Top 10 Worst Places to Live as a Christian

[Marie]

2008 World Watch List
1. North Korea
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. Maldives
5. Bhutan
6. Yemen
7. Afghanistan
8. Laos
9. Uzbekistan
10. China

Will England or France be next?

Top 10 Worst Places to Live as a Christian | Christianpost.com

 

[ItalianScallion]

Nope. The USA will be next!

 

[2ndAmendment]

Nope. The USA will be next!

I don't know about next, but it will certainly be on the list in the future as will all the world. I find it amazing that the general public find it acceptable to criticize or denigrate or even kill Christians but Christians are expected to be tolerant of other religions. Signs of the times in which we live.

 

[Larry Gude]

Non sense...

I don't know about next, but it will certainly be on the list in the future as will all the world. I find it amazing that the general public find it acceptable to criticize or denigrate or even kill Christians but Christians are expected to be tolerant of other religions. Signs of the times in which we live.

...utter non sense.

Quit with the doom and gloom and grab you a newspaper. Religious persecution, globally, is nothing new for any faith and the current score card may show idiotic places like the UK and France giving themselves away, but, religious affiliation in the US is at all time highs in terms of self described church goers and believers, overwhelmingly Christian.

Further, the global scorecard shows the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait, seated, for all time, in the heart of the Holy lands, importing modern Christianity, sex, drugs and rock and roll (and modern liberalism) liberally.

Osama bin Laden has done more damage to his faith in the last 6 years than the previous 1300 years combined, all to the benefit of Western culture, including Christianity, and the fundamental Western tenets of understanding, forgiveness, individuality and peace and prosperity.

France and the UK are suffering from not only suicidal social policies, but from their soft and, perhaps, hard racism of not allowing foreigners full access to all of society.

We, the US, are not suffering because, more than any one religion, we live under a constitution that protects freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For all.

 

[MMDad]

2008 World Watch List
1. North Korea
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. Maldives
5. Bhutan
6. Yemen
7. Afghanistan
8. Laos
9. Uzbekistan
10. China

Will England or France be next?

Top 10 Worst Places to Live as a Christian | Christianpost.com

Those places pretty much suck for everyone, not just christians. Would you want to go to Yemen or Uzbekistan if they were christian friendly? So why would you care that they aren't?

 

[Sorceress]

Hmm religious persecution? I would say that is everywhere already even in the US...it doesn't have to be christian, islam or jewish...there are other beliefs that take the heat as much as these do they just don't get reported. The problem is the intolerance of all religions to other ways of worship. Everyone states that their religion is the truth...thank God that at least the US was founded on having freedom to choose which way to live out your spiritual journey.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...utter non sense.

Quit with the doom and gloom and grab you a newspaper. Religious persecution, globally, is nothing new for any faith and the current score card may show idiotic places like the UK and France giving themselves away, but, religious affiliation in the US is at all time highs in terms of self described church goers and believers, overwhelmingly Christian.

Further, the global scorecard shows the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait, seated, for all time, in the heart of the Holy lands, importing modern Christianity, sex, drugs and rock and roll (and modern liberalism) liberally.

Osama bin Laden has done more damage to his faith in the last 6 years than the previous 1300 years combined, all to the benefit of Western culture, including Christianity, and the fundamental Western tenets of understanding, forgiveness, individuality and peace and prosperity.

France and the UK are suffering from not only suicidal social policies, but from their soft and, perhaps, hard racism of not allowing foreigners full access to all of society.

We, the US, are not suffering because, more than any one religion, we live under a constitution that protects freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For all.

Yeah ... and the Constitution is protecting free speech (McCain-Feingold) and protecting our borders (McCain-Kennedy - thank goodness it didn't pass) and protecting our Forth Amendment rights ... uh ... except when the government wants your property to build a shopping mall.

Yeah, Larry, you keep on believing that the Constitution is being obeyed by the government. We only have religious freedom so long as it suits their purposes.

 

[Larry Gude]

You'll...

Yeah ... and the Constitution is protecting free speech (McCain-Feingold) and protecting our borders (McCain-Kennedy - thank goodness it didn't pass) and protecting our Forth Amendment rights ... uh ... except when the government wants your property to build a shopping mall.

Yeah, Larry, you keep on believing that the Constitution is being obeyed by the government. We only have religious freedom so long as it suits their purposes.

...notice that I am not arguing all is just as it should be, but simply arguing that the end is not nigh and, just maybe, things aren't as bad as some might think.

That's not fire and brimstone black and white clarity, but it is my opinion.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...notice that I am not arguing all is just as it should be, but simply arguing that the end is not nigh and, just maybe, things aren't as bad as some might think.

That's not fire and brimstone black and white clarity, but it is my opinion.

Maybe or maybe not. Certain portions of the Bible are classified as hate speech in Canada. If a minister chooses to preach those parts of the Bible, they can be imprisoned. That happened in very short order with the passing of a law.

We do not live under freedom anymore. Freedom is an illusion. When the government can control what you eat, drink, smoke, and do, we are no longer free. Too many say, "There ought to be a law against ..." and in a short time there is one. Just because a portion of the populace does not like something does not mean is should be against the law.

This is getting political and departing from the subject. But if a law can be passed to keep people from smoking (I don't smoke) or eating trans fats (I prefer lard.), then a law can be passed outlawing portions of the Bible. The slippery slope is real.

 

[Gwydion]

When the government can control what you eat, drink, smoke, and do, we are no longer free.

What?

 

[tommyjones]

Maybe or maybe not. Certain portions of the Bible are classified as hate speech in Canada. If a minister chooses to preach those parts of the Bible, they can be imprisoned. That happened in very short order with the passing of a law.

We do not live under freedom anymore. Freedom is an illusion. When the government can control what you eat, drink, smoke, and do, we are no longer free. Too many say, "There ought to be a law against ..." and in a short time there is one. Just because a portion of the populace does not like something does not mean is should be against the law.

This is getting political and departing from the subject. But if a law can be passed to keep people from smoking (I don't smoke) or eating trans fats (I prefer lard.), then a law can be passed outlawing portions of the Bible. The slippery slope is real.

I didn't realize that smoking and lard were protected by the constitution....

sometimes the slippery slope is in your head

 

[2ndAmendment]

I didn't realize that smoking and lard were protected by the constitution....

sometimes the slippery slope is in your head

Seems not much is in your head. It is obvious you don't know much about the Constitution.

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution does not give the government the right to regulate whether people smoke or what they eat. Most of what the Dept. of Health and Human Services does is not authorized under the powers granted by the Constitution. Each state constitution or constituting document have similar grants of power and safe guards of rights of the citizens. Maryland approaches the smoking ban through the licensing of businesses, but the power is not granted in the Maryland Constitution, so it is an abuse of power by the legislature.

 

[Larry Gude]

I disagree...

Maryland approaches the smoking ban through the licensing of businesses, but the power is not granted in the Maryland Constitution, so it is an abuse of power by the legislature.

...there. I think a government has a responsibility to things like building and fire codes and safety regulations to serve the general welfare. Where I disagree with Maryland is whether or not cigarettes in a bar, a place you go to smoke and drink in public, is a proper concern. It, obviously, is not. Maryland courts have an obligation now to decide if the state has gone too far or not.

Not holding my breathe.

 

[tommyjones]

Seems not much is in your head. It is obvious you don't know much about the Constitution.

The Constitution does not give the government the right to regulate whether people smoke or what they eat. Most of what the Dept. of Health and Human Services does is not authorized under the powers granted by the Constitution. Each state constitution or constituting document have similar grants of power and safe guards of rights of the citizens. Maryland approaches the smoking ban through the licensing of businesses, but the power is not granted in the Maryland Constitution, so it is an abuse of power by the legislature.

the bans you are talking about are taking place at the state level. according to the constitution, thats ok.....

its obvious to me that you are only interested in the constitution when it suits your needs and wants.

 

[Toxick]

the bans you are talking about are taking place at the state level. according to the constitution, thats ok.....

Well, if the power is not granted at the federal level...

AND the power is also not granted at the state level i.e. the Maryland Constitution....


...Then don't you think that approaching a ban through clever licensing policies is an abuse of power?

its obvious to me that you are only interested in the constitution when it suits your needs and wants.

 

[2ndAmendment]

the bans you are talking about are taking place at the state level. according to the constitution, thats ok.....

its obvious to me that you are only interested in the constitution when it suits your needs and wants.

Abuse of power is abuse of power and usurping of rights is usurping of rights no matter what level it takes place.

And as is typical of your posts, they are of no interest to me.

 

[vegmom]

2008 World Watch List
1. North Korea
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Iran
4. Maldives
5. Bhutan
6. Yemen
7. Afghanistan
8. Laos
9. Uzbekistan
10. China

Will England or France be next?

Top 10 Worst Places to Live as a Christian | Christianpost.com

Hate to break it to you, but those are all places most people -Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. would not put on their "Top Places to Live" list.

 

[tommyjones]

Well, if the power is not granted at the federal level...

AND the power is also not granted at the state level i.e. the Maryland Constitution....


...Then don't you think that approaching a ban through clever licensing policies is an abuse of power?

thats not at all what this says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

what it says is that things that are not delegated to the fed, or prohibited by the constitution, are reserved for the states to govern.

well news flash, the states are governing these issues. it doesn't have to be spelled out in the consitution that they can, just not spelled out in it that they can't.

 

[Toxick]

thats not at all what this says


what it says is that things that are not delegated to the fed, or prohibited by the constitution, are reserved for the states to govern.

well news flash, the states are governing these issues. it doesn't have to be spelled out in the consitution that they can, just not spelled out in it that they can't.

You're so cute when you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[tommyjones]

You're so cute when you're being deliberately obtuse.

right back atcha


seriously, how can you take anything else from that passage. Its clear as can be and has been set in precedent throughout the years through court decisions...... the states have the right to regulate anything not delegated to the fed, or that is prohibited for them to regualte in the constitution.