The persecution of Christians in so-called communist regimes is really a side-effect of the fact that these Christian groups are primarily foreign-funded.
That is utter rubbish. Communist regimes had a long history of persecuting their local churches.
You mean like in Syria where the end result has been ISIS?
That's not really a good example since the US and the West didn't back the moderates in a timely fashion. That allowed the Islamist extremists like al Qaida to stream into Syria to form ISIS. If the moderates had been stronger earlier that might not have happened.
I don't think that the current Iranian president is particularly liberal.
As to the Saudis versus the Iranians - at least our friends aren't looking to attack us and work with us on many matters of common interest. You can't really say that about the Iranians.
I'm often impressed by the ability of my critics to find yet another dead end road to travel.
Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
it wasn't that long ago that there were unofficial death sentences for not embracing Christianity, at least for natives sent to the residential schools here in Canada.
Color me skeptical.
On the other hand, persecution of Christians around the world, including murder, is well known. The record of the officially atheist communist regimes was often quite bad.
Go over to several middle-eastern shitholes, and there's plenty of barbaric behavior dressed up in the name of both religions.
Where in the Middle East is all this "Christian" head chopping going on? That isn't really happening, is it?
No, it's because they are of the opinion that it's fantasy designed to scare primitive people into accepting social rules (aka "Law").
No, that is yet another but different mistaken idea that some people have. What I was referring to are the people who think that Hell is where all the "fun" will be so they like the idea of going there. Neither belief nor disbelief in it changes its existence any more than the existence of London or Brigadoon.
The pope essentially said the same thing recently when he said that young people spend too much time on the Internet.
Did he? It looks like you don't quite have that right.
Pope Francis says the Internet is a 'gift from God'
Pope Francis: Internet is a blessing
The Pope's view is a bit more insightful and nuanced than you state.
You should read the article, you're wrong.
There is a meaningful difference. In Iran the government chooses the rules and you have no choice but to comply. In New York the followers of the rabbis choose if they want to comply. They are acknowledging that the various communications technologies are tools, that can be used for good or ill, and they are trying to choose what they believe is good. They are choosing, not the government.
Thank you for sharing about the Philippines, but that isn't quite the same as it notes in the article.
As for the rest, its nonsense. You also overlook the rights of audiences, organizations, and governments to conduct their assemblies for the intended purpose. Your right to free speech doesn't allow you to prevent others from engaging in theirs. You are simply embracing another form of censorship, an attack on free speech, and one popular with fascists by the way. There are 8760 hours in a year. A limitation during 2 of those hours as to where you protest so as to allow another free speech event to take place for the intended purpose is a minor burden at most even if it is worth discussing and some of them go too far. The much bigger problem is what goes on in college campuses.
To be fair they do a lot less chopping off of heads or hands.
Those without the character to resist sin are damned. Except Jesus specifically conserved with, converted, and saved sinners.
It is Christian teaching that everyone needs that salvation from Christ, not only for forgiveness of sin, but to address ones sinful nature.
The ones who chuckle to themselves about going to hell? I think very few actually embrace going to hell.
Plenty do, but that is because they misunderstand the nature of Hell.
And which governments are those? The only enduring "free speech zones" you find in the US on are some college campuses when they are often struck down in court. The only other use I can think of is some limited use during some events or parades. Although there are problematic aspects to their use in the US, it is still a long ways from fascism. Or does the existence of the hecklers veto provide the only true measure of freedom?
Or maybe is just a fan of ASCII art.
Apparently you aren't up on the latest research, which puts you behind the times.
The key bit FTA is here:
“All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.”
In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it. That's overall pretty similar to the thinking of al Qaida and ISIS. Strike up the banjos and play "Dueling Theocracy!" Oops, sorry, no music allowed. Or kite flying.
This is nothing but cultural imperialism - imposing our own, "correct" values at gunpoint and forcing the native peoples to accept it or die.
Women in traditional Muslim countries are pushing for reform as they can. Saudi women drive in protest. Afghan women and girls go to school despite death threats and acid attacks. There are plenty of examples. Why would you think that women would be satisfied with being confined to burkas, forced to be escorted outside the home by a male relative, accept being beaten with sticks, and so on?
P.S. "Islamist" is a right-wing term used only by Islamophobes.
My impression has been that you're usually better informed than that.
Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. -- James F. Byrnes
