Christian Persecution - will get worse - Page 4

Perhaps so. But, I just can't bring myself to think of God as being as limited and easily controlled as the general christian idea of it.

I really want to know why this took a year before the guy was asked to not wear the pin? But being company policy, there really is nothing you can do. If he took the pin off and they still fired him, then maybe he could have won a suit but he refused to do it of his own free will. People need to learn that with actions comes consequences.

Im a curious person and love to learn about other religions, cultures and ways of life. Although I am not very religious, I do consider myself a Christian, but I am a very tolerant person. For example my church had a homosexual pastor and it didnt bother me in the least, to some it did. I feel like people just need to get off their high horses in thinking their religion or way of life is so much better than any other. For example there was an old church that was up for sell, well a local (this happened on the eastern side of the US not where I live) muslim group wanted to buy it to hold their meetings and all, they wouldnt sell it to them....it divided a community because many people felt Islam shouldnt be preached in a christian church, but these were also people who claim they are tolerant of their muslim neighbors and have muslim friends. To me it is just a building, when I want to talk to God, I do it wherever I am, I do not feel like going into a church will get me any closer to him, but again others disagree, and I am ok with that. SO my point is people need to learn to mind their own business on both ends, let go and live your life and quit trying to live through others lives and forcing them to be something they do not want to be. In fact I think people should try and visit these other religions and get a better understanding of these religions. Peace and love!!

The bottom line here that people are forgetting about this, is that Home Depot is a PRIVATE CORPORATION and as so, by law:

1. Only the government is prohibited from restricting speech. Private corporations are free to censor speech of their employees.

Meaning: Freedom of Speech does not apply to a private corporation.

Furthermore:

An at-will employee in the USA can be terminated at any time, and for any reason – or no reason at all – and the courts will not intervene to protect the ex-employee from allegedly unfair treatment by the employer.

The combination of:

1. no legal protection for freedom of speech of employees of for-profit and non-profit corporations and other non-governmental employers, and
2. the freedom of employers to terminate employment at any time, for any reason

means that employees in private industry have no legal rights to freedom of speech.

So, Home-Depot told the employee to take the pin off, as it is clearly against their uniform rules (I mean, come on, that is easy to see ), and he did not. That warrants the right for termination. Too bad for him, put his "tail in between his leg" and time to move on, buddy.
I find very very hard to believe that a large company such as home depot does not have the uniform guidelines on their employee handbook.

IMO there is absolutely no Christian prosecution in here, but what he chose to call got some publicity, didn't it?

Well, it would depend entirely on how his lawyer intends to pursue the case. If they go with a "freedom of speech" approach, then they've as good as lost already.

However, if they can prove that the firing was indeed because of his religion, then they have a case, because Federal law says no employer can discriminate "based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin".

But, with the button being against uniform policy, that will be a hard one to prove. I think he'll get more mileage out of the publicity than a lawsuit itself.

Which would be pretty dumb IMO considering that Christianity accounts for over 75% of American religion, with even higher numbers in rural areas like his... which makes very hard for me to imagine Christian prosecution in this country but whatever, there are lawyers that will see opportunity in anything to make cash - and employment lawyers are some of the dirtiest, unfortunately.

Besides, The button did not say anything about religion - neither did him at first - I am afraid this twist came afterwords, again, maybe from the lawyer, as his only chance to cash in. Because as he, himself said, "I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country." - so, with that, he is saying that he was fired for FREEDOM OF SPEECH. But as you say Mike, with that claim, in court, he holds no power... so I will bet that if anything Re. religion came up, it came from the "advise" of his lawyer.

I'm not sure AA even uses the word "God." I think they refer to "a higher power."

Having not been to any of their meetings, I can't say for sure, however.

By that reasoning, since something like 52% of all Americans are women, it's not possible to discriminate against them, either.

Oh really? Well, think about it. According to many christians, God is unable to change it's nature, it is bound to supposed “promises†it made to certain segments of mankind, it is locked into the male gender, it cannot contact anyone other than those that believe in it, it isn't allowed to enlighten anyone else like Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, or anyone else not approved of by it's human handlers, it cannot change it's mind as to who it's favorites are, it needs worship and adoration from humans, it feels it has to promise prizes to get people to do so, it needs a small region of this planet as a “kingdom†sometime in the future...

Why can't it change it's nature? Why can't it even do something on a whim? How long is a God's whim? Why was there (supposedly) timeless eons of nothingness and then it suddenly decided to create a universe? Why can't everything we know be a whim of God that might end at any moment? Why should it keep promises to something with such little significance to the universe as a whole? Why is it limited to creating only one universe?

If it has favorites, why can't it's new favorites be an entirely different group, or an entirely different world on the other side of the universe, where the people are actually making something of themselves.

In order to make US more than we are, religion (in general) has robbed God of it's power and stuck it in a little box, and told stories about it in little books.

I see God as being far beyond our ability to fathom, and capable of things far beyond our ability to even imagine, let alone understand. Religion is simply mankind's “answer†to the unanswerable questions. Straight from the Dave Barry school of arguing, to whit...â€if you don't know the answer, make something up!â€

I'm totally perplexed how you came up with this interpretation of Carolinalima's post ??????

I was too, but I was afraid that I may have been the one reading her post wrong.

I can understand it IF you are thinking about the situation as religious discrimination. So, she said if over 75% of the people in the US are Christians, it's hard to discriminate them for their beliefs. Mike said if the population is 52% female, well, sexual discrimination is impossible too since females are the majority. And, we all know that happens at times (I'm talking discrimination, NOT harassment..that is something completely different). I can see his point.

I took her to mean that it would be stupid for Home Depot to discriminate because of religion in an area so predominately christian...but, I'm still not certain I read it correctly.

I read it more as Mike did - that she would find it hard to believe in the area where this person lives rather than in the US at large.

I find it interesting that in one paragraph of the article the guy claims that he was being punished for loving his country and in the next it says he's suing for religious discrimination. It seems to me that the point of him wearing the button was religious, but he doesn't want to admit it and takes the "I was just supporting my country" tact when pressed on it.

The problem with letting employees wear buttons expressing their beliefs is that if you allow "Jesus saves," you also have to allow "There is no God but Allah, and Mohamed is his prophet," "Ganesh is great," and "There is no God" or face religious discrimination charges. Most big companies like Home Depot have taken the sensible route and said no buttons, period, unless they're company issued.

As for the so-called "Christian persecution," I always like to point out that Fred Phelps is still out there preaching. Surely, if there was a purge of christians going on, his head would be first on the chopping block. The fact that he's still out there preaching his particularly vitriolic message freely tells me that no such thing is happening. What's really happening, as far as I can tell, is that Christians are being told "No, we won't support your beliefs to the exclusion of others like we used to" by companies and the government and it is being spun as "they're persecuting Christians" in an attempt to garner sympathy.

And most of these things came about as a direct result of McCarthyism and the Red Scare of the 1950's. Prior to that, our national motto (the one that Washington, Jefferson, et al. came up with) was "E. Pluribus Unum" - Out of many, one. That's a great motto that says everyone can be an American, regardless of their origins or background. "In God We Trust" was an explicit message meant to convey that non-Judeo Christians are godless communists who won't be tolerated. It's exclusive, whereas the old motto was universally inclusive. One of these days, I think a sane Supreme Court will strike "In God we trust" down as unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - I don't think you can get more black-letter law than that.

As an atheist and former member of the military, I find remarks like that highly condescending, if not downright offensive. Yes, all atheists really know deep-down that there's a God and they're just pretending there isn't because they're spoiled children who don't want to follow the rules. I bet Pat Tilman and George Carlin converted at the last minute, too.

I look at it from the anti-Pascal's wager standpoint. If I were dying, why would I risk ticking off 999,999 of the 1,000,000 possible gods by choosing one to pray to? And besides, if I were a god, would I really want to do anything to help somebody who was praying to me, not because they think I'm great or worthy, but simply because they're desperate?

Heavenly Father knows what is in each person's heart and He knows if the prayer is being done with an honest heart.

I agree completely with the above part of your post. Businesses have every right to prohibit buttons and even religious or political jewelry worn by their employees, if it is visible to the general public.

But if you are going to quote the first amendment, then quote it in its entirety:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

(bold is mine)

As to the "In God We Trust" on our currency, that is not a reflection or an endorsement of any particular religion. FYI Christianity, Judism, and Muslim religions all came from the same belief in one "God" who is simply known by different names within various sects and religions. In my opinion the word "God" does not specifically mean a Christian God or a Jewish God, but an all-encompassing "Supreme Being" or "Force" or "Power" that governs the universe and keeps the planets in orbit! "God" can mean different things to different people, and is just a recognition that "Man" is not a "Supreme Being" or "Master of the Universe" but is rather a pretty insignificant species in the vastness of all that is known.

I hope that it never comes to a vote or a Supreme Court decision to remove "God" from our currency or the Pledge of Allegiance. But if it ever came to a vote, I'm sure keeping God would win hands down!

You're correct, and I think you make my point. There is not a systematic persecution of Christians going on in this country anymore than there is a systematic persecution of Muslims. Sure, there are bigots out there of all stripes, but that's not what I'm talking about and I'm pretty sure that wasn't what GK was talking about either. Christians are as free to practice their religion just as they always were. It's just that now, oh horror of horrors, they're not allowed to force other people to participate or have taxpayer money used to favor their religion over others.

Well, that's convenient. So if an atheist is in a foxhole and survives, he didn't see the light because it wasn't his time. If he dies, he's not around to tell us that he didn't convert.

Exactly! The "please, please, I'll do anything you want" prayer is just like saying that to a man with a gun in your face. But as soon as the man with the gun is gone and you're safe, you'll stop doing whatever he asked. My study of religion has convinced me there is no valid evidence for belief in gods. So if I started praying because I thought I was going to die, it would mean either a) I was desperate and thus insincere, or b) I had received evidence that convinced me I was wrong (which blows the whole faith / free will thing out of the water).

You may, well, FEEL the government should ban cross necklaces at work but don't hold your breath because it is not going to happen.
Case in point: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=latestnews

The problem I have with "in god we trust" on currency is that it makes a reference to religion period. When politicians and decision makers start relying on a higher power and the supernatural, we are in big trouble...just my humble opinion. But, "in god we trust" is not even correct, because if you take "we" to mean "americans" it is inaccurate- many Americans do not believe that a higher power exists and by putting it on our currency, it is undermining atheists and saying we aren't a part of that "we" that is collectively referred to as Americans.

Your first sentence in the above paragraph is, most definitely, NOT a prayer.
The second sentence WOULD apply to the first sentence, but since the first sentence wasn't a prayer, it does not.

Regarding the last sentence I bolded, do you REALLY think that a) and b) are the only two variables?

Glad to hear we agree. 150 years ago when 99.9% of a given community was the same religion, it was rarely an issue, but in this day and age, I think it's the most sensible way to go.

I'm not trying to hide anything. The courts treat the establishment and prohibition clauses separately, and for good reason. For example, we can't have a national religion (like England) even if we didn't prohibit the exercise of others. Similarly, telling all religions they can't practice wouldn't fly. Either promoting or establishing religion is prohibited.

To me, I think it's pretty clear from the context that the changes made in the 50's and 60's did mean to single out the Judeo-Christian god. Communists were anti-God, so anyone who didn't believe was therefore a communist and not American. I really don't think they had the deist clockwork god, the laws of physics, or the Wiccan nature goddes in mind when they added those things.

For the founding fathers, they had pretty various religious beliefs. There were Calvinists, Methodists, Quakers, deists, and even a few atheists. I think they were pretty careful to be general in their language, such as the "endowed by their creator" line in the Declaration. The "In God We Trust" motto seems like a heavy-handed attempt to declare the US a Judeo-Christian nation.

Sure, and in a Muslim country keeping "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" would be overwhelmingly popular. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right.

But that's the whole premise of the "atheist in a foxhole" canard. The guy's life is in danger and he starts pleading with God. I mean, really, what do you think a prayer in those circumstances would sound like? "Gee, God, what a coincidence... I just happened to start believing in you at the same time I'm possibly about to die. Huh, what are the odds?" The person praying wants something - either to not die or the or to have eternal life in Heaven. It's pleading/bargaining. That's just human nature. You see it all the time in movies and books. You can put an "Our heavenly father" at the beginning, and "Amen" at the end, and make the language a little less direct, but it's still essentially the same thing.

In my case, yes. And most atheists I know. I've read the Bible, the Qu'ran, and a few other religious texts and I'm not convinced by them. So either something would have to happen that convinced me I was wrong and there really is a god looking out for me, or else my prayer would be nothing more than a plea for help.

I don't believe ANYONE can say how they would react to a near death experience.
I truly believe a person can open their heart to the truth and in an instant realize their unbelief was wrong.

wow...
see, this here isn't agreeing to disagree it is dismissing someone else's beliefs as wrong, that is not what religious tolerance is all about.

As long as it spends, I don't give a rat's a$$ what phrase is is is not on it! IMO it's perfectly harmless, so don't mess with it. Messing with it will only cost a gazillion tax dollars to redraw the images and to remake the plates that print and stamp our money. Leave it the heck alone!

If anyone is so sensitive as to be "offended" by such a benign phrase, then they have entirely too much time on their hands.

So, we shouldn't worry about righting the wrongs of the past if it may cost too much to do so? It was spending before, and cost a great deal of money to incorporate the phrase, yet it didn't keep them from putting it on.

Things began changing in 1993, when a revamped online gaming company turned ISP called America Online dropped their hourly plan and became unlimited for a monthly fee. Yes, there are atheists groups that have been active far longer, but the lesser known but just as valid religions have always been in the background, practically unheard of by the general population.

When this happened, millions, yes millions of new subscribers obtained internet access. AOL had hundreds of forums and chatrooms on every subject, including nearly every religion known. If it didn't, then user could create rooms. The country's solitaries began finding each other, and made an incredible discovery. There were lots, lots, LOTS more of them that any of them thought; and now, they were in contact, coming together, forming organizations. And most aggravating of all to the religious conservatives, demanding their rights. Rights that they are afforded under the constitution, but were afraid to ask for because they had felt so outnumbered before.

I have no idea what you are talking about.