<not getting into the current turn in this discussion -- yet
>
Rus: I owe you an apology. I’ve been jumping a few steps in my argument, and misunderstanding yours a little. I’m going to take one more crack at this because I still think I have a valid point.
I think, now, what you are saying is that Christians in America feel that they are being marginalized unfairly, because they believe they know what’s true and it’s being discounted. I concede that they could well be feeling that way. I’m not here to invalidate anybody’s feelings.
My point is that you’re only looking at it from the Christian viewpoint. Muslims, too, believe they know what’s true. So do Jews. So do Baha’is, and Pagans, and atheists. (Notice I’ve left out agnostics, since they can’t decide what’s true, by definition.
) Heck, members of different Christian denominations can’t agree on what’s true, as we’ve seen here in this thread. And we have no independent way to confirm who’s right. Therefore, the government has two alternatives: (1) pick a side and favor one religion over another; (2) allow everybody to practice any religion they want. Choice (1) essentially leads to the establishment of a state religion, which is against the Constitution. So the government’s only real choice is (2).
I acknowledge that it’s uncomfortable for Christians to see the American culture become more pluralistic. But try to imagine yourself as a non-Christian – say, a Muslim – in America. The Constitution guarantees you freedom of religion, yet your neighbors may discriminate against you. Imagine yourself a Jewish kid in public school the ‘50s who might have had to either pray to Jesus Christ or be sent to the principal’s office.
That’s why I said religious truth is irrelevant to the discussion. Everybody believes they know the truth. The government is prevented from picking sides. Fairness dictates that everyone’s faith is granted the same accommodation. It sucks for the Christian majority, I grant you. But it has sucked for the followers of other religions for the past 230-plus years.
Cybrweez: I’ve been putting off responding to your question to me, about how I would have reacted as a Roman to the advent of Christianity. My initial reaction was to say something like, “Considering that my ancestors were Celts and Slavs, they probably would have had enough of the Romans by then too.” But that seemed too flippant, so I waited, and thought about it, and here’s what I can tell you.
At that time, Roman culture was on its last legs. The establishment was given to excess, to put it mildly, and there was a huge gap between rich and poor. Given my liberal leanings, and given the things Jesus said about the moneychangers and God’s love and all the rest, I might well have been drawn to Jesus and his followers myself.
But I say that with a caveat. I tend to distrust gurus in general. And despite my political leanings, I have never done anything as rash as, for example, giving up my comfortable middle-class life to join a commune. So I expect that I would have been conflicted over the rise of Christianity: disgusted with the regime, feeling some resonance with Jesus’ message, yet not likely to be among those who gave up everything to follow him.
