Thoughts? Yes? No? Why?
No. There’s animosity toward Christianity among some groups, and to a degree, it’s earned. I also think many Christian groups, including some Catholics, have invented their own stories of persecution that aren’t what they make them out to be.
Compared to what?
No, I wouldn’t call it persecution or oppression. I would definitely say there is anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigotry, without question, and that remains among the kinds of bigotry that are the most widely tolerated. Even that is nothing like the kind of bigotry that was endured by Catholics in this country in previous eras. It is a fraction of what it once was, both in scope and in severity.
OK, but we’ve had a President and Supreme Court justices of African ancestry, too, and I hope no one thinks this means there isn’t bigotry to the point of murderous crimes of hatred based on skin color.
No, that isn’t persecution as some parts of this globe know persecution. We still have the rule of law. Having said that, our country is by no means a utopia of mutual respect, either.
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
And we should rejoice in it!
2 Corinthians 12:10:
For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
“Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets."
Disclaimer – I am expressing my opinion and not looking for validaiton or argument, so I limit my input to a single post per thread. Send me a PM, and I will be happy to continue the discussion without monopolizing this fine venue.
I’d argue that “soft persecution “ is already underway: the bigotry expressed in congressional screening of appointments; the subtle pressure to avoid using the word “Christmas “ in public; the freedom with which entertainers openly mock traditional values to wide acclaim; the fact that simply believing in traditional marriage is sufficient to be branded a bigot, and generate boycotts if you own a business.
I hate to use the word persecution to describe what we are facing because it’s nowhere near what our brethren in the Middle East face. But, anti-Christian bigotry and, in particular, anti-Catholicism is in the US, not only socially acceptable, but fashionable.
Overall, it’s getting harder for people who hold any sort of views that can be considered conservative. Not even people who are mostly left-leaning are safe if they step out of line.
No. We occasionally face a negative opinion.
Which is hardly the same thing as what went on in 2nd century Rome, or what’s going on in present day Iraq.
I’m not sure it’s so much specifically aimed at Christians as it is at anyone who holds conservative views. Liberalism in this country is aggressive and on the attack.
I also don’t believe that Christians “earn” animosity anymore than some African Americans or Muslims or Jews “earn” animosity toward their group.
Is it hard to be a well-formed Catholic in America today? Yes,.but it is nor persecution as I understand it. Nazi Germany was persecution of the Jews, the Roman pits were persecution, Reformation England was persecution. This is societal disapproval as much as anything.
Disapproved, yes. Persecuted, no.
Right. Fr. James Martin, or any priest who works with refugees, is likely to get applause from the liberals and the media.
The willingness to persecute those who hold to natural law and to think that persecution is a defense of what is right is definitely on the rise. There is definitely going to be a period of negotiation about what “tolerance” means. The same goes, actually, for allowing people their own sense of the demands of modesty–I mean wearing the hijab, but let us remember that in the past places like Oregon had laws that limited where religious garb in general could be worn.* There are places where women are defended only for wanting to take off as much clothing as possible, but attacked for wearing too much. This is something that ought to concern us, as well.
(*Oregon had an anti-Catholic law on the books, passed in the 1920s, that forbade public school teachers from wearing religious garb. This was to prevent Catholics in consecrated life from getting jobs in public schools and dressing as Catholic religious. It was finally repealed (over the objections of the ACLU) because Muslim women who wear the hijab were being denied teaching jobs in public schools. Religious jewelry had been allowed, but not clothing that had overtly religious import. If law prohibits the hijab, law could by the same theory prohibit the religious habit or a Roman collar.)
No, although I am aware that not everyone holds that opinion. There are plenty of members of “The Society of the Perpetually Offended” that will say otherwise.
There are lots of denominations in that society. (Which is sort of our problem, lol…)
No. While no where close to persecution I’d say that nonbelievers have it harder than most Christians. What many here are alluding to wrt values falls under a broader “what does it mean to be Christian” discussion imo.
I often wonder if a certain subset of Christians are looking for persecution where none exist.
It’s hard to take the claims seriously when something as innocuous as a plain red holiday cup can set them off.
Because if we lift our heads up and look around the world, we will see what persecution looks like.
We are occasionally inconvenienced and often disgruntled.
Not as I would define persecution