Is there a war on Christianity in America's Left?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In which case, why is it so hard to say that 200+ Christians were killed by Islamic terrorists?

Why do you think it's a matter of it "hard?"

Why is there a need to say "Easter worshipers" instead?

Why do you think it's a matter of need? Why would "Easter worshippers" be more offensive than, say, "Christmas shoppers?"

You wouldn't say that Ramadan worshipers were killed, or Eid-al-Fitr worshipers were killed, or that Yom Kippur worshipers were killed, or that Diwali worshipers were killed. You would say that Muslims, Jews or Hindus were killed.

We wouldn't?

I assume your "you" doesn't include the BBC, the Associated Press, or ABC:

It was only a few days ago that the AP called those mourning the closure of the Notre Dame Cathedral as “Easter Worshippers.” The BBC referred to Muslims who were killed in their own spate of terrorist attacks in 2017 as “Ramadan worshippers.” Reuters referred to Muslims injured in another terrorist attack in London as “mosque worshippers.” ABC News called Jews slain in the Pittsburgh attacks as “synagogue worshippers.”

Fake Persecution Scandal Erupts Over Obama's 'Easter Worshippers' Comment About Actual Persecution | RELEVANT Magazine

I just did a quick Googling - it seems that most stories about deaths on the Hajj use the phrase "Hajj pilgrim," not "Muslim."

Here's an article about an incident last year doesn't use the words "Muslim" or "Islam" at all. It only ever describes the dead as "Egyptian hajj pilgrims:"

Death toll of Egyptian Hajj pilgrims rises to 58 - Egypt Independent

On a scale of 1 to 10, how triggering do you find that article?

 

[The Hammer]

Read this article, and find that in a discussion of the horrendous attacks on Christian Churches in Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama cannot bring themselves to use the word "Christian." Instead they use the sanitized euphemism "Easter worshippers." Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton tip anti-Christian ‘Easter worshippers’ hats

Why? Has being a Christian become too much of an embarrassment for Democrats these days? And is this just a part of the larger picture of the Left disenfranchising Christianity? It often appears these days that you can be Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Wiccan, and even a Satanist (and ESPECIALLY a Muslim) and the ACLU will protect your rights. But if you are a Christian, aren't you seen as the purveyor of prejudice?

I used to think it was we Jews who had it bad. I remember when I lived in North Hollywood, CA and two Jewish men were shot going into morning prayers at their shul -- not a single newspaper or TV media outlet covered the event. And that was typical back then for our neighborhood. Jews were seen as part of the "rich white oppressor" by the Left.

Now the hatred is spreading, and Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, first by Islam, and second by the Left. And I'm sorry to say, but the bigotry extends even to my own country.

Firstly, Easter Worshippers isn't necessarily incorrect, as these were a group of people whom we're worshiping on Easter Sunday. And considering I was worshipping on Easter Sunday, and I am not a Christian, that's a moot idea. Also, not everyone at an Easter service is Christian, been to a few with my parents years ago, while on vacation.

There is no leftist attack on Christianity. And as for being the "most persecuted" religion, it makes sense when ones churches mainly preached hatred and intolerance for so many years, for some of that intolerance to be turned around on the very institution of it's source.

Once everyone begins to see love and tolerance for all (regardless of our own inherent beliefs), then we may make some strides forward again as a country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In which case, why is it so hard to say that 200+ Christians were killed by Islamic terrorists? Why is there a need to say "Easter worshipers" instead? You wouldn't say that Ramadan worshipers were killed, or Eid-al-Fitr worshipers were killed, or that Yom Kippur worshipers were killed, or that Diwali worshipers were killed. You would say that Muslims, Jews or Hindus were killed.

BTW: I'm not sure if you realized it, but you didn't actually anseer my question:

Can you explain why you consider "Easter worshippers" to be vapid?

 

[The Hammer]

They have passed laws that have consistently placed rights NOT embedded in the constitution over the right to freedom of religion, which IS expressly protected by the constitution. A business literally had to take it all the way to the Supreme Court that given their religious beliefs, they should not be forced to provide a gay wedding cake. It is absurd that this kind of religious discrimination goes on.

Freedom of Religion does not cover: Dictating public civil law on religion, using religion as an exemption from civil laws you don't like, using religion to deny others civil rights, or using religion as a shield from criticism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read this article, and find that in a discussion of the horrendous attacks on Christian Churches in Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama cannot bring themselves to use the word "Christian." Instead they use the sanitized euphemism "Easter worshippers." Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton tip anti-Christian ‘Easter worshippers’ hats

Out of curiosity: why do you consider "Easter worshippers" to be a sanitized euphemism?

Is there some other religion that celebrates Easter that I don't know about?

 

[Shiranui117]

BTW: I'm not sure if you realized it, but you didn't actually anseer my question:

Can you explain why you consider "Easter worshippers" to be vapid?

I think it's some odd way to avoid outright saying that it was Christians who were killed. Hillary Clinton called last weekend "a holy weekend for many faiths". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only holy day that was happening last weekend was Western Easter, and Easter is only a Christian holiday; nobody else celebrates it. If non-religious people go to church on Easter, it's only because of family ties or observance of a cultural tradition. Clinton's framing of the attack was bizarre and seemed to obfuscate the fact that it was more than 200 Christians who were killed.

 

[Shiranui117]

Why do you think it's a matter of it "hard?"


Why do you think it's a matter of need? Why would "Easter worshippers" be more offensive than, say, "Christmas shoppers?"


We wouldn't?

I assume your "you" doesn't include the BBC, the Associated Press, or ABC:


Fake Persecution Scandal Erupts Over Obama's 'Easter Worshippers' Comment About Actual Persecution | RELEVANT Magazine

I just did a quick Googling - it seems that most stories about deaths on the Hajj use the phrase "Hajj pilgrim," not "Muslim."

Here's an article about an incident last year doesn't use the words "Muslim" or "Islam" at all. It only ever describes the dead as "Egyptian hajj pilgrims:"

Death toll of Egyptian Hajj pilgrims rises to 58 - Egypt Independent

On a scale of 1 to 10, how triggering do you find that article?

Interesting. Thanks for the articles.

 

[columbus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only holy day that was happening last weekend was Western Easter,

So why would you mistake the term "Easter worshippers" for something else besides Christians?

Also, you might want to Google Passover 2019.

Tom

 

[Shad]

Read this article, and find that in a discussion of the horrendous attacks on Christian Churches in Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama cannot bring themselves to use the word "Christian." Instead they use the sanitized euphemism "Easter worshippers." Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton tip anti-Christian ‘Easter worshippers’ hats

Why? Has being a Christian become too much of an embarrassment for Democrats these days? And is this just a part of the larger picture of the Left disenfranchising Christianity? It often appears these days that you can be Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Wiccan, and even a Satanist (and ESPECIALLY a Muslim) and the ACLU will protect your rights. But if you are a Christian, aren't you seen as the purveyor of prejudice?

I used to think it was we Jews who had it bad. I remember when I lived in North Hollywood, CA and two Jewish men were shot going into morning prayers at their shul -- not a single newspaper or TV media outlet covered the event. And that was typical back then for our neighborhood. Jews were seen as part of the "rich white oppressor" by the Left.

Now the hatred is spreading, and Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, first by Islam, and second by the Left. And I'm sorry to say, but the bigotry extends even to my own country.

This is a stretch in my view. I fail to see how people can not figure out the term used would apply to Christians in the minds of most people that know what Easter is. Sure it could be a little tone deaf but I do not see anything malice regarding religion. Perhaps politics but that is a different point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's some odd way to avoid outright saying that it was Christians who were killed.

Why do you think this?

Hillary Clinton called last weekend "a holy weekend for many faiths". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only holy day that was happening last weekend was Western Easter, and Easter is only a Christian holiday; nobody else celebrates it.

I would have assumed something else: because of the link between Easter and Passover, there are many Christian-centric people who assume that they generally happen at the same time.

If non-religious people go to church on Easter, it's only because of family ties or observance of a cultural tradition. Clinton's framing of the attack was bizarre and seemed to obfuscate the fact that it was more than 200 Christians who were killed.

Sounds like you're going to unreasonable lengths to interpret her words in the worst possible light.

Making reference to the Christian holiday of Easter doesn't obfuscate the link between Christianity and the attack. Just the opposite, actually: it calls attention to the fact that it was especially heinous because it happened on the most sacred holy day on the Christian calendar.

Saying "Easter worshippers" instead of "Christians" emphasizes that the attack wasn't only on individual Christians, but was also an attack on the practice of the Christian religion itself.

... which is why you, @IndigoChild5559 , and all the other people freaking out about this sound absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable to me.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Americans don't care about foreign Christians.. They have to be white Christians. They never cared about Palestinian Christians or Iraqi Christians.. currently they don't care about Iranian Christians.


Why would they suddenly care about brown Christians in Sri Lanka?

Because it grants a veneer of righteousness for pre-existing anti-Islamic sentiment.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's especially bizarre that it's all in the context of an actual attack on Christians: the one in Sri Lanka.

I can't even relate to the mindset of some comfortable American Christian who hears about more than 200 Christians being killed in an attack, sees tweets of sympathy from a couple of politicians - both Christians themselves - decides they don't like the fact that these politicians used the name of the Christian holiday the attack happened on instead of the word "Christian," and says to themselves, "well, I think I'm the real victim here."

Are there really people this desperate to be martyrs (without actually being martyrs) that they'd set aside not only reason but also compassion for their fellow Christians to do this?

I already posted this, but I'll post it again because I think it ties in with your comment really well;

What I like to call "armchair" persecution.
I theorise that since the Bible speaks about how the true believers will find themselves being persecuted, and that such persecution is a sign you're on the right path, it pulls at the conscience of many overweight, under exercised middle class westerners that their lives are somewhat lacking in persecution, and so to cover this seeming gap in their spiritual lives, they'll desperately take anything remotely misconstruable as persecution and wrap it around themselves like a big reassuring blanket.

..."unfounded internet rumour that one of the Columbine murderers asked someone if they were a Christian before he killed her? HE WAS PERSECUTING CHRISTIANS! Thank goodness, Christians are being persecuted, I am a Christian, therefore I am being persecuted, QED. I'm so glad I can sleep soundly in my warm queen size bed after eating twice my daily recommended caloric requirement and not feel guilty about the world's poor or starving. What with me being PERSECUTED and all, I must be on the right track. I can't wait for the "war on Christmas" to start up to make me feel even more persecuted and thereby justify my blatant crass consumerism!"

 

[blü 2]

Read this article, and find that in a discussion of the horrendous attacks on Christian Churches in Sri Lanka, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama cannot bring themselves to use the word "Christian." Instead they use the sanitized euphemism "Easter worshippers." Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton tip anti-Christian ‘Easter worshippers’ hats

I share your disgust at the attacks on Christian churches and equally on mosques and synagogues. I also have strong views on religious attacks on non-belief, which were surely the generator of the Four Horsemen and their popularity.

Toleration and acceptance are the desirable norm. (As usual I add a proviso regarding fundamentalism, which I think is pernicious.)

I find nothing offensive in 'Easter Worshipers'. It hasn't been and is not my impression that either Obama or Clinton is opposed to religion, simply not owned by it. Having liberal views on such matters is not the same thing as seeking to deny or destroy. And how could such attitudes assist either of them politically?

 

[Oeste]

IClinton's framing of the attack was bizarre and seemed to obfuscate the fact that it was more than 200 Christians who were killed.

How bizarre was Trump's framing of the attack, where he didn't mention "Easter" or "Christians" at all?


Obama:

Trump:

It appears the only reason we're not hearing what a great "Christian" Trump is for having the "courage" to insert the word "Easter" in his tweet is because the tweets were not reversed. It just seems to me this whole "controversy" is contrived. It's fake news at its ugliest.

 

[Altfish]

In most universities, especially those which have a lot of the regressive "woke activist" types, Christianity is definitely looked down upon compared to other religions. It's often seen as the religion of backwards, oppressive, bigoted, racist, homophobic and transphobic people.

Unfortunately, those you call "woke activists" would be correct in how they see many of the Christian religion.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are christians being persecuted and oppressed in third world? Sure.
Are Christians being persecuted and oppressed in the the western, developed world? Hardly.

 

[Kirran]

What an absolute storm in a teacup.

But also, having been to Sri Lanka and knowing many Sri Lankans, it is both normal and common for Buddhist, Hindus and Muslims there to go to church. When some relics of St Anthony or somebody came to Sri Lanka a load of Buddhist monks came to see. Other way round, too!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How bizarre was Trump's framing of the attack, where he didn't mention "Easter" or "Christians" at all?


Obama:

View attachment 28656​

Trump:

View attachment 28657​

It appears the only reason we're not hearing what a great "Christian" Trump is for having the "courage" to insert the word "Easter" in his tweet is because the tweets were not reversed. It just seems to me this whole "controversy" is contrived. It's fake news at its ugliest.

"ZOMG! Trump has a war against Christians!!1!!one!"

 

[sooda]

Why do you think it's a matter of it "hard?"


Why do you think it's a matter of need? Why would "Easter worshippers" be more offensive than, say, "Christmas shoppers?"


We wouldn't?

I assume your "you" doesn't include the BBC, the Associated Press, or ABC:


Fake Persecution Scandal Erupts Over Obama's 'Easter Worshippers' Comment About Actual Persecution | RELEVANT Magazine

I just did a quick Googling - it seems that most stories about deaths on the Hajj use the phrase "Hajj pilgrim," not "Muslim."

Here's an article about an incident last year doesn't use the words "Muslim" or "Islam" at all. It only ever describes the dead as "Egyptian hajj pilgrims:"

Death toll of Egyptian Hajj pilgrims rises to 58 - Egypt Independent

On a scale of 1 to 10, how triggering do you find that article?

Why would "Easter worshippers" be more offensive than, say, "Christmas shoppers?"

 

[sooda]

Are christians being persecuted and oppressed in third world? Sure.
Are Christians being persecuted and oppressed in the the western, developed world? Hardly.

Americans have never cared about Palestinian Christians and they sure didn't care about the 50 Christian churches in Baghdad before Bush's invasion.