Here’s why right-wing Christians think they are America’s most persecuted

[47of74]

Just saw this on raw story about why fundies are on a persecution kick; 

Spoiler

A recent Pew study found that white American Evangelical Christians think they experience more discrimination than Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Atheists or Jews.

Really?!

Christianity is the majority religion in the U.S. and many kinds of legally ensconced religious privilege are on the rise including the right to woo converts in public grade schools, speculate in real estate tax-free, repair religious facilities with public dollars, or opt out of civil rights laws and civic responsibilities that otherwise apply to all. By contrast atheists are less electable than even philanderers, weed smokers or gays; Hispanics and Muslims are being told to leave; Jews get accused of everything from secret economic cabals to destroying America’s military; and unarmed Black youth continue to die at the hands of vigilantes.

Given the reality of other people’s lives, a widespread Evangelical perception of their group as mass victims reveals a lack of empathy that should make thoughtful believers cringe. And indeed, Alan Nobel, managing editor of Christ and Pop Culture, and a professor at Oklahoma Baptist University, wrote a pained analysis this summer of what he called Evangelical persecution complex. Nobel contrasted the privileged position of American Christians with the real and serious persecution Christian minorities experience under ISIS, for example, and he examined the ways in which victimization can become a part of Christian identity to the detriment of Christians and outsiders alike. What he neglected to spell out clearly was the extent to which the Bible itself sets up this problem.

In the case of Christianity, the theology of persecution serves to give the faithful hope. It inspires persistence in the face of hardship, including the many hardships that life brings on all of us through no fault of our own. But it has also blinded generations of believers to the possibility that sometimes the hardships they face are due not to their faith or evildoers hating Jesus, but to the fact that they hit first. And sometimes the bewildering hostility they perceive may simply be something that the theology of persecution set them up to expect, whether it is there or not.

Every time some reich wing Christian starts in on their persecution kick I want to haul off and tell them to go perform an intimate act upon themselves in traffic.  It really pisses me off when people in the US start complaining about how they're being persecuted because people can marry who they want, have health care, believe as they choose or not at all, and so on.   It cheapens the sacrifice millions of people made over all of human existence to believe as they choose.  It cheapens the deaths of all those who suffered and died at the hands of the inquisition and the like.

 

[AmazonGrace]

I think it works like this:

Quote

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

They want to be righteous,  or at least have a reputation of being righteous.  Therefore it would be good to be persecuted because it's a free ticket to heaven. So that's why they are being persecuted all the time, even if it's just that someone disagreed because they were acting  like arseholes.

[Lurky]

Got to admit, I'm always baffled by the Fundy insistence that they are persecuted because other people are allowed to believe what they want, and have the same rights.  It's like they think increasing equality is a zero sum game, and if group X are given more rights, that will be deducted from their own.   Life doesn't work like that, and allowing other people freedom does not equal persecution.

(It's always interesting in the UK, where we have a state religion that can run their own schools, and has their representatives sitting in the House of Lords, along with tremendous powers - and in the USA, where separation of church & state has always been written into the Constitution and yet seems to come as a massive surprise)

[Corntree]

I guess what fundies are losing is the right to be the majority, to live in a country that is exactly what they think it should be, where their values rule. Tough titties, 'cause no one is exactly owed that. Though, Christians are not supposed to be of the world, and they need some worldliness they can separate themselves from, so really all the heathens are helping the fundies out. Some Christians maybe could not actually handle it if the whole world was Christian, b/c part of their religious identity is facing persecution and being separate from the world.

@Lurky, a while back I was trying to learn more about how Parliament works, and I was surprised that something like the Lords Spiritual still exists in a place like the UK. Maybe I'm influenced by being American.

[Cleopatra7]

It's not that the US is becoming more secular (however that's defined) that bothers white Christians, but that the relations between religions are changing. For much of the nineteenth and early to mid twentieth century, the US was seen as a Protestant nation, with Catholicism and Judaism viewed as alien creeds that could never be integrated into white American life. All Protestant groups were more or less equal before the law, but being Catholic or Jewish was seen as being not entirely "American." By the post-war era, this Protestant hegemony had eroded, culminating in the removal of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in the 1960s. In comparison, white Catholics were in the minority, but their numbers were such that the Catholic Church could force its preferences on the rest of the country (see the Banned in Boston phenomenon), as the occupants of the white a catholic ghetto voted in a bloc. Due to assimilation, the breakup of the white Catholic ghetto, the Humana Vitae disaster, and the abuse scandal, the Catholic Church lacks the power it once had 60+ years ago. Conservative Catholics view this loss of power as "anti-Catholicism" rather than changing social trends and the effects of bad decisions made on the part of the Church hierarchy.

In comparison, racial and/or religious minorities do not expect government and society to reflect their personal preferences and don't have this same misplaced feeling of victimization. They tend to be content to police their own communities but don't care what happens outside of them. Obviously, this is a problem if you live in one of these communities and are unhappy, but the weirdness that happens inside of a group like the Church of Christ in God isn't going to affect the US as a whole.

 

[Lurky]

@Corntree It's a surprise to most people in the UK, too!  And completely ridiculous, especially as we're pretty much a secular society.  But the changes to the House of Lords are ongoing (we've got rid of most of the hereditary peers, the Lords can delay legislation not stop it, etc, so it's a little bit better than the USA Presidential veto etc) so I would bet the Bishops will be out in my lifetime.  But even so, it's still a very strange system.

It seems as though if Charles becomes king, he wants to be Defender of the Faiths (ie lots of them) rather than Defender of the Faith (Church of England).  Of course, being divorced, there will be issues about whether he can have the same role for Church & State as his mother has.

[sawasdee]

@Lurky, @Corntree The Lords Spiritual are an anachronism, but their power is extremely limited. As Lurky said, the House of Lords cannot veto legislation (that came about because of the People's Budget in 1910, but they still delayed Irish Independence until it was shelved due to WW1, and gave us the mess of the last 100 years) and it is becoming less and less an arm of the powerful. I think there is a place for experts in various fields to share their knowledge and expertise within government, which is the way the present House of Lords is operating, but I think the Irish Senate is a better model than the British.

That said, it is rather ironic that the UK has an established church, with leaders sitting in Parliament, but which in reality has less influence on political thought or decisions than the rabid wings of the Evangelical and Baptist churches in the US. Separation of church and state seems to have been sidelined in recent years in the States, and their influence seems to be ever growing. I really cannot see that happening in the UK.

ETA I hope Charles does hold out to become 'Defender of the Faiths', rather than faith.

[Fundie Bunny]

1 hour ago, Lurky said:

It seems as though if Charles becomes king, he wants to be Defender of the Faiths (ie lots of them) rather than Defender of the Faith (Church of England).  Of course, being divorced, there will be issues about whether he can have the same role for Church & State as his mother has.

Which i don't understand. Wasn't the church of England founded on the grounds of divorce? 

[Lurky]

1 hour ago, Fundie Bunny said:

Which i don't understand. Wasn't the church of England founded on the grounds of divorce? 

Yeah, exactly.  Well, that was the excuse, really it was about the monarchy wanting more power, etc, but it's one of those factoids that always makes me grin.

[sawasdee]

@Fundie BunnyYes, that was the immediate reason for the establishment of the Church of England. Henry VIII wanted a divorce, on grounds which had been accepted for centuries for monarchs, but the Holy Roman Emperor, who had great control of the Pope, was his wife's nephew. So the divorce was refused.

Henry VIII was very anti the Reformation of the Catholic church.. He burnt 'protestants' at the stake.(Anne Agnew). Even his last wife ,Catherine Parr, was in a very difficult position because she supported the ideas of Martin Luther.

The bottom line was that the church, and so at one degree Rome, owned enormous amounts of land and wealth. He not only wanted that money, but felt that the Catholic Church was a fifth column within the country - their loyalty to the church, not the nation.

The English Reformation greatly enriched Henry VIII, but the church remained, to a great degree, doctrinally Catholic. It was not until the reign of his son, Edward VI, that the doctrine mirrored the rest of Reformation Europe.

And his daughter, Elizabeth I, tried very hard to make a compromise of faith between the new and old, but was then forced to oppose Catholicism by the aggression of Catholic Spain.

But it is  hugely ironic that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because of his chosen wife's previous divorces, and that the Duchess of Cornwall will never have the title "Queen" because the Church of England today has no truck with divorce for the head of its doctrine.

It is a faith founded because of its founder's desire for a divorce. The doctrinal differences came later.

[feministxtian]

Fundie persecution complex...I've had that argument. Try explaining that the whole marriage "debate" is based on constitutional law, not the bible. The whole "separation of church and state" thing. There's nothing that says a clergyperson MUST marry a couple they don't agree with. I've explained that pastors/priests/rabbis have refused to marry people for years and any challenge to that has been lost. Now the bullshit over the baker...I think both parties fucked up. One baker wouldn't do it, well, carry your ass on down the road and find another baker. Get the fuck over it. 

The problem is FEAR...they're not the majority anymore. White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian males are rapidly becoming a minority and they're scared of losing their perceived power. They need to get the fuck over it. 

[Lurky]

14 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

Now the bullshit over the baker...I think both parties fucked up. One baker wouldn't do it, well, carry your ass on down the road and find another baker. Get the fuck over it. 

Woah.   If I had been going to a baker who'd been taking my money for years, and they refused to bake my wedding cake because I'm now a disgusting sinner, you bet I'm not just going to "get the fuck over it".  I am not a second class citizen, and making me a wedding cake is not offensive.  Personally, I live in a big city, and have lots of options, but before I took one, for sure I'd be all over the media about it.  And if I was in a small town and that was my only baker?  Of course I couldn't just go down the road, because it's not that easy.

People here in the UK said the same thing about the gay couple who were refused their pre-booked B&B, and it sounds really simple, except it was late at night, after a wedding, in a part of the country they didn't know, and most importantly, they deserved the same service as everyone else.

Genuinely interested, why do you think it's ok to say LGB people should just "get the fuck over" being denied services?  Would you say the same about a black, or disabled, or Muslim person who was refused the same service?  Or if it's because you see baking as a frivolous service it's ok to refuse, where's your line?  Would it be ok to refuse to sell a phone just because someone doesn't like an integral part of them?  A car?  Would it be ok for doctors to refuse to treat LGB people?  I'm always fascinated where these lines are for people.

[feministxtian]

I'm a minority. Fortunately I can "hide" it well, however I've seen attitudes change when I come out of the closet. It's simple...you don't want my money...fine, I'll spend it elsewhere. It's happened to me before, it'll happen again. 

A fucking wedding baker is a dime a dozen damn near everywhere. I lived in a little town (population 3000) in bumfuck Indiana. There were at least 5 bakers to choose from in town and if you wanted to go over to the city (about 10 miles away) there were probably a few hundred including Costco, Sam's, Walmart and other grocery stores who did cakes. 

There's a difference between a baker and a doctor...doctors have the hippocratic oath and some pressure from the hospital powers-that-be (hell, I had one who didn't want to treat me b/c I was a practicing Catholic and a Latina when I lived in bumfuck indiana 20 years ago). Told him to fuck himself...and probably could have slapped his dumb ass with a malpractice suit because a week later I was close to dying from a septic gall bladder. 

A  baker and a doctor are not held to the same ethical standards. 

 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

3 hours ago, sawasdee said:

 

Henry VIII was very anti the Reformation of the Catholic church.. He burnt 'protestants' at the stake.(Anne Agnew). Even his last wife ,Catherine Parr, was in a very difficult position because she supported the ideas of Martin Luther.

The bottom line was that the church, and so at one degree Rome, owned enormous amounts of land and wealth. He not only wanted that money, but felt that the Catholic Church was a fifth column within the country - their loyalty to the church, not the nation.

The English Reformation greatly enriched Henry VIII, but the church remained, to a great degree, doctrinally Catholic. It was not until the reign of his son, Edward VI, that the doctrine mirrored the rest of Reformation Europe.

 

My two bugbears about this.

 

1) Anne Boleyn wasn't a Protestant. She was a Catholic. She had reformist ideas but that was all.

2) Anna of Cleves  almost certainly wasn't a Protestant either. Her father expelled the Catholic church but he didn't adopt any form of Lutherism but her brother did.

[lawfulevil]

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

A fucking wedding baker is a dime a dozen damn near everywhere. I lived in a little town (population 3000) in bumfuck Indiana.

 

Hopefully not the one with the serial killer.

[Lurky]

11 hours ago, feministxtian said:

A  baker and a doctor are not held to the same ethical standards.

Of course they aren't, but what I asked you was where's your line?  Which services should I "get the fuck over" being denied, and which should I make a fuss about?  If someone doesn't sell me a car, would that be OK, but bad if they refused to fix my car, and so on? 

And does it depend on why they are denying me a service?  Would refusing to sell cakes to a black or Muslim person also be OK, or is that different?

[lawfulevil]

My thoughts, which are worth exactly two cents-

I can sort of see feministxian's point, because on the one hand I'm not so sure I even want services from a sulky ass bigot... especially not anything edible. There is a certain amount of trust that has to be involved in a transaction like that, and if someone WANTS to refuse my business, there's nothing saying they'll do a good job and a lot of reasons to suspect they won't.

On the other hand, allowing people to behave this way normalizes the values behind it. We don't treat most "sinners" this way, and their "sins" are considered correspondingly less important by society. I'm pretty sure Ted Cruz can still go down to his local mom and pop Christian computer shop and pick up the computer of his choice, even though we all know he's going to use it to sin. And look what a foot in the door the laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control were for the anti-choice movement!

So the argument isn't really about whether anyone truly wants Billy Bob Bigot to make their gay wedding cake, it's about the prescriptive power of law.

[Glasgowghirl]

On 16/09/2017 at 6:52 PM, Fundie Bunny said:

Which i don't understand. Wasn't the church of England founded on the grounds of divorce? 

Yes, so Henry VIII could marry his mistress. He did then try to backtrack but essentially the beginnings were his divorce of Catherine to marry Anne. Elizabeth I and James VI and I were more influential than Henry though.

[December]

6 hours ago, lawfulevil said:

So the argument isn't really about whether anyone truly wants Billy Bob Bigot to make their gay wedding cake, it's about the prescriptive power of law.

Agreed. Chances are, if you know a place discriminates against people like you for being X, you're not going to want to give them your money.

I know plenty of wedding-affiliated services will advertise that they are LGBT-friendly, and hopefully more businesses will do the same in light of this case. I'd guess in most areas the amount of people who want to hire an LGBT-friendly service (or don't mind hiring one) will far outnumber those who actively avoid LGBT-friendly services!  

[Soulhuntress]

On 9/17/2017 at 0:16 PM, lawfulevil said:

My thoughts, which are worth exactly two cents-

I can sort of see feministxian's point, because on the one hand I'm not so sure I even want services from a sulky ass bigot... especially not anything edible. There is a certain amount of trust that has to be involved in a transaction like that, and if someone WANTS to refuse my business, there's nothing saying they'll do a good job and a lot of reasons to suspect they won't.

This is what Yelp does.  And twitter, facebook, google and word of mouth.  I don't think forcing someone to bake a cake is a good idea (nor is a cake an essential).

[formergothardite]

15 minutes ago, Soulhuntress said:

I don't think forcing someone to bake a cake is a good idea (nor is a cake an essential).

So you think the restaurants and stores should be able to deny services to entire groups of people just because those people offend the owners? Should the racist store owner be able to deny the mixed race couple a carton of ice cream because he finds them offensive and ice cream isn't essential? Hey, they can go somewhere else anyway. 

Maybe the couple really liked that baker's cakes. When it came to my wedding the cake was the big thing. I didn't give too many fucks about most of the details, but the cake I knew exactly what I wanted and where I wanted it from. I'm super picky over wedding cakes and I knew there was one particular baker who made beautiful cakes that tasted good and I could afford. Why should I have been denied service if I just happened to have been gay instead of straight? 

[Soulhuntress]

Just now, formergothardite said:

Maybe the couple really liked that baker's cakes. When it came to my wedding the cake was the big thing. I didn't give too many fucks about most of the details, but the cake I knew exactly what I wanted and where I wanted it from. I'm super picky over wedding cakes and I knew there was one particular baker who made beautiful cakes that tasted good and I could afford. Why should I have been denied service if I just happened to have been gay instead of straight? 

Think about it like this: it is about choosing a vendor who as someone said is LGBT friendly.  It is giving business to someone who supports you and your partner not to someone who does not.  

And there is this issue:  I would not want someone who had an issue with me personally or faith wise near my flowers or food: too many places for "mistakes" in these places.  Give the business to someone who wants to celebrate your day with you.  And word of mouth is powerful.  My vendors were found this way.  And were great.

[Seahorse Wrangler]

On 9/17/2017 at 6:20 PM, Glasgowghirl said:

Yes, so Henry VIII could marry his mistress. He did then try to backtrack but essentially the beginnings were his divorce of Catherine to marry Anne. Elizabeth I and James VI and I were more influential than Henry though.

I'd argue that Edward VI or rather his regency council were more influential than Elizabeth. Had Lady Jane Grey been accepted as queen then his reforms would have been firmly implemented.

Instead Elizabeth had to contend with two half finished religious settlements which she managed with some degree of aplomb.

[formergothardite]

7 minutes ago, Soulhuntress said:

Think about it like this: it is about choosing a vendor who as someone said is LGBT friendly.  It is giving business to someone who supports you and your partner not to someone who does not. 

So you think the black guys who had sit in as white only restaurants should have just given their business to someone who supported them? It wasn't like they HAD to eat at that particular restaurant, there were restaurants that catered to black people, plus why would they want white folks who didn't like them cooking their food? Nobody should be forced to cook food for a group of people they find offense, right? 

Honestly, I can't believe I'm having to have this conversation on Free JInger. "Just go somewhere else" shows a hell of a lot of privileg. And why the fuck should gay people have to go somewhere else to protect the special snowflake feelings of some Christians? If you run a business, you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Period.  Unless you really are saying you want to go back to the days when entire groups could be openly discriminated against.  Gay people just like black people and mixed raced couples should not have to worry that if they walk in a store to purchase something they will be refused service. 

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, Soulhuntress said:

Think about it like this: it is about choosing a vendor who as someone said is LGBT friendly.  It is giving business to someone who supports you and your partner not to someone who does not.  

I would always prefer to do business with a vendor who shares my ethical values.  I would always prefer to give them my money.

However, I have the right to do business with anyone I want.  They don't get to turn my business down because I am the wrong religion, color, sex, gender, sexual orientation - whatever.

We are not only talking about cake and flowers here.  Some of this stuff is life or death.

What if the only funeral director in town refused to bury your loved one or the best medical specialist refused to treat you  because you were LGBTQ.

It is important to force the issues.  Some people are courageous enough to do it over little things so that the big things get taken care of down the road.

So cake matters.