- I am a Christian. More specifically I suppose I would be one of those "evangelical" or "conservative" Christians.
- This issue seems essentially to be one of semantics. How one defines the concept of persecution. However, context is also important. In regard to global persecution what the film cited in the OP is concerned with IMO would not be on the same level. But within the context of the liberal, secular, safe, first amendment protected USA, the idea of the film has some meaning.
- I believe very strongly in the Establishment Clause and as both a Christian and a citizen of the USA I recognize that I live my live within two sometimes conflicting "realms". I personally take no issue with the need for Creationism to be taught in public schools because as an intrinsically religious concept it doesn't have a place in a secular environment. Teach it and refute evolution in Sunday School if necessary. But back to the point of the OP not teaching Creationism in public school doesn't amount to persecution. Other than my taxes being used to fund actions which I consider to be immoral (homosexual marriage/ abortion) I can live with what the secular state democratically decides. The government should stay out of my church as much as my church should stay out of your bedroom.
- I think what is actually happening in the USA is a cultural shift towards the left and a secular world view. Persecution seems to require some organized effort by a group with real power and needs to be aimed at an actual person or group and not just an idea.
-Regarding some of the statements about atheists ability to serve in the public sector as evidence of persecution, I think this is not a real argument for much the same reasons as I gave above. These laws are remnants of the past and like the hundreds of really stupid laws on the books they would never be seriously pursued or enforced. My thought is that atheists should stop this unbecoming whining and just run for office. After all the times they are a'changin....
Most Academic scholars agree he existed, due to the evidence that he did indeed exist. However I've never really found Jesus being a White man to be very believable, he was born in the Middle-East 2,000 years ago...so my question is, was Jesus instead of a light brown colour?
When I hear the term "white" I think European or Caucasian. If that is what you mean then the biblical Jesus was not "white". Theologically it is important that He is a descendant of David. All the biblical genealogy passages make it clear that He was a Jew and therefore would be ethnically Semitic. As with all ethnic groups there are variations in melanin content within the skin and it should be expected that Jesus would have fallen within the normal range of melanin content for a Semitic person in Palestine in the first century.