Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Persecuted Christians?

While speaking to a Tea Party crowd in South Carolina on Monday, reports that [Congressman Tim] Scott [R-SC] claimed that Christians are “the greatest minority under assault today,”.


  1. Of course, Scott in South Carolina represents the white people who feel they are the true victims of racism.

    One can not walk a block in most major cities without running afoul of a christian eyesore. What a waste of valuable property.

  2. The relative mistreatment of a group of people has literally nothing to do with its proportion in the population. Majorities can be shoved aside just as minorities can be.

    Furthermore, "Christian" is kind of the default position in our nation because of its Judeo-Christian heritage. I grew up in a small town in the largely secular northeast. Only a small portion of the population went to church, read their Bibles, or displayed any indication that faith was important to their lives. But nearly the whole town was "Christian" if your definition of Christian means that they celebrated Christmas and had a vague concept of a monotheistic God. For the most part, they were non-practicing. Their belief was about as deep as thimble and most of them were biblically illiterate.

    But if you asked them to identify themselves, they would probably check "Christian". That goes a long way to explain your pie chart. These are Christian who haven't seen the inside of a church since their parents made them stop going.

    If you mean actual practicing Christians, yes they (we) are a minority in this country, and their (our) rights are continually trampled on by the government. As a libertarian, I would expect you to stand up for those rights, not to mock us with silly posts such as this one.

    One example that leaps to mind is Obama's latest royal decree on religious organizations being compelled to provide birth control for its employees.


  3. Your graphic seems to start with a false premise and finishes with a false conclusion.

    The premise: That Christians are the vast majority in this country.

    The conclusion: They cannot possibly have any legitimate gripes about the way they are treated.

    Both are incorrect. Try again.


  4. Interesting comments....shallow but interesting. Your one example of birth control as part of health insurance where religious organizations is at least debatable, but the religious right removes itself from any rational discourse with it's nonsensical bellowing about a 'war on religion', 'war on Christmas' and other overt implications that not following [their interpretation] of 'God's law' will herald the downfall of this nation, or at the very least, remove some vague 'blessing'.

    The majority religion being rightly chastised for not merely wanting to live by their own values and beliefs, but rather, campaigning to impose them upon all citizens isn't remotely 'trampling' upon anyone's rights.

    And mind you, these tenets that fundamentalists wish to codify into law, are based upon what can rightly be called a fairy tale.

    When you can point to the religious freedom of Christians being denied, get back to me.

  5. Its easy to oppress a majority. Even easier to repress a religion. When public displays of faith are seen and treated as more taboo (see: Tim Teebow) than presidents using their office to mack on interns. . .

    How about this one the establishment clause of the First Amendment, has been used to batter any display of religion on "public" grounds despite as a majority of the public, and arguably partial owners said religious individuals have the right to display their faith (especially at Christmas and Easter)

    When the NEA is supporting artists who offend even non-religious types, and atheistic (so called Humanists) groups place up banners mocking very deep held faith and belief. . .

    With all that, one can't imagine why a Christian WOULDN'T feel oppression closing in upon him.

  6. But religion isn't being oppressed nor repressed. You and/or any other adherent are just as free to practice a faith as you have always been.

    Your argument is based [so far at least] completely on a defense of being personally offended. Not having religious displays on public grounds doesn't in any manner subtract from your ability to practice a faith. Voices in the public square that rise no where near to the same level as the voices of believers, in tenor or mass, don't diminish someone else's profoundly held belief.

    Though despite all of that, I respect your [or anyone's, I'm not trying to make this a personal argument] right and liberty to believe in a deity. Where that belief is used to codify a value system that places lesser or greater value on a citizen, with no rational or secular justification, is where I push back. I'm offended by fundamentalists who desire to treat their fellow citizens with less than the full range of liberty than they themselves enjoy, based solely upon the often hypocritical passages of a 2000-ish year old text ascribed to a supernatural being. But I don't desire to take away any privileges enjoyed by the population at large, based on that offense.

    And I'm not even an value system is premised on individual liberty.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.