Good morning.
- Rome had hundreds of religions beneath its wings. Why kill the Christians?
- A journal noted, Syriac Studies.
- A great rider’s win noted.
- Another coveted prize noted as well here.
- Read the bill?
- “Incite?”
- That’s not what “persecution” means I think.
- Mech-speak.
- After the horror, the wife of the slain speaks.
- Popular song as lede.
- A short secular argument against abortion.
- Imagining what it should look like.
- A pretty bike.
- Odd, the “bonuses” given to politicians like Obama aren’t mentioned in this piece, and many are larger than those mentioned here.
- Beer. Map.
- A tax noted.
- I suppose actual mega-church members will disagree.
- Obama’s buddy.
- On drawing the line.
- On extraordinary claims and evidence.
- Freeman Dyson, two statements, here and here.
That’s not what “persecution” means I think.
No, imagine the policies instead of applying to gays applied to Christians. You could be a Christian in the military but if you talk about it you’re are out. The old policy used to be that they would question you and investigate to try to uncover the ‘hidden Christians’ but now the more enlightened one is ‘don’t ask don’t tell’. But if someone, say, saw your picture in a Church bullitan or sees your name on a blog devoted to Christinaity, you can get drummed out. Somehow if this policy was implemented I think the religious community would not hestitate to call it persecution. Granted no one is being burned at the stake.
Odd, the “bonuses” given to politicians like Obama aren’t mentioned in this piece, and many are larger than those mentioned here.
The bonus issue is less about punishing success and more about the age old ‘agency problem’. Companies are not run by owners (shareholders) but by a board of directors who appoints management. Therein creates the incentive for management, which has first access to information, to work for their own interests rather than shareholders. Normally the two interests are aligned but if upper management sees that the ship is going to sink their incentives are to grab all the jewels from the safe and be the first into the lifeboat.
I can get on board at the outrage but this has to be tempered by a bit of realism. Not grabbing the jewels and being first on board the lifeboat is nobel behavior but it doesn’t change the reality that the ship is sinking. In the example cited, where the company stiffed vendors, the gov’t, and employee’s health and 401K contributions…its because the company was going bankrupt. Honorable behavior by upper management would not have changed that fact.
I’m not sure what ‘bonuses’ obama’s received, though. Could you be a bit more specific.
You misspelled Dyson.
So ending a soldier’s career because somebody heard from somebody else that he is gay is NOT persecution? I think Boonton makes an excellent analogy.
A short secular argument against abortion.
That’s just the same word-game argument as yours. I can give it a lot more briefly: fetuses are humans and it’s wrong to kill humans.
It’s not true of course, but since when do you care about that? You use words to distort rather than clarify.
JA and Boonton,
I’ll admit that if Christians were not permitted in the military because they are Christian that many would call that persecution. I think it would not be. Persecution is sending Christians to “special camps” in Siberia as was done by Stalin.
Persecution is sending Christians to “special camps” in Siberia as was done by Stalin.
Please start distinguishing Mark-words from words as commonly used. Maybe you could use a little subscript ‘M’:
PersecutionM is sending Christians to “special camps” in Siberia as was done by Stalin.
I guess this blog doesn’t support subscripting. Oh well. Maybe a *.
Persecution* is sending Christians to “special camps” in Siberia as was done by Stalin.
That would save us a lot of time. Of course, it would also ruin some of your arguments. This one would no longer work: “Fetuses are human beings*. It’s wrong to kill human beings.”
Wikipedia says:
Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.
1. Is ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ systematic? Yes.
2. Is it mistreatment? I would say yes. I think if it was applied to Christians serving in the military Mark would agree it is mistreatment.
Therefore, it is persecution.
You are free to argue that in the how sorry history of human persecution, there are many examples that are much worse. That’s a point, though, I don’t think any one really disputes.
Boonton is a dope. I’ve debated him before. Anyone dumb enough to think there’s a parallel between Christians in Rome and gays today must be, well, a liberal.
Who said anything about Rome?
Boonton,
Look, you are not slow to denounce “playing the victim” card. I am too denouncing it.
I’m am not sure I would call it a mistreatment. Look, people who can’t climb a ladder carrying 150 pounds at a given rate for a distance of 100 feet can’t be firemen. Is it mistreatment to not hire people who cannot do that? No. It is a job requirement. If an member of a certain religious sect cannot be a garbage collector because it would entail ritual uncleanliness that job is unavailable to them. Job requirements that restrict behaviour or exclude a group because of are not activities which they wish to perform but is not allowed is not persecution.
Yes but it is mistreatment to simply exclude people from jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with the job itself. Hence I would say it is mistreatment to boot Christians from the military simply for being Christians. You do not because you wish to employ a nonstandard definition of persecution, which is fine but you should make it clear you’re using your own specialized vocabulary here.
Boonton,
So … what is the reason for excluding Christians from the military. Because, you know, there are reasons stated for excluding public gay lifestyle exhibits in the military. You may disagree with their reasons but the reasons do actually have to do with the job itself.
“public gay lifestyle exhibits” what is that, like dioramas or something?
I’m sure someone can come up with ‘reasons’ why a no-Christian policy might have something to do with the job too. If the reasons are insufficient or are simply cover for something else then the policy is mistreatment which, together with being systematic, fits the definition of persecution. You are free to revert to your original point that feeding Christians to lions or burning them is much worse but no one really disagrees with you on that.
Boonton,
“public gay lifestyle exhibition” or the slogan “don’t ask don’t tell”. duh.
Your the one who has proposed no-Christians in the military. So come up with some reasons and we can discuss.
So the argument boils down to a consideration of whether the reasons are sufficient. The military and many people think they are sufficient. So it seems, by your definitions there is no external judge of persecution. If you think the criteria for excluding those lacking enough upper body strength from being firemen are insufficient then it is persecution to exclude them. Persecution becomes a personal and basically useless term … under your criteria.
Job criteria and qualifications is not persecution. Being jailed, being sent to gulags or internment/labor camps, being tortured, or put to death is and there is no need to make the word useless for there is enough of the above in the world that it is still alas widely applicable.
So the argument boils down to a consideration of whether the reasons are sufficient.
The military and many people think they are sufficient. So it seems, by your definitions there is no external judge of persecution.
Your logic is falling apart. Whether or not the military thinks they are sufficient is irrelevant. Last I checked, we had civilian control of the military. Likewise why are you complaining about there being no ‘external’ judge of persecution if you’re going to, in the same breath, imply that the military should be it’s own judge of what is or isn’t mistreatment?
More to the point, if you have valid job criteria then denying the job to those who do not meet it is not mistreatment. If you don’t have mistreatment you are missing one of the two pieces of the definition of persecution.
Your counter is that because people may disagree on job criteria, then any criteria is automatically not mistreatment. Hence a ‘no Christian’ policy is not mistreatment because it’s a criteria for a job and even if it is a stupid criteria that seems to have nothing to do with the job it’s a criteria nonetheless. You charge that if someone can come up with some…any…half-assed reason for such a policy (other than blatently saying “so we can persecute Christians”) then the policy escapes the label of mistreatment….
there is no need to make the word useless
Indeed there isn’t. It is very useful that a word be able to handle a spectrum of intensities. For example, ‘hot’ works because I can say “today’s hot”, “tomorrow will be hotter” and “this year will be the hottest on record”. Nice, useful word. How inefficient it would be if I needed 3 different words. Why would you rob persecution of its usefulness by leaving only things on a par with feeding Christians to the lions as acceptable uses of it? Why persecute us for making a distinction between major and minor persecutions?
Boonton,
Uhm, I said The military and many people not just the military. It’s not a half-assed reason in the mind of many if not most.
Job qualifications aren’t persecution, or … in your words a “minor persecution” at best. Which makes it a minor problem. As we have a lot of major problems … why then is this relevant?