There are 2 main definitions and notice that number 2 always comes before number 1.PERSECUTE
transitive verb
1 to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2 to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester
per·se·cu·tion
ˌ
pərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
1-hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
2-persistent annoyance or harassment.
Now read Mr' Ed's comments, what do the readers see?
Please note the following from: Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.
11 more rules Alinsky - “the ethics of means and ends”:
1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue … Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.”
2. “[T]he judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”
3. “n war the end justifies almost any means.”
4. “[J]udgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”
5. “[C]oncern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”
6. “[T]he less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”
7. “[G]enerally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”
8. “[T]he morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”
9. “[A]ny effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”
10. “[Y]ou do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”
11. “[G]oals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”
This is the playbook of the progressive atheist.
Persecutions has its beginnings is mocking and belittling and always beginning with annoying along with persistent harassment and painting the oppressed as less than be respected members of civilization - a demonetization of them begins first and Ed's words are filled will this sort of delusional thinking toward Christians. So sad...
Some folks like Mr Ed simply gets his news to support his irrational delusion against Christians from blogs of questionable repute. What I cited can be found and fast tracked from factual news reporting. Take your pick.
My apologies to Ed in advance. You were set up to expose atheist delusional thinking about Christians being Neanderthalic bigots who conspire to take over the government to impose a form of christian shria law. This is a lie. Christians do not toss gay people off of buildings nor condone the ill treatment of women and children. Mr Ed's crux of his faith is in delusional thinking.
It is this irrationality that is on display in the video and in Ed's own words...
Not much reason to comment on Ed's words or response to me. So please take note of the rules radicals and note these will be used against Christian by the modern militant atheist in discussion and any debates.
Have nice day
-
-
-
, that 80% of Americans are Christians. Right there is your answer. Why christianity has a stronghold on politics, because a democracy should reflect the voice of the people. Absolutely without question there should be seperation of church and state in my opinion. No government should endorse or enforce laws based solely upon religious dogma or ideology, I have stated previously that I believe that is a recipe for disaster. History has clearly shown that communism or theocracy do not work. Democracy although flawed is the best system we have to govern. If you live in a country as stated that 80% of citizens uphold to christianity then the laws will reflect that. Christian political representation will be majority, as the majority voters will be, so therefore your laws will reflect that. Seperate state and church all you like, in this system of government there will be an overlap, and if the majority see to that, then so be it. 
, married situation. Making criminals of women who choose to abort is not the answer. History and facts show that. Subsidised contraception, sex education in schools, making it more viable for mothers to financially support children with schemes such as paid maternal leave, affordable childcare and medical insurance is a much better solution to halter abortions. But the same right wing groups that oppose abortion oppose in my opinion the very solution to help significantly lower abortion statistics. 
