My new favorite definition - CHRISTOPHOBIC.

[NonServiam]

I never said anything about the ACLU.

My apologies for misreading. My eye passed over what you wrote, and it must have added a word.

What you said was that: “Therefore, anyone who criticizes you for doing so *, might not only be Christophobic, they may also have a problem with American Civil Liberties.”

Technically speaking, your rights do not protect you from criticism. I can criticize your beliefs and practices all day until the cows come home, and you can criticize any of my beliefs and practices. When someone moves from merely criticizing you and tries to prevent you from expressing yourself, then that is a violation of your rights.

In fact, many would argue that the only interest they have is to protect the “civil liberties” of the most liberal in America. In my opinion the ACLU has been at war against God for years now but that’s a whole different discussion altogether.

Well, since I posted a link that contains lots of stories of the ACLU defending Christians who express their faith in public (for example, defending the rights of Christian students to wear their holy symbol in school), I’d be curious how you reconcile what you say here with the facts.

As far as your comment regarding my own “little reality bubble”… I first heard this term, “Christophobic” while watching TV News and then when I found the article regarding American, professional (NFL) football quarterback - Tim Tebow (link below), I then decided to post this tread.

I think the word will only ever be popular amongst a small bubble of people who are actually confused enough to think that the rights of Christians are seriously under attack in some large-scale way.*

 

[zaffiroborant]

My new favorite definition - CHRISTOPHOBIC.

---

CHRISTOPHOBIA -

---

"An Anti-Christian sentiment which is an opposition to some or all Christians, the Christian religion, or the practices and beliefs found in Christianity. Christophobia or Christianophobia are also names for “every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians”.
**
**

I think I have found something that all us Christians can agree on, Protestants and Catholic. The next time you’re called " _ _ _ _ -Phobic" (you fill in the blank), because you choice to side with Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ, now you can asked if that person is Christophobic.

Also, in America the First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitutionis part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion,** impeding the ****free exercise of religion, abridging the f**reedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assembleor prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

In other words, if you are attacked or criticized by someone for exercising or expressing your religious rights, freedoms or beliefs, you are also being attacked and criticized for exercising your Constitution Rights as an American. Therefore, anyone who criticizes you for doing so, might not only be Christophobic, they may also have a problem with American Civil Liberties.

Your Thoughts?

Newsweek has an article this week on Christophobia
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpmfGkNsLzfgW-hZEj49PT14UtvjuXDNYhcp4bpzQezuPxInby4Q

 

[Dale_M]

Newsweek has an article this week on Christophobia

Not exactly. The cover story is about real persecution of Christians. Not the dainty “persecution” that some Christians in the West endlessly complain about, but actual pay-with-your-life persecution. The sort of persecution which happened in pagan Rome. Its happening around the world and most Christians in the West turn a blind eye because it is happening in Africa or Asia or Oceania.

Here is a link to the cover story.
thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/02/05/ayaan-hirsi-ali-the-global-war-on-christians-in-the-muslim-world.html

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Very amusing, and I completely agree than “~phobia” is used as a kneejerk response to any opinion that doesn’t fall in line with C21st “progressive” “liberal” secularist morality.

However, didn’t our Lord tell us to turn the other cheek? Rather than stooping to the level of the sort of people that accuse others of bigotry, don’t we have a duty instead to clearly and carefully explain why our beliefs are true and why Catholic social teaching isn’t bigotry?

Mm. I was about to say, the best way to lose an argument is to start stooping to the level of the people who are leveling accusations at them.

That said, I’m not a fan of using the term “-phobic”, even though hatred and bigotry can grow out of misplaced fear or “othering” a particular sort of people (ie. Jewish people, African-Americans, immigrants, the disabled, GLBT people, non-Christians, etc. etc).

 

[Hokomai]

Given that many Christians advocate homosexuals’ imprisonment for having sex with each other, and used to actually do that, and far, far worse, would not Christophobia, or Christianophobia be a sensible attitude to adopt?

 

[SonCatcher]

Given that many Christians advocate homosexuals’ imprisonment for having sex with each other, and used to actually do that, and far, far worse, would not Christophobia, or Christianophobia be a sensible attitude to adopt?

No phobia is sensible, regardless of the target or reasons.

 

[JonNC]

Given that many Christians advocate homosexuals’ imprisonment for having sex with each other, and used to actually do that, and far, far worse, would not Christophobia, or Christianophobia be a sensible attitude to adopt?

Source, please.

Jon

 

[Hokomai]

Source, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokomai forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Given that many Christians advocate homosexuals’ imprisonment for having sex with each other, and used to actually do that, and far, far worse, would not Christophobia, or Christianophobia be a sensible attitude to adopt?

Jon as far as I am aware, every Catholic Bishop’s conference has supported the retention of laws prohibiting homosexual acts, and punishing them with imprisonment, whenever these laws have been proposed for repeal. Do you know of an exception? Do you think it sensible to fear people who would imprison you for having sex with your partner?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Jon as far as I am aware, every Catholic Bishop’s conference has supported the retention of laws prohibiting homosexual acts, and punishing them with imprisonment, whenever these laws have been proposed for repeal. Do you know of an exception? Do you think it sensible to fear people who would imprison you for having sex with your partner?

When was the last instance of which you are aware that someone was imprisioned for a consensual homosexual act? and in that instance, if any, what was the involvement of the Catholic Church in securing such conviction?

RIght, wrong or indifferent, this is the same Catholic Church to which you are referring that has been repeatedly condemned for its failure to prevent pedophilic homosexual acts of its own clergy.

Would you now have it condone or be silent on such matters?

Not withstanding the obvious elephant in the room - the real teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

BTW - this has little if anything to do with the OP, so hopefully we can get this thread back on track …

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;8955891:

Source, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hokomai

                 [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8955730#post8955730)                 
             ***Given that many Christians advocate homosexuals' imprisonment for having sex with each other,***   and used to actually do that, and far, far worse, would not  Christophobia, or Christianophobia be a sensible attitude to adopt?

Jon as far as I am aware, every Catholic Bishop’s conference has supported the retention of laws prohibiting homosexual acts, and punishing them with imprisonment, whenever these laws have been proposed for repeal. Do you know of an exception? Do you think it sensible to fear people who would imprison you for having sex with your partner?

Hokomai,
Your original post said “many Christians”. You even said it was a “given”. I simply was asking for a source. Catholic bishops, as important as they are, do not constitute “many Christians”.
Can you name the last time sodomy laws have been enforced here in the US?

Jon

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai;8956748:

Hokomai,
Your original post said “many Christians”. You even said it was a “given”. I simply was asking for a source. Catholic bishops, as important as they are, do not constitute “many Christians”.
Can you name the last time sodomy laws have been enforced here in the US?

Jon

I am not ‘here in the US’, but i will do a Google it is an odd thing to support a law you do not want enforced.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

JonNC;8956855:

I am not ‘here in the US’, but i will do a Google it is an odd thing to support a law you do not want enforced.

It is equally odd to focus on laws which are rarely enforced except in the most totalitarian and oppressive of regimes, with laws normally rooted in something other than Judeo-Christian ethical and moralistic views.

 

[PRmerger]

Jon as far as I am aware, every Catholic Bishop’s conference has supported the retention of laws prohibiting homosexual acts, and punishing them with imprisonment, whenever these laws have been proposed for repeal. Do you know of an exception? Do you think it sensible to fear people who would imprison you for having sex with your partner?

Could you please provide a quote from a Catholic Bishop’s conference that details this?

It should include the words “homosexual” and “imprisonment” (some variation of the words is acceptable).

Thanks.

 

[Hokomai]

Could you please provide a quote from a Catholic Bishop’s conference that details this?

It should include the words “homosexual” and “imprisonment” (some variation of the words is acceptable).

Thanks.

Here’s one. At the time homosexual adult male activity was punishable by imprisonment, and there were people in prison for that offence in this jurisdiction. the Bishops were urging no change in the law.

catholic.org.nz/news/fx-view-article.cfm?ctype=BSART&loadref=51&id=95

 

[SonCatcher]

Here’s one. At the time homosexual adult male activity was punishable by imprisonment, and there were people in prison for that offence in this jurisdiction. the Bishops were urging no change in the law.

catholic.org.nz/news/fx-view-article.cfm?ctype=BSART&loadref=51&id=95

That letter does not discuss punishment but pastoral care. The author also takes care to emphasize the falsely perceived connection between legality and morality as being the problem with law change.

From the letter:
Recognition of the human and civil rights of homosexual persons means that, like heterosexual persons, their conduct should not be proscribed by criminal law except to the extent that it threatens the rights of others. In addition to the question of whether homosexual activity is morally right or wrong, society must determine, from time to time, in the light of experience and of the behavioural sciences, whether and in what circumstances it constitutes any threat to the common good.

Some danger to the common good results not directly from law reform, but indirectly from the widespread assumption that what is legally permissible is therefore also morally acceptable. There are some who even try to promote this false equation between what is legal and what is moral. They cannot expect our support. On the other hand, there are others who advocated change in the law for humanitarian reasons and not because they believe homosexual activity is morally acceptable.

The author does not dissuade change of law on humanitarian grounds. Indeed, they encourage periodic reevaluation of the law.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Here’s one. At the time homosexual adult male activity was punishable by imprisonment, and there were people in prison for that offence in this jurisdiction. the Bishops were urging no change in the law.

catholic.org.nz/news/fx-view-article.cfm?ctype=BSART&loadref=51&id=95

Nice citation. Did you actually bother to read the article?

Concern for the dignity of persons leads us to oppose all forms of unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

Didn’t take long to stumble upon this primary point.

 

[Hokomai]

Nice citation. Did you actually bother to read the article?.

Yes. there is absolutely no doubt that this was a call to maintain a law providing for the imprisonment of people for consenting adult sexual acts; a law which was enforced from time to time. This statement is written in the usual fuzzy Bishopese, but if you look at the history of law reform they were addressing, you will be on no doubt at all as to what was intended.

Can you, in contrast, give an example of the Church promoting the decriminalisation of adult consenting sexual behaviour? I am aware that the Church is opposed to the Catholic Robert Mugabe’s (President of Zimbabwe’s) efforts to make them worse, but I do not think they have argued for their repeal.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes. there is absolutely no doubt that this was a call to maintain a law providing for the imprisonment of people for consenting adult sexual acts; a law which was enforced from time to time. This statement is written in the usual fuzzy Bishopese, but if you look at the history of law reform they were addressing, you will be on no doubt at all as to what was intended.

This is a pastoral letter. It is not addressed to law enforcement officials, politicians or legislators. Citing this as proof of your argument is, at best, strange.

Can you, in contrast, give an example of the Church promoting the decriminalisation of adult consenting sexual behaviour?

I’m not making an argument here - you are (or so it seems).

I am aware that the Church is opposed to the Catholic Robert Mugabe’s (President of Zimbabwe’s) efforts to make them worse, but I do not think they have argued for their repeal.

Unsubstantiated point needing a reference or citation. Please provide one so that others may consider and comment accordingly.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;8956855:

I am not ‘here in the US’, but i will do a Google it is an odd thing to support a law you do not want enforced.

this was the point of why I asked for a source. Where did I say I supported such laws?

Jon

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai;8957659:

this was the point of why I asked for a source. Where did I say I supported such laws?

Jon

Sorry John I did not mean to imply that you did. I had in mind those who advocate the retention of provisions which criminalise homosexuality, but who emphasise that they are rarely enforced. this I think is the category most of the official Church statements come under, with the stress on ‘the law as a teacher’. my views is that yes, it teaches, but it does other things as well.