be helpful.

As far as the comment on Protestants being martyred by the Catholic Church, it is important to recognize that Catholics also met bloody ends. There is some anti-Catholic bias going on here.

==Religious persecution==

Why does "religious persecution" redirect here? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:26, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

==China==

Might as well clear up some discussion of China. There is no doubt Christians are persecuted there, but the motivation is different. Most cases of persecution are over theological differences - either another religion attempts to ban Christianity, or there is a dispute over doctrine. China, though, appears to have no ''religious'' objection - they don't mind Christianity itsself at all, they even encourage membership in their Christian church, and nor to they have issues with details of doctrine. Rather, they persecute Christians as just one aspect of political persecution - they surpress all things which might lessen the power of the state, and any religion they do not control is included in this. They persecute Christians only because they pose a threat - something to which people may be more loyal than they are to the ruling party. Any thoughts on if this conclusion is right? [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 18:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:This is not true. China absolutely hates Christianity and the state-approved version of "Christianity" is a joke. Anyone who steps out of line of the state-sanctioned, state-controlled "Christian" religion is severely persecuted. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:03, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

== Alicia Silverstone is the best you can do? ==

The whole idea that Christians are persecuted in the US is ridiculous but the fact that the citation points to some article about Alicia Silverstone mocking traditional marriage doesn't help your case at all.

In America the Bible is in every hotel room. In America the "Religion" book section in Barnes & Noble is dominated by Christian books. In America the President puts his hand on the Bible to be sworn in. In America Christian churches are tax exempt. I could go on and on.

The fact that some people in America criticize Christianity is not persecution. This website criticizes Atheism. That is not persecution. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 15:03, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:You are free to add more refs, there are plenty to choose from. BTW, you are dead wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::Believe what you want. A quick search for persecution of christians comes up with many Christian organizations that are concerned with this issue but none of them are concerned that it is happening in the United States. I would challenge you to find one. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 15:03, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
:::You admit it is an issue, just not in the states. So, I can't claim lies, deceit, attacks physically and to the body of the church is not persecution? What shall I say, liberals are mean to Christians in the U.S., start aChristian meanness article, not persecuted? hmmm--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:22, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Persecution can't simply be that someone who holds a belief may be harrassed or even physically assaulted by someone who doesn't hold that belief. The other examples in this article all describe situations where members of a minority religion, Christianity, are harrassed or even murdered by the government or with the tacit support of the government. In the US, Christians are the majority and any harrassment or violence against a Christian is prosecuted. If Alica Silverstone had killed or assaulted a Christian and did it because that person was a Christian, she would be under arrest. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 15:36, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Christian persecution

2009-04-24T19:03:31Z

MikeAndrews: /* Alicia Silverstone is the best you can do? */

Talk:Christian persecution

2009-04-24T18:45:34Z

MikeAndrews: /* Alicia Silverstone is the best you can do? */ new section

Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes

2009-01-19T20:11:50Z

MikeAndrews:

Debate question: Why are there so few homosexual athletes, especially in the United States?

To me this seems to be a very strange phenomenon, since the [[homosexual agenda]] would have you believe that homosexuals are present everywhere. Yet in sports they seem to be lacking. I think there's a few reasons. First off, in sports, you have to be strong-willed to succeed, yet homosexuals were weak-willed enough to succumb to their temptations. Secondly, sports help reaffirm the young athletes with people of the same gender. Boys unconsciously observe how other boys act and model their behavior on this; the same with girls. This is one of the reasons Dr. [[James Dobson]] encourages parents to have their children play sports -- it helps discourage the gender dissociation which is one of the causes of homosexuality.<ref>''Bringing Up Boys'', Dr. James C. Dobson. Tyndale House Publishers, 2005.</ref> In that vein, it's not surprising that the majority of homosexuals in sports come from individual sports, such as [[tennis]], [[golf]], [[figure skating]] or [[diving]]. In team sports, the players have to be like-minded with the others to form an effective team, so if one of them is having distracting thoughts, the whole team suffers. The homosexuals become a liability for teamwork and either must adopt a straight lifestyle or leave the sport. This is why there are so few homosexual athletes. Opinions welcome. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:13, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I know professional athletes tend to not be gay, but I'm not sure the trend extends to amateur athletes. When I was in high school, nearly a third of our football team was openly gay. Maybe the drive needed to become a professional athlete is not common in many homosexuals, but because amateur sports require less drive, their weak will is successfully hidden? [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 19:20, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:If you don't mind me asking, how old are you? I just want to place when you were in high school - recently, last decade, older? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:40, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:: This was three years ago, in a school in southern California. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 19:59, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::: I figured you were young, because I would have never heard of such a figure in my day (and I'm not all that much older than you -- amazing what difference a decade makes!). A figure like this is what I was afraid of. Score one for the homosexual agenda. It seems the youth of southern California are in their hands. One third?!?! That figure is staggering -- it's more than even the homosexual mouthpieces would give themselves credit for (they generally think they're 10% of the population). It's shocking that our schools are becoming so overrun with immorality. I'm glad you seem to have made it out of there okay, TGeary, but I must confess this news saddens me greatly. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::: It was really pretty sad. I am hopeful that the professional sports culture successfully resists such a trend in the coming years and decades. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 22:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe the sports world environment is more hostile to gay people? That would both discourage gay people from entering the sports world and make any gay people in the sports world less likely to be public about it. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 19:41, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:I hear that argument a lot, but I don't buy it. How is the sports world more hostileto gay people than the business world or the military? We wouldn't have [[Don't Ask Don't Tell]] if there weren't a sizeable minority of homosexuals in the military. But in sports no one's suggesting Don't Ask Just Play, simply because the homosexuals aren't there to demand it. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:47, 3 November 2008 (EST)

::Foxtrot, did you participate in any sports in junior high or high school? I ask because I went out for several sports in the 1980's, and it seems hard for me to believe that someone who did would have to ask whether such an environment is (or at least was) hostile to gays. It was an ''absurdly'' hypermasculine environment and ''flagrantly'' hostile to homosexuality. All the athletes were 'motivated' with being called antigay slurs for any perceived deficit in performance. How many laps have you run with a coach calling you a bunch of XXXs? How many times have you been berated for not beating those XXX from the other school? How often have you XXXs had to do extra wind sprints? Hit harder, you XXX! Stop XXX XXX XXX and hustle! If you were the only Christian on a team of Muslims that constantly used anti-Christian slurs, how long would you stick with the sport? Would you openly declare yourself Christian and risk ostracism or physical abuse? Could you keep it up for the ten or more years needed to make it to the major leagues of your chosen sport? Especially when it's so easy for a coach to put someone else on the field when the scouts are in the stands?
::Maybe things are different in school sports now; I certainly hope so. Still, it would take years for changes in the entry-level sports culture to trickle up to the high-level sports culture - especially since changes have to come from coaches who came up in the traditional system.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:22, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::I played some tennis in high school, but never made it to varsity. I'll admit there were several jibes calling some guys pansies, etc. but no more than calling someone a weakling, klutz, idiot or any other number of insults from frustration. In a competitive environment, these jibes are motivation for the person with the flawed performance to improve himself. If he doesn't, then it is his failure. A high school team (and more so a professional team) wants the best players, so the ones which drag upon the team are the ones which get cut. I did, and while it was a disappointment that I wasn't a Pete Sampras, I learned to focus on my other gifts, like mathematics. I still play tennis as a hobby, by the way.
:::Back to the point: if a student receives these jibes, it's usually a reflection of his performance. If there was a star quarterback who was gay, the jibes wouldn't happen because he's excelled and met or exceeded expectations. However, this doesn't happen, because it seems that homosexuals generally do not seem to excel in sports. I doubt that once Martina Navratilova aced past her opponents on the court there were still insults being thrown about how her lesbianism effects her play.
:::The comparison to Christian/Muslim slurs is misguided. Those are insults about someone's beliefs, which have nothing to do with their performance on field, court, pool, etc. A homosexual might become attracted to his opponents or teammates, and that could have a profound effect on the game. In contrast, a Christian isn't going to throw the game because he wants to pray with one of his teammates (sorry for the inappropriate parallel that sets up). It's just a different ballpark. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:50, 3 November 2008 (EST)

::::You appear to have entirely missed my point. Why would ''anyone'' want to participate in an activity in which they were ''only'' referred to in demeaning and offensive terms - if indeed something about them was used as the ''default insult''? The point is not that athletes are berated for poor performance; it's that the berating almost always takes (took?) the form of antigay slurs. If nobody knows that you're gay, does that make it less insulting, or frightening? If you're the star player, is it less offensive because some ''other'' player gets the demeaning label? It may not be enough to say "oh, never mind what I called him, ''you're'' one of the ''good'' ones." The Christian/Muslim analogy is entirely appropriate: how many Christians would make it to major league sports if they had to run a ten year gauntlet of a very hostile Jihadist environment? Wouldn't the Jihadists wonder why Christians were such poor athletes, as evidenced by the lack of openly practicing Christians in professional sports?

::::As for whether a homosexual athlete might be attracted to a teammate or opponent - so? A straight athlete can hate a particular teammate or prefer a particular opponent; they can play favorites; athletes change teams and have divided loyalties; best friends have petty arguments; ballhogs are resented by others; teammates compete amongst themselves for playing time, etc. The interpersonal dynamics of team sports are highly complex and ever-changing. If a teammate hits on me, is that worse than if he assaults my sister? Or sabotages my equipment? Or gets MVP instead of me?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:56, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:Yet, military service requires the same things cited above (strong will, teamwork). [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 19:58, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::And when the military tried to throw them out because of their disruptions to morale (and worse), they had the PC left wing breathing down their backs. There have been no studies showing homosexuals make a stronger military unit, and with the PC stranglehold, it's doubtful any such studies would see the light of day. They're hiding the clear results, which only a few politicians are willing to mention and fight against for the strength of our military. Many homosexuals join the military not out of a strong will, but out of a fantasy of being near many men in close quarters and this mentality is not conducive to teamwork. BHarlan, for a simple comparison--imagine if a homosexual coworker expressed his interest in you. I'm sure that afterwards there would be an extremely awkward atmosphere at work. Now imagine if concentration on your work had your and others' lives depending on it. Is that the clarity and focus that makes for a good team?-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST)

:::You misunderstand me terribly. You claim there is a "sizeable [sic] minority of homosexuals in the military". If that is so, the mystery is why it is not so in sports when military service and team sports require some of the same virtues.
:::It seems your explanation of this is that the military is a job and has cramped quarters. Only the former applies to professional sports, I suppose. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)

:Hmm well consider the percentages, only a very small percentage of people are homosexual and out of that even less would even consider becoming a proffesional athelete. I just think that maybe a lot of atheletes are scared to come out about their sexuality because of the reasons that foxtrot quoted up above, because sport is seen as very gender oriented, they're intimidated into not breaking the mold. Just a thought. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::I am taking into account the proportions, but it still doesn't make sense. Sports are something they are exposed to from a young age, and are a clear option for a career path. You'd expect they'd be inclined to follow that path as much as they are inclined to be actors, or dentists, or lawyers. It's not like I'm questioning the paucity of homosexuals in some obscure field like ceramics engineering (though the gays supposedly like pottery...) -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:55, 3 November 2008 (EST)
:::You have kind of a weird view of gay people. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that sports are really not a clear option for a career path for most people, and kids are made aware of that, just as being a famous actor or musician is known to be highly unlikely. Additionally, yes, it's very common to throw around gay slurs at other people (even the word "gay" has become slang for bad). It's become a way of questioning masculinity, which males are likely to react negatively to, which is the point of calling someone a name in the first place (getting someone to improve themselves is a pretty weak excuse for out-and-out insulting them). Being gay is obviously still not an accepted thing, as you've demonstrated, so if a star quarterback were gay, do you really think he wouldn't get flack for it? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 23:21, 3 November 2008 (EST)

There is an interesting series on espn.com about this.

http://espn.go.com/otl/world/timeline.html

[[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 15:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sports]]

Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?

2009-01-19T14:52:37Z

MikeAndrews: signature

{{debate}}

'''NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.'''

==Premise==

The inspiration for this debate topic comes from several sources, and is not meant to be an attack on religion. The main inspiration was contemplation about the novel ''The Lord of the Flies''. Is it the basic nature of man to devolve into savagery without moral guidance, or, given enough time, would man develop a moral framework to live by because of the inherent benefits to society? If so, could this happen without religion to frame the moral values against?

The related question is that if one assumes that religion is required for man to live a moral life, then what are the essential characteristics that religion must have in order for its adherents to live a moral life. Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Muslims follow different tenets of faith, but it would be wrong to call someone immoral simply because they are devout in one faith and not another. That implies that there's a common baseline of morality to certain faiths, and that a person who follows those aspects of that faith would be leading a moral life.

The purpose of this debate is not to come up with simplistic yes/no or right/wrong answers, but to use a thoughtful question to allow members of the CP community to express their views on the subject so that others can develop new insights from reading them.

==Yes, it is possible==

I don't want to write volumes here so I am going to refer people to a good book on this topic that I read recently. It is "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal. De Waal is a primatologist. The premise of the book is that the great apes exhibit behaviors that are the basis of moral action. So morality appears to have a evolutionary basis. De Waal also points to cross cultural studies of moral decision making that suggest that some moral thinking is basically hardwired and not dependent on cultural belief systems (including religious beliefs). It's pretty fascinating stuff.

The common belief seems to be that the theory of evolution and the phrase "survival of the fittest" means that brute force and violence are the route to evolutionary success. In fact, all sorts of physical and behavioral adaptations can be successful. In the great apes, social behaviors that promote cooperation, empathy and sharing have proven to be successful strategies for survival. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 09:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

==No, it is not possible==

Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?

2009-01-19T14:51:40Z

MikeAndrews:

Replication of results

2008-11-26T16:03:45Z

MikeAndrews:

'''Replication of results''' is essential for scientific progress. If a scientist makes a claim, and writes it up in the proper format for publication, it may pass [[peer review]], but this does not make it valid. It might get some media play, but it's not going to be added to textbooks on the high school or university level unless other scientists are convinced.

What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].

A clear example of how replication of results has lead to scientific advancement is in the area of how tobacco smoking effects health. Early studies that showed the link between cancer and smoking were hotly disputed within the scientific community and also by the tobacco industry. As the initial studies were repeated over many years and by many scientist and the initial results were replicated, the link between smoking and cancer (and other diseases) was confirmed. See [[tobacco]] for further information.

[[Category:Science]]

Replication of results

2008-11-26T16:03:22Z

MikeAndrews: Example of replication that lead to verification

'''Replication of results''' is essential for scientific progress. If a scientist makes a claim, and writes it up in the proper format for publication, it may pass [[peer review]], but this does not make it valid. It might get some media play, but it's not going to be added to textbooks on the high school or university level unless other scientists are convinced.

What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].

An clear example of how replication of results has lead to scientific advancement is in the area of how tobacco smoking effects health. Early studies that showed the link between cancer and smoking were hotly disputed within the scientific community and also by the tobacco industry. As the initial studies were repeated over many years and by many scientist and the initial results were replicated, the link between smoking and cancer (and other diseases) was confirmed. See [[tobacco]] for further information.

[[Category:Science]]