War on Christians

March 29, 2006

“The Elf”:http://www.elfnoodles.com sends along an article about the “War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006″:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801632.html conference. There it is, the “values voters” again. Everyone is a values voter, they just don’t agree on the same values. There most certainly is not a war against values voters; it’s just a way of making their 12.5% of the population look larger, and the alleged war on Christianity much more broad. But that’s not what I wanted to talk about.

There’s this passage from Tom DeLay, who clearly illustrates for us what we all already knew: the so-called “war on Christians” is less about persecution and more about Fundamentalists not getting special exemptions from the Constitution:

bq. “We are after all a society that abides abortion on demand, that has killed millions of innocent children, that degrades the institution of marriage and often treats Christianity like some second-rate superstition. Seen from this perspective, of course there is a war on Christianity.” [ Tom DeLay, "'War' on Christians is Alleged":http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801632.html ]

Note the three concerns:
* People tolerate abortion, even though Fundamentalist christians have asked them not to.
* People treat marriage as a secular institution, not a Fundamentalist christian sacrament.
* People don’t show Fundamentalist christianity the proper respect.

No word on whether or not eating _beef_ should be made illegal because the Hindus see it as an abomination, but I’m guessing not. It’s the Henry Ford theory of freedom of Religion: you can have any religion you want, as long as it’s Fundamentalist christian.

My friend Some Call Him Tim has taken me to task for not sharing enough good news. This article has at least one: there’s a clear split in the religious Christian community: Christians disagree with the Fundamentalist christian movement (I expect SCH Tim knew this already):

bq. “Certainly religious persecution existed in our history, but to claim that these examples amount to religious persecution disrespects the experiences of people who have been jailed and died because of their faith,” said K. Hollyn Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

That certainly seems to be the case. Consider this from later in the article:

bq. In the session on recent cases of persecution, Navy Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt brought the crowd to its feet by introducing himself as a military chaplain “who prays in the name of Jesus.”

bq. Klingenschmitt said he was punished by a commander for offering sectarian prayers at a memorial service for a fallen sailor, and he compared himself to Abdur Rahman, an Afghan man who until this week faced possible execution for converting from Islam to Christianity.

bq. “What do these two Christians have in common?” Klingenschmitt asked, showing slides first of himself, then of Rahman. “Perhaps we are persecuted. Perhaps we are no different than most Christians throughout history.”

What’s the difference? One was “ordered not to wear his uniform”:http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1456186.php when campaigning for his political beliefs, and the other is about to be killed because he _personally_ converted to Christianity from Islam.

You see how the definition of “persecution” becomes pretty broad with these people.

Here’s another example of “religious persecution”, again from the same article:

bq. The Rev. Tom Crouse, pastor of a Congregational Church in Holland, Mass., said that after hearing about a gay beauty pageant in California, he decided to hold a “Mr. Heterosexual Contest” in Worcester, Mass., on Feb. 18.

bq. “It was just an event to proclaim the truth that God created us all heterosexual,” he said. But to his surprise, he said, he received anonymous death threats, local officials condemned the contest, and “even Bible-believing churches were not on board. They said it wasn’t loving.”

Two things to note about that: first, ome Churches declined to participate, thinking it wasn’t an appropriate event for a Church. Good for them; they’re keeping the capital “C” in “Christian.”

Secondly, Crouse is whining about being _criticized_ for his action. He wasn’t prohibited from holding his event. Tom Crouse feels “Christianity” is attacked when he is not protected from criticism even as he criticises others. If that’s not the very definition of special privilege — and a clearly anti-Christian[1] — then someone tell me what is.

Indeed, what this “war” amounts to is Fundamentalist christians being told they can’t have another cookie (if that “cookie” is the right to persecute non-believers and control the lives of everyone else). Fortunately, some folks in the Christian community recognize this for what it is:

bq. “This is a skirmish over religious pluralism, and the inclination to see it as a war against Christianity strikes me as a spoiled-brat response by Christians who have always enjoyed the privileges of a majority position,” said the Rev. Robert M. Franklin, a minister in the Church of God in Christ and professor of social ethics at Emory University.

Amen.

fn1. Matthew 7-12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (The Sermon on the Mount.)

Posted in Religion