Christian persecution in the United Kingdom

Post Reply New Topic

Hardly anyone in the UK celebrates Christmas for religious reasons. They do it because it's fun and it's time when everyone is off work, so it's easy to get together as a family. Why would anyone stop doing that because they don't believe the story they were told at school about a baby being born?

Back to the main topic:
As a Christian I find people are more apathetic and they tend to presume they know why you believe what you do, rather than trying to understand why. It's not in-your-face persecution, it's just people either not caring or feeling they need to make sure one group doesn't have a monopoly in a multicultural country, which makes sense to me. Especially if they've had a bad experience with religion. They just think you're deluded or silly. I've met plenty of people who respect me too.

Someone commented that following what one considers guidance from a higher source is equal to not thinking about things, and though that may be true of some people who have blind faith, I don't doubt they exist, it takes time and experience to really, truly trust something to the extent you're willing to put your life in its hands. It can take time and research and living your life that way long enough to see the positives it brings to you, not privileges, but wholesome benefits, for instance overcoming anger and finding peace. That's true of faiths in general, not just Christianity.

"Yes I'm Hot in This" is a good comic written by a Muslim woman that I think people of other faiths can relate to. Her acquaintance Susan just doesn't get it.

She's American, but in general the British find faith a personal subject and they don't like discussing personal things at all in general. It's just British culture. Keep yourself to yourself. That's the way we are.

I find it weird that my dentist receptionist can get away with putting religious things up in the reception area. I think there was a cross and some religiously worded message about Easter, not just "Happy Easter". I'm a Christian and I've contemplated complaining. It should be welcoming to all. If I were gay I think I'd not go in. I've wondered if she'd be awkward with me if she found out I'm not Catholic. She's a bit snippy at the best of times. Am I I trying to persecute her? No. I just want anyone and everyone to feel comfortable getting treatment for their teeth.

I love this, Hurtloam!

No, virtue signalling is just that, doing something to signal your virtue, nothing to do with being part of the group or not. Trying to say that your identity as part of a religion means you respect them in the face of apparently being disadvantaged because of perceived persecution, is virtue signalling.

Virtue signalling in itself is not necessarily a good or bad thing, but in accusing someone of it has a certain level of implying a person is just trying to boost their image, rather than actually being a held belief. That if you actually held that belief or virtue, you wouldn't need to signal it. The thing is that it has been getting redefined by those on the Right to attack more progressive practices as being frivolous in supporting groups that might not even be their own.

Even if the majority of people who celebrate it are not doing so for religious reasons, doesn't mean that special significance is not being paid to something especially relevant to Christian beliefs. That there may even be a stronger likelihood that the religious significance, birth of Jesus, isn't more likely to be spread than some other religion's practices.



I think you could be onto something with not caring beyond not having too much of a cultural monopoly. And some people seem to take that as some special kind of persecution, where you even get some people who go so far as saying something silly like they are the most persecuted group.

That's one way to spin things, I guess.

If, as you say, virtue signaling involves pretending to support a cause, but not actually doing anything about it, then the comment made by Fnord, myself, et al, can't be virtue signaling. One, because we're not supporting something, let alone pretending to support something - quite the contrary we are expressing a lack of support for a "cause". Two, when you oppose an idea, you act upon that by not supporting it. Inaction is still an action, to some degree. And three, "life isn't fair, don't be such a whiney little child about it" is hardly a popular opinion that "boosts one's status", as you put it. Nobody likes being told to "grow th'fuq up". It's not even a bumper sticker or a t-shirt or anything.

So, if you're not a member of a group, you're not allowed to show support for it? Cos it sounds like you're saying that if someone supports a group they personally are not a member of, then you get to call it virtue signaling. I feel like the standard reply is "no, I mean if they SAY they support it just to look good!" Well how do you know? Are you a psychic? Are you all-knowing? How do you know how much or how little someone else supports something? Or is it just a convenient excuse to dismiss people? "You're only supporting (That Cause) for Internet Points!" Skippy, you only know any of us as lines of text on a website. Dafuq you know about what people do when not here, to know oh-so-confidently that they don't actually support the causes they say they do.

Amusingly, I often hear this kind of argument from people who only support things that benefit themselves, and can't be bothered with other people's problems. I suppose in a mind that only acts in self-interest, I could see how genuine concern for others which doesn't benefit one's self might be mistaken for an opportunity to improve one's status. It's not like championing your own interests is inherently virtuous. That's just common selfish self-interest.

When you've only known special treatment, it doesn't seem like special treatment - it seems like normal treatment. Cos it's how you're normally treated. If you're whining about being treated like everyone else, then I daresay you're whining about a loss of privilege. Cos why would being treated like everyone else be "unfair", unless you think you deserve special different treatment than what everyone else gets.

And as for gaslighting, you'd think telling a spoiled child that they won't always get what they want is "gaslighting", the way some people invoke the term. Christianity's whole appeal is being on the inside track with God. They think they are in the favor of, following the commands of, the actual creator of the universe. Jesus is my copilot, and god is my salvation! You can't tell me that that doesn't make people think they're special. Like they're privy to a big cosmic secret of salvation. And while it's nice that they want to share it, that doesn't change how they see themselves, and how they see others as a result.

"They wouldn't let me do science cos I'm a christian!" I'd bet a clean crisp fiver that they wouldn't let them do science cos they listen to Jesus more than they listen to the results of science. Sort of like how Pascal's Wager presents itself as "logic", but also boldly assumes that christianity is in fact the correct true religion to bet on. Science is easy when "God" is the answer for everything!

It's funny how if "the voice of god" tells you to feed the homeless, you're a "christian", but if the "voice of Zagnor the Mighty" tells you to feed the homeless, you're a weirdo. "But God is REAL!" And yet if someone said that the "voice of god" told them to eat the homeless, they'd probably be labeled a schizophrenic. But I keep hearing that "god works in mysterious ways", and the story of god commanding abraham to sacrifice isaac, so how do we now that god did not in fact want that person to eat the homeless?

I mean, murder and suicide are both sins, but if one man is starving and the homeless man is suffering, if god commands him to eat the homeless man, it is neither murder, nor suicide, relieving them both from suffering, at god's will. And I'm sure god would intervene at the last second and give the man some chick-fil-a to eat instead.

Have you read the bible? It has some wild freaken stories in it. And if it's a metaphor, then why take it so damn seriously? Why even need the magic god stuff to begin with? Just boil it down to the necessary parts, and lose the "once upon a time..." crap.

That comment was written by me. And I would strongly advice against trusting anybody or anything other than logic.

To trust someone or some book only leads to disappointment and general failure of life itself.

You may find "peace" but it is a false sense of security.

We will need to agree to disagree on that one. I know many happy, non-failures who have a faith. They get to decide the worth of their existence, not you. What you call failure; they enjoy and find peace in.

Hello! <waves>Truth!Many of us also have friends on both sides of the issue, and do not live inside echo chambers in some remote ivory tower.

What I don't get is that people want to categorize themselves as either "Christian", "Muslim" or "Atheist".

Why the need to label yourself?

I have views which resemble Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Buddhism.
I both believe in God and I don't. I have both leftist and rightist opinions. I have authoritarian and liberal opinions as well.

Even agnosticism does not fully describe me, because agnosticism = don't know what to believe.
I know what to believe.

I'm not both a Christian and Atheist. I'm neither. I'm me. You should be you.
Don't let some book tell you what to think. That's stupid.

Likely for similar reasons that some people want to label themselves as "Male", "Female", "Lesbian", "Gay", "Bisexual", "Trans-sexual", "Queer, "Curious", or "Other".

Well, it's not like people grow up in completely non-religious bubbles, and then one day pick up a bible or a torah or a quran and start reading it for the first time, and go "you know what, I'm gonna do what this book says!" - people grow up already surrounded by beliefs which they are taught are "true" - to them, they're not letting "a book" tell them what to do - they're letting GOD tell them what to do, because they grew up being taught that the bible is the word of god, and totally accurate and true.

Even that aside, sometimes people do figure out who they are on their own, and then discover later that who they are does in fact already have a word or words to describe it. And being able to describe things facilitates the ability to communicate. Just cos you think that none of these words describe you, doesn't mean that other people don't think they fit just fine.

Lastly, note that even though you do have both "lefty" and "righty" opinions, you are still able to recognize and label them as such. Having labeled then does not invalidate the complexity or duality of their existence.

tl;dr

As I skim over the end of that big wall of text, it seems to me that you're under the impression that I'm a Christian myself, when I've made it clear in this thread that I'm not. I think Dox47 was right about you loving the sound of your own voice (or whatever the internet forum equivalent of that is).

Last edited by slam_thunderhide on 04 Jan 2022, 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A few things...

So, you didn't read it, but you think that I think you're a christian? How did you get that impression of you didn't read it? Oh, right, you "skimmed" it. So you did, but you didn't? Skimming sometimes missed details. Go back and read it fully. THEN complain.

The topic is literally about christians. It's not exactly surprising that I'd mention them. That doesn't mean I think you are one. And if that's your biggest complaint (well, that and the horrible length!), then I'd say you're just looking for things to complain about. And boy did you pick a low hanging fruit.

If I am so in love with the sound of my own voice, then how come I make so few posts, in so few places? You'd think I'd be posting all over the place, if I were that in love with my own words. And yet, while the individual posts may be "long" (if you have a really low bar for what constitutes "long), there are terribly few of them. In fact, why would I even bother to reply, why would I not simply just start hordes of my own threads?

More than a few members here write large "walls of text" (PS, it's not actually a "wall of text" if it has actual spaces between paragraphs, even if it is "long") as well. Do you feel the same about them? That anyone who writes a lot must be in love with themselves somehow? Does that mean autistics who infodump are actually just self-absorbed? C'mon now, be consistent.

Some people seem to get the impression that I'm writing "a lot". This is just a few paragraphs. You do know that people write whole books, right? What I write may seem long to you, but relatively speaking, it really isn't.
Whining about text being "too long" and projecting negativity onto people who write "at length" just give people a means to measure your reading and writing skill.

Though, it's not entirely inappropriate for this topic. Any inconvenience can be reframed as "persecution". Some might say that that sounds like "gaslighting!", and to that I would say, yes, it certainly can be seen that way. Maybe that's cos logical fallacies don't care who wields them. Logical fallacies even recognize the existence of the fallacy-fallacy, wherein something is called a logical fallacy, even though it isn't. For example, a genuinely abusive person can still whine about how you keep "bringing up the past", for pointing out their actual pattern of abusing you.

Realistically, the only proper way to tell the difference is to investigate. Strangely, many times if you ask people for specifics, they act like you're attacking them. "Why are you doubting me?!" Uh, to find out exactly what happened, to make sure, and not just take your word for it?

If christians are being persecuted, before we go running off to make some heads roll or w/e, how about we investigate a little first? And if they are, then we not only can do something, but we'd have a better idea of what to do, too, cos we'd know the details that need to be addressed.

For better or worse, too often the "persecution" in question turns out to be "happy holidays" or other people not taking their beliefs as seriously as they do.

I'm not aware of any Christian sect that requires its members to pray at set times throughout the day. Islam does. That's why Muslims get accommodated prayer breaks (and prayer rooms etc.) and Christians don't.

This is an autism website, so I'll use a metaphor that people here are likely to understand: It's like how some students are allowed to have their fidget spinner out during class while others aren't. A neurotypical student sees another student playing with a fidget spinner and doesn't understand why he isn't allowed to have one. Did I just compare Salah to stimming? Yes, I did. Am I going to Hell now?

[edit] Not to beat a dead horse, but this really just speaks to the entitlement of the average white Christian male IMHO. You see that another religious group has accommodations for prayer, you don't need those accomodations, but you're upset that this other group has something that you don't have, so you claim you're being "persecuted" and try to make it everyone else's problem. It's an emotionally immature dog-in-the-manger type of mentality that I expect most people would have grown out of by late adolescence, but some people never do.

Christianity shouldn't be prioritised above other ideologies just because it is historically dominant. That would obviously lead to some pretty ugly conclusions.

It's frankly laughable to suggest that Christians have less of a voice than travellers or trans people. Christians have special places reserved for them in the House of Lords, which no other group does. The Church of England is the official state religion. Justin Welby, Rowan Williams, John Sentamu, Richard Coles, every living former Prime Minister, more current MPs than you can shake a stick at, and half the media including Isabel Hardiman herself. No, everyone disagreeing with you isn't a sign that you are right. Most people are not Galileo.

As someone who is trans, I can tell you from my lived experience - Christian voices in the UK are far less impacting than trans voices.

All of the corporate media until very recently with the introduction of GB News, discussed transgender issues regularly, with seldom a mention of Christianity.