I'm sick and tired of people of faith pretending they are the oppressed

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

I've always been one to continually question my belief in God...I don't fall in the category of athiest but I don't fall in the category of person of faith necessarily.

But to claim people of faith are or HAVE been persecuted in modern day America is pure poppycock unless thee faith they belong to is Scientology, David Koresh's group or the like.

I very much follow the live and let live mantra, but I am not interested in worrying if I am alienating someone who would cram their version of Jesus down my throat.

Therefore, when discussing politics...it's certainly fine if people wish to underscore how we may not APPEAL to certain branches of the faithful...but PLEASE STOP PRETENDING YOU ARE THE OPPRESSED.

As far as I can tell, there's only one of you of significance that has been crucified and even HE wouldn't support half the shit that is being suggested as a means to appeal to his followers.

[progmom]

1. Are there people on DU who have been claiming that?

Because that does sound rather preposterous.

[Cleita]

7. There have been several posts from people of faith accusing

those of us who question matters of religion of picking on them and alienating them with the preposterous conclusion that this was why they voted for Bush.

[Maine Mary]

12. There are people on DU who voted for Shrub?

:shrug:

Good Lord. I hope they enjoyed their visit to reality. Did they stay long?

BTW-Hi NSMA! :hi: Long time no see.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Hugs darlin!

[Maine Mary]

18. Woohooo Thanks- You made some good points BTW

:hug: Backatcha!

[Cleita]

22. No, I worded that wrong.

The people on DU were claiming that this is why the fundies voted for Bush.

[Doohickie]

31. I voted for Kerry

but when some here on DU find out I'm a Christian, they call me everything from a right winger to white supremacist to nazi.

This is not the general reaction, but the reaction of a few rather emotional people.

My point is that there is already a substantial "Christian constituency" in the Democratic party. Like it or not, the Dems become a fringe party without a healthy Christian participation.

I am not advocating theocracy or anything like that. But some in the Democratic Party (and here on DU) apparently think that any accommodation of people of faith, particularly Christians, is somehow a betrayal of the Party.

I've said this before: Christians are NOT the enemy. Christians who seek to impose their faith on others through the government are the enemy.

I realize people have plenty of ammunition to villify Christians. But look at it this way: The rest of the world has ammunition to villify Americans. We, as Democrats, do not endorse or condone many of the policies of the American government that cause other countries to hate Americans, and we would really prefer that others keep that in mind and not hold the idiot Americans against us. Same thing with Christians. As a moderate Christians, pleast don't hold the idiot Christians against us.

Thank you.

[VioletLake]

40. There you go again.

"Like it or not..."

Perhaps it's your "like it or not" concept of Christianity that puts people off.

[progmom]

106. I'm not sure I understand that.

He didn't say: You have to like it. He didn't say: Like it or leave.
Just trying to understand what was off-putting about the phrase.

:shrug:

[Doohickie]

121. Progmom-

Violet was referring to another thread. I did say that, actually.

[Kerrytravelers]

65. I see what you are saying...

... I'm new here, so not particularly wanting to rock the boat. I, too, am a Christian... a Catholic nonetheless! I agree that the fundies have completly lost their minds. But that doesn't necessarily mean all Christians are fundamentalist fruitcakes. For example, if a young African-American man goes on a crime spree, does that mean that all young African-American men are criminals? If one Mexican-American choses the lazy path in life, does that mean all Mexican-Americans are lazy? If one Muslim is a jihadist, are all Muslims jiahidasts?

No. Of course not.

I can see why now, people are very angry. But once the dust settles, I hope they can remember that what one group does does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of all in that group.

[Carni]

69. Then YOU (the moderate Christians) need to speak out!

You need to raise hell with your churches (excuse the pun)

The right wingers have hijacked your religion and you can't blame some of us for lumping all "Christians" into one big group--is it fair? No, of course not but without church goers objecting to what is going on in the churches what are people supposed to think?

There's a whole guilt by association thing happening.

[Kerrytravelers]

98. I certainly have spoken up...

... we have made our voice known. Others who agree embrace us. THose who don't keep their distance. The priest has steered clear of politics. But that is only one church.

We are speaking up all across the country. We are also being asked to leave churches, choirs, etc. It's ugly out there. But I think DU is strong enough to not label all Chrsitians as one large group. Remember, 20% of the "Evangelical" vote went to Kerry. Evangelica doesn't include moderate and liberal Christians.

[Doohickie]

122. The problem is that a good part of what we, as moderate Christians, as

well as non-Christians, dislike about fundamentalists is that they are so "in your face" about their faith. If we "speak out" against them, we are acting in the same way that we so detest in them. It's kind of a no-win situation: By jumping back in their face, we become as bad as they are, and by not saying anything, we are told we are being too passive.

I personally try to lead by example. I don't think I really have the talent lead any other way.

[fishwax]

157. It's hard to speak out when the media controls the perception

it isn't just a matter of speaking out against the fundies. I (and I'm sure many other liberal christians) do that all the time.

The bigger problem is the perception that folks like Pat Robertson are the face and voice of Christianity in America, and speaking out individually does little good unless the media decides to seek out alternative Christian viewpoints. Every now and then a group of liberal christians will form to counter the religious right, but they don't get invited to represent the "christian" viewpoint on talk shows when some "moral crisis" (like janet's breast) pops into the public consciousness.

[progmom]

107. Excellent post - thanks. n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

76. Please find a link where you're called a RWing, nazi, or white supremacist

I think you're being defensive. I'm Catholic and have never seen DUers use those terms to describe us.

[Redleg]

79. A small proportion of DUers has used very harsh words for Catholics

and other Christians. If you haven't seen the anti-Catholic threads you haven't been paying attention. I can't tell you how many times people have referred to Catholics as pedophiles and sexoffenders.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

94. I've seen some anti-Catholic stuff, BUT IT IS RARE!

I see way more sexism and homophobia on DU. I'm sick of all this whining from Christians. Some have absorbed the RW meme that they are oppressed.

[Redleg]

96. Some undoubtedly feel oppressed here at DU.

Your statement that you're "sick of all this whining from Christians" could be perceved as criticism.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

99. As a Christian, I have noticed a lot of whining from my fellow Christians

is that better?

I have the right to criticize, but I have never seen Christians called nazis on DU.

However, I have seen many cases of sexism, racism, and homophobia on DU. Are you saying that criticism of Christians on DU is even comparable to prejudice against women, gays, and minorities?

[Redleg]

100. I am not saying that. I am just playing Devil's Advocate.

I have seen examples of homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-religious sentiment at DU. I have seen more homophobic and anti-religious stuff lately because of the recent focus on gay marriage issue and the so-called "values voters."

All in all, these offensive bigots seem to be a relatively small proportion of DU. Thank god for that.

[Djinn]

123. criticism isn't oppresion

it's also not prejudice or "hatred".

I can criticise organised religion all I want without it being any of those things

[Redleg]

176. I disagree.

If people go into a forum and they hear over and over that their beliefs are stupid, ridiculous, or that their church is evil, that can be oppressive (albeit not nearly as bad as it could be).

[Djinn]

179. it might be DEPRESSING

but it's not oppresive unless the word has a new meaning now.

If you beleive something the fact that other people don't really shouldn't upset you, most atheists get on with their lives fine with the knowledge that half the rest of the world believes they will be punished (or at the very least not rewarded) for all eternity.

[Forkboy]

97. awww

:nopity:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

102. LMAO

you're too easy.

[Redleg]

103. I'm glad you're having fun at the expense of our Christian brothers and

sisters here at DU.

[Forkboy]

104. Nah,just you

but watching you try to make victims of them all is pretty funny.

Thanks bud!

[Redleg]

105. I am not trying to make victims of anyone.

I am simply stating that there has been some anti-Christian sentiment here at DU. If you fail to notice that then you are the fool.

Unless you can add something constructive to this discussion then perhaps you are at the wrong forum.

[Forkboy]

109. Perhaps I'll post where I see fit

When you become the owner of DU than you can tell me when,where and how to post. :hi:

And yes,you are trying to make them the victims.

I'm glad you're having fun at the expense of our Christian brothers and sisters here at DU.

Unless "at the expense of" has a different meaning.And now that you've demonstrated the willingness to fudge your own words I'm sure you do have a different meaning.

[Redleg]

173. And you are victimizing them with your callous disregard for their

feelings and points of view.

[RapidCreek]

150. So what are you saying...

That if I call a Catholic priest who fucks little boys in the ass a Pedophile that I am anti-Catholic?

I mean....shit, if you feel I am anti-Catholic for calling a Catholic pedophile a pedophile....then logically I must assume that it is you who believes that all Catholics are pedophiles.

RC

[Redleg]

174. I didn't say that. I said that some posters have called Catholics

pedophiles. Perhaps you should read more closely before you offend.

[Doohickie]

128. One particular person addressed these gems to me on another thread

The thread was Like it or not- THIS IS a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN NATION

It was started by me, with the idea of starting with kind of a "hook" in the title, and a more moderate message within. Several people apparently never got past the hook however. Anyway, one poster in particular posted to me:

Shouldn't you be in uniform in Iraq, converting heathens? I suppose the crusade must mean a lot to you - so what are you doing here, preaching to us, rather than saving muslims at the point of a gun?

and

You are a MODERATE?????
You do advocate theocracy, you are the cause that these fascists even get away with the enormity of their deeds - "moderates' like you feel empowered to stick it to the "heathens".

Okay, maybe not exactly the words I said earlier, but along the same lines. I think the same poster also called me a nazi, but it must have been on another thread.

[PassingFair]

126. Ha Ha Ha Doohickie!

"...when some here on DU "FIND OUT" I'm a Christian"......

Ha Ha Ha like we have to ferret it out or something.
You regulary come out with stigmata blazing.
Onward Christian Soldier!

:puke:

[Doohickie]

129. I have in a few threads....

Am I supposed to hide who I am? I have almost 1000 posts on DU, and probably less than 100, or even less than 50, even mention religion.

The first few times I mentioned it, it was in response to people painting Christianity with a very broad brush, essentially implying all Christians are evil.

Am I supposed to just sit on my hands and let people say that without responding? I can't... for two reasons:

1. My faith is rather important to me and an insult to my religion is hard not to take personally.

2. In the context of this particular forum, it is important to remember that the Democratic Party has a very large "Christian constituency". Some Democrats may like to knock Christianity in general, but when they do they are knocking part of their own party.

[RapidCreek]

148. What Accommidations?

What are these accomidations....the Christians you've anointed yourself spokesperson for....require?

Braille pads in elevators?
Wheel chair accessible commons areas?
Beeping Walk signs?

Is your Christianity some sort of handicap?

Why do you and the Christians you feel you speak for, warrant some sort of special treatment? Are you better than those of us who are not Christian?

You purport to have a problem with Christians who impose their faith on others through the government....why don't you and the Christians you allegedly speak for do something about it? Why should I be expected to suffer the pretenders in your midst when you who they pretend amongst do nothing to distinguish yourselves.....other than whine about being picked on. More to the point what would be your inspiration to plainly and publicly cast them out if we who they offend didn't complain about it?

It is not my job or responsibility to suffer the stink you allow in your midst. Christ didn't do it with the Jews....and I won't do it with Christians.

No doubt, there were quite a few wonderful Germans running around during the rise of the Third Reich. Certainly there was nothing wrong with being a German. There was something wrong with being a subscriber to the philosophies of Hitler, however. The Third Reich claimed they exemplified all things German....and they did so with vigor....much more vigor than those Germans who believed otherwise. Soon enough the world came to identify Germany with the Germans who dominated, subjugated and exterminated.....and for good reason. Should those who were suffering these atrocities have endured them because alot of good Germans would have preferred it? What these good Germans preferred was irrelevant because they allowed themselves to become irrelevant.

If you allow the crows to steal your flag....and you fly with those crows in its shadow....don't whine when you get shot with them.

If you "moderate Christians" invested half the time loudly identifying and cleaning the pretenders from your midst as you do whining about the hostility those pretenders bring down upon Christianity....you'd have nothing to whine about.

RC

[Doohickie]

155. Accommodation, as in

promoting reasonable discourse.

If I hear someone is a Wiccan or an Atheist, I don't make disparaging remarks or ridicule them.

Maybe other Christians do, but I don't. There are some people here on DU that immediately adopt a harsh tone with me, simply because I'm Christian. I thought the point of diversity with respect to the Democratic Party is that we treat each other as individuals instead of the labels we wear.

And with respect to your analogy of Nazi Germany, I would say that applies to Americans in general at this point, not just Christians in America. We are all responsible- even the non-Christians. And more importantly, we, the moderate and left wings of America, need each other if we're going to ever reclaim the ideals of our nation.

If you "moderate Christians" invested half the time loudly identifying and cleaning the pretenders from your midst as you do whining about the hostility those pretenders bring down upon Christianity....you'd have nothing to whine about.

You miss one important point, and that is where the great frustration comes into it for moderate Christians- one cannot deal intelligently with fundamentalist Christianity. First of all, your statement presumes that the people you call "pretenders" are actually in our midst. Christianity is not a homogenous group; in my church, if there are any right-wing fundie types, they sure don't advertise it. Furthermore, to the members of a conservative Christian church, I am as much as an outsider as you are. What you call whining is an appeal to reason. I actually try to discuss this stuff with you and others on DU because I expect to be able to hold an intelligent conversation where you might consider the merits of my views and not just whether I'm from the same group as you. Fundies, like I said, cannot be reasoned with. So it isn't quite so easy as you think for moderate Christians to clean out the pretenders.

I'll be honest with you: I just don't get right wing Christians. There is a cognitive dissonance there that just shuts out reason.

We need to work together to bring reason back to government policy. Please don't write me off simply for my faith; it is my faith that motivates me to act politically to try to get religious influence out of our government.

[MuseRider]

2. If they are so oppressed

then how come I feel like they have stuffed me so full of their bullshit that I am becoming one of the unfaithful? Talk about being oppressed. Try trying to believe and not feeling good about it anymore. Oppressed?

[ewagner]

3. A view of the "oppression"

When I was a Mayor, I took a stance against posting snow mobile routes within the City to hook up with county trails. I was accused of "oppressing" snow mobilers.

The Christain right is like that in some regards. They want us to build pathways to their beliefs in our governmental institutions. When we do not do that, they are "oppressed".

[LisaLynne]

4. The only way ...

for people to see that is to be of a truly minority belief system or be an atheist. I was raised in a Christian fundamentalist home and it was drummed into me that we were being oppressed and attacked from all sides. After leaving that religion, I was an atheist for a while and it was then that I realized that the world was not full of the "godless" hell-bent (no pun intended) on getting rid of all religion-- in fact, non-Christians were far in the minority. Totally opened my eyes.

I do think that sometimes the discussion around here gets heated in regards to religion. I wish we could be calmer about it, because there are topics that I really think we all need to discuss. I know I would love to discuss some things with more moderate to liberal Christians, but I'm afraid to bring it up!

[progmom]

13. Hi Lisa Lynne

:hi:
Liberal Christian here who would love to discuss anything. I believe my view are my own and have no problems with other people having other views -- to me Christianity is something very personal.

New to DU, and really loving it.

[LisaLynne]

16. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Doohickie]

35. Another moderate-to-liberal Christian checking in.

:hi:

[Djinn]

124. Welcome

and don't beleive any of the crap about DU having a "anti-Christian" population (if that's the right word for a net forum??)

many people will state they believe that religion is pointless or that they think it's a myth but every Christian (or other deist) is free to post back that they think atheist world view and creation theories are equally ridiculous.

I'd agree there is anti Islamic feeling here - or atleast ignorance, a belief that the Koran advocates discrimination against women anymore than the Bible does, belief the Koran advocates FGM or that jihad MUST mean violence)

Being questioned doesn't equate to being persecuted.
The vast majority here are more than happy with the adage "each to his own"

[progmom]

130. Thanks for the welcome!

I haven't noticed an anti-Christian "population" as much as I have noticed a lot of people really fed up with the face of Christianity that is being presented by the RW. And I totally join them/you all in those feelings. It's really sick, the things that are being done "in the name of God" - and especially frusutrating because my beliefs are so diametrically opposed.

[Djinn]

137. I think they have a different Bible

to the one I've read (I'm an atheist but I've always been interested in religion so I've read the Bible and the Koran as well as stuff on Buddhism, Hinduism and plenty of "ancient" religions and Gods as well)

I think their version omits all the nice love thy neighbour

[Maat]

5. Religious Right members are always going to court to say..

they were discriminated against. Occasionally, a school will not allow equal access to school facilities to a Christian group (which they must per a semi-recent SCOTUS decision), and they generally win out with a letter. What irritates me is when they argue that their 1st Amendment rights of free expression and association have been abridged. This usually means that they are trying to weaken the wall of separation between church and state.

As I told my relative, "You are free to talk about Jesus in the public square, and to hold your ten-commandments figurine, but you cannot compel government sponsorship of it. Remember those words - government sponsorship." He never gets it.

I have never, never seen any discrimination against a Religious Right extremist; they're the ones usually bullying others.

[Misunderestimator]

6. That was pure poetry!

Thanks. :)

[KurtNYC]

8. Twain cited the attitude

In one of many great quotes: "Nothing so needs reformin' as other peoples' habits."

The reason the world is imperfect, in their view, is because of everyone else.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. I haven't seen anyone on DU claiming that.

Did I miss something?

:shrug:

[Doohickie]

36. Claiming which?

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. Claiming that people of faith are opressed. n/t

[Doohickie]

47. I'm sure some would say that I have made that claim...

See my thread with the inflammatory title "Like it or not, this is a Judeo-Christian Nation".

That's the thread where I got called a jackbooted nazi along with some other thoughtful things.

I realize the title was inflammatory, but I was trying to stir up some discussion. Much to my chagrin, it worked.

[VioletLake]

48. blame it on the title

:eyes:

[Doohickie]

52. I've already admitted that was a mistake

in that thread. By the way, Vio, are you going to PM me the essence of the post that got deleted?


I guess my answer to some of the posts from that thread should be, <sarcasm>"...okay, now tell me what you really think."</sarcasm>

;)

[VioletLake]

55. It's not worth the time.

We'll stick to the subject at hand.

[Doohickie]

57. No problem....

I just thought.... oh the hell with it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

51. WOw..imagine that..inflammatory title gets you flamed...how rare

[Doohickie]

56. Oh, I'll survive

My motivation was something like this: I was trying to "hook" people into reading my essay. I thought it provided a fairly moderate viewpoint (saying that even with Judeo-Christian heritage, there was separation of church & state and finishing with E Pluribus Unum). However, given the title, people read what they expected to read and didn't really get into what I was trying to say. The first few paragraphs weren't enough to ge the whole thought, but I think that's as far as some people read.

I guess I should stop trying to explain..... I got what I deserved, I suppose.

[Djinn]

125. it wasn't the title

it was the highly erroneous notion that democracy and other "freedom" (for want of a better word) derive from Judeo-Christianity as opposed to thousands of years of the evolution of philosophies from all over the world including Sumerians, Babylonians, Greeks etc which Judaism and Christianity adopted - NOT pioneered.

[Doohickie]

131. Fair enough

And several people politely pointed that out. One even courteously provided a link to Iroquois influence on democracy. It is a matter of viewpoint, really, as to how much Judeo-Christian tradition really influenced our form of government. I can reasonably come to that conclusion, but I can also see how someone else can reasonably reach a different one. I found one of the most interesting posts to be the one that pointed out that the founding fathers most definitely wanted to avoid the dogma of Christian rule in the U.S. That is probably the worst omission from my original essay.

I don't think I ever claimed that Judaism and Christianity "pioneered" philosophies that, for instance, value the the individual person. The Judeo-Christian tradition did, however, play an important role in carrying those philosophies through history into the American Colonial era.

Yes, yes, yes, I know that Christianity also brought a world of hurt to the world through the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.

I felt that, in that thread, several people either misinterpreted what I was trying to say, or essentially put words in my mouth because they assumed from the title that I was very right wing. I am a Christian... no denying that. But I am hardly right wing.

[sangh0]

10. There are Muslims in the US you might want to avoid

because they're pretty sure they are being oppressed, and IMO, they're not pretending.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Yes, usually the powerless get away with mocking the power brokers

and there is nothing Christ like about being a political power broker.

[DrWeird]

20. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. No, I didn't.

Because it sounds like bullshit to me.

[Pathwalker]

23. Yeah, fat people are never ridiculed ANYWHERE.

n/t

[VioletLake]

25. Nope, never noticed it.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[Liberal Veteran]

27. Yeah, don't mock gays...bash them and legally make them 2nd class citizens

.....is perfectly fine.

And apparently you don't watch tv or listen to right wing radio very often.

They ridicule gays and lesbians ALL the time.

[arwalden]

87. ...and if the homos fight back & point out the injustice and hypocrisy...

... then they just pretend to be victims.

[genieroze]

32. Mock Christians, no it not okay

Is it okay to harass and annoy liberals?
I'm a Christian, and a liberal. I'm not trying to shove my brand of religion down the governments throat either. Separation of Church and State, ever hear of it? If you want to bring any religion into the government, then start paying taxes for it.

[Kurovski]

34. Humor hits everywhere. We can't help it if you're into PC.

The ridiculous earns ridicule.

Christians who think they can call themselves Christians while doing the opposite of what Christ teaches fall deeply into this category.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. Yup.

But they're the ones that are constantly whining and snarking about being oppressed, not the Christians.

So, all in all, a very puzzling thread header, though I have no reason at all not to entertain the greatest respect for its author, as an agnostic - at least on the basis of what I read.

In any case, you can lead a horse to water.... High school is a time when young Christians begin to question their faith, and often fall away from it for a while. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. If they come back to their earlier formal belief, their faith will be stronger.

Christianity is not about credulity, and it's not even primarily about credence/belief. As James point out in an epistle, "The devils believe and tremble".

Nope. It's about the disposition of our heart, and our commitment to Christ and his precepts - which may simply be an agnostic's commitment to loving and assisting his fellow human beings, in time of need. (Behaviour only the Holy Spirit can inspire). And for many people their time of need is permanent, due to the political and economic structures in place in the West.

[PurityOfEssence]

42. What ridiculous twaddle

Southerners, Appalachians and Rural Americans get much more derision on this board than Christians. Hollywood and the entertainment business get more crap on this board and in society at large than Christians do.

In society, non-believers are treated to virtual exclusion, and get much worse treatment than Christians do here.

In open society, every group you mentioned is much more mocked than Christians are. Scratch every Hillary joker, and you've got a raving misogynist.

Boo fucking hoo hoo hoo. It's just that far too many Christians demand complete ownership of the world, and if they meet with any resistance, they've been brutally mistreated. Not wanting religion in government or screaming out at us from every street corner and alleyway isn't anti-religion, it's religion-neutral. Anti-religious belief would be demanding the right to actively slag religion in public.

Here's what Ray Moore doesn't get: his statue is cramming his guess down everyone else's throat and showing anyone who doesn't believe that they are not real citizens. Having a blank wall or a nice painting is religion-neutral. Anti-religion would be a big crucifix with a red circle surrounding it and a diagonal red slash through it.

You guys believe in some mighty odd stuff, so that alone will draw some fire from thinking minds. Viewed from the outside, it's rife for ridicule on subject matter alone.

Besides that, part of being a living human being is to be ridiculed for one's looks, profession, sex, thoughts and beliefs. We all get a little fun poked at us, and often it's way over the line.

The immunity demanded by so many Christians reeks of privilege, and I for one don't think you're morally, culturally or spiritually superior; some, in fact, are ethically inferior by the very bigotry they justify through their faith. So swallow your sniveling self-pity and get down in the mud with the rest of us mere mortals and get over yourself.

Christians in this country do infinitely more oppressing, deriding and sanctimonious social tyranny than they suffer, and it's the root cause for the right wing's choke-hold on this country. Fix your own house, or at least stop whimpering about the neighbors' complaints.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. I wish I had written that

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

86. sooo only Christians have moral standards?

and by Christians do you mean the only the Protestant variety?

[chiburb]

91. What a beautiful post... thank you! n/t

[Castilleja]

142. Purity of Essence...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[RapidCreek]

151. Wow...awesome post

One day maybe I'll learn to write like that!

RC

[Goldmund]

159. Booyakasha!

[Selwynn]

170. I want to make it crystal clear: I do NOT want immunity from criticism.

I want to stand beside you in critical outspoken bold criticism of the injustices, hypocrisy, inhumanity and tyranny done too frequently in the name of organized Christianity.

I do want you to recognize that I am on your side, however. :)

[Joe Chi Minh]

183. I don't know

where you people get the idea that mainstream Christians must be bigots because they believe that it is a fundamental axiom of their faith (as passed down by Scripture and developed, but not contradicted by tradition) that there is wrong, sinful behaviour, as well as right, moral behaviour. ("Morality", of course, is by no means limited to sexual matters, as the pharisees would have it, but it does include it).

However, Christian love is not about superficial stuff - kind of rubbing noses and being lovey-dovey, it's about love on a deeper truer level, as expressed by an acceptance, at least in priniciple, to be bound by a moral code. To be harder on one's own failings than those of others. The word "religion" derives from the latin verb, "ligere", to bind. Some of you, though, give the impression that you would view Lucifer as a feedom-fighter.

It also implies an acceptance of one's own suffering for a higher, divine cause. Acceptance of the sufferings of others is another and alarmed by matter altogether, however, where it is palpable that cynical human beings are responsible and with impunity.

To be unconcerned for the poor and the afflicted is not simply to be un-Christian, but to be anti-Christian, to have the spirit of anti-Christ, because not only did Christ say that what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me, but he also said, we are either for him or against him. He also expressed that truth, when he followed his statement that the First Commandment was the most important one, by adding, "And the Second is its like: you must love your neighbour as thyself". Indeed, the whole purpose of Christ's incarnation was to enable its corollary, that we should share in his own divine life - only perfectly, of course, in the next life. So failure on our part to reflect a belief in Christ's identification with other human beings, is in a very real sense a failure to believe that Christ himself was born in the flesh.

Maybe if I had grown up in the US, I would be more acutely aware of the way Christianity has been subverted for political ends, and alarmed by it. Particularly when I was young and a rabid agnostic.

[Pithlet]

46. That's hilarious.

I realize you probably didn't indend for me to laugh at that post. That's all the reaction I can muster right now, and it's an appropriate one, anyway.

[m berst]

62. that is far, far from true

First off, this idea that "you can't make fun of blacks, gays, women, or Muslims" is pretty silly, since I can take you places where each of these go on everyday. And then to say that "you can't" is misleading. You can't without offending people, but if you don't care about offending people (which I have to assume you do not) then have it (which I fear you do). Who would stop you? I don't think I ever heard "fags, queers" etc. more than a handful of times for 30 years growing up, yet now I can hardly go a day without hearing it from some right winger somewhere. I can hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity ridiculing blacks, gays, women, and Muslims every day. So who "can't" do this? You can't do it and have everyone join in or approve, that is true.

Sudden insight - is it the APPROVAL of liberals that right wingers seek with all of their baiting and taunting? You say that you "can't" ridicule these people, but really you can, and it is the only our approval of that behavior we are depriving you of.

In 50 years I have never seen people have more FREEDOM to ridicule blacks, gays, women, or Muslims than you do today.

"Ever notice that" is taunting and offensive, by the way.

"Christians are the ONLY group it's PC to ridicule" is a misguided statement resting on misguided assumptions. Even if it were "pc" - wehatever THAT means - to ridicule Christians, they would hardly be the only group.

Here are a few groups targeted for ridicule that come immediately to mind -

Liberals - it is open season to ridicule half of the population of the country, as I am sure you know.

Overweight people - constant ridicule

Rom people - just one example of an ethnic group outside of your idea of people to hate that is constantly ridiculed.

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Um, No I Hadn't Noticed

Probably because it's not true. Hard to understand how a persecuted and put-upon group that's ok to ridicule just claimed victory for electing a president.

If they are so acceptably ridiculed, then exactly how would THEY be the ones to claim they elected an imbecile with whom they agree as the leader of the free world?

The correct answer, boys & girls: They can't. Either they are not persecuted, or they're not responsible for Li'l Georgie's victory. It's illogical to conclude otherwise.
The Professor

[UpsideDownFlag]

67. heh, that's what gives america it's greatness!

:evilgrin:

[Redleg]

77. That's a bunch of doo doo.

Who mocks the religious? I have yet to see it, especially from elected Dems and Dem officials. There has been a lot of mocking of gays among the conservatives. Good luck with your DU career.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

82. I'd rather ridicule your user name

it's rather obvious...

:eyes:

[Unstuck In Time]

83. Of the people on this list, which could realisticallly...

... be elected president of the United States?

[MadHound]

88. Ooo Ooo, you're getting mocked, I'm soooo sorry, tell you what friend

Try walking in the shoes of a pagan, or atheist for a mile in the Bible Belt. You will be happy if all you get is mocked. More than likely you will get started with insults, death threats, and escalating to violence.

Get over your persecution complex, this isn't Rome, and Christians aren't having to live in the sewers, OK. But Christians sure do like to persecute anybody who isn't one. Persecute, threaten, insult, and try to beat the shit out of non-Christians. Get the picture?

[MountainLaurel]

132. Hell yes.

Christians don't have to worry about losing custody of their children based on their faith alone, or losing their jobs because their boss is an extremist nonbeliever.

:yourock:

[izzie]

14. Yar but it works.

[mainer]

15. 90% of Americans claim to believe in God

So ... they're being oppressed by the other 10%?

If they're so oppressed, why does every politician feel the need to cater to the churchgoers? I haven't heard anyone cater to the atheists or agnostics.

[Lisaben2619]

28. It almost seems like paranoia to some extent

I know some people in the NRA who are of that same mindset, too. The minute you mention gun bans of any kind, they assume you're trying to take away their guns. It's like some Christians who think that everyone is out to get them if we don't want prayer in public schools.

[Kurovski]

41. It's more like Passive-aggression

than Paranoia.

It's just one more political tool. Muddy the waters with emotion and confusion.

[PurityOfEssence]

59. they need others to justify their folly

Just like an alcoholic likes to have someone to drink with, believers want others to believe, too. It chases away the fear of the unknown and the gnawing suspicion that they're believing in gnomes and fairies and big-daddy gods who will give them an eternal pat on the head.

In many ways, belief is just a headlong running away from adulthood.

[datasuspect]

119. it's a siege mentality

they think that the secular world is trying to be encroach upon their religious world and that the devil is basically in everything that isn't "godly".

many christians have an aversion to "worldly" things.

case in point: i used to work for a very large media conglomerate and we had a live remote to pimp a music event that was coming. suffice to say that this all took place in the south.

we had this big huge slot machine thing (from which you could not win money) and if you got three of a kind, you could win concert tickets.

anyway, we had to be "out there" with the people to get them to participate. one of my colleagues asked this one lady if she wanted to give the prize machine a pull (rock music was playing really loudly all around from the station vehicle and the machine itself).

her answer: "i don't listen to that music, i'm a christian."

you see, a simple NO wouldn't suffice. one of the main objectives of christians is to proselytize.

so they always MUST make reference to their religion.

i'd like to rail on around the holidays about why i don't celebrate christmas, but you know what, i don't want to be a buzzkill for anyone else and if they're interested i will tell somebody.

christians don't give us this option. a christian HAS to believe and will never be wrong about their beliefs (in their own minds naturally).

so the siege mentality continues and they won't be happy until we are all saved.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. They are so "oppressed" there is a temple on every street corner...

...it seems.

[ArkDem]

44. Wouldn't temple be Jewish?

[Liberal Veteran]

45. Using temple in the broad sense....

Could be a church, a tabernacle (whatever that is), a cathedral, a synagogue or any number of other places.

Basically means a "place of worship".

[m berst]

26. they are oppressed

But not because they are Christians, and not by liberals. Just as the Germans were oppressed as the Nazis told them they were, but not because they were German and not by the Jews. In each case, people are gaining power by convincing people that they are persecuted, and whipping up passions by creating a scapegoat.

I have said here, and others have, that Christian bashing is not very smart because it reinforces this. We have also pointed out that scapegoating Christians is no better than Christians scapegoating liberals.

Are you describing that entire complex dynamic as "people of faith pretending they are the oppressed" and saying that you are "sick and tired of it?"

I haven't seen people pretending they are oppressed here. I haven't seen anyone "cramming their version of Jesus" down anyone's throat, either.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Baloney. Christians in my own party are fine with tolerating my oppression

as a gay woman. If you didn't read the gay marriage threads, then you didn't happen to notice that even liberal Christians can easily justify oppression of their fellow liberals.

Oh...and you are right about one thing..they are being USED..but according to their religion, God gave them intellect and free will...perhaps their god given gift of intellect if used as it were intended would free them from the oppression of their own gullibility.

[sangh0]

38. Some atheists, Jews, liberals, etc have no problem with it either

Who do we blame for atheist homophobes?

And what about the black homophobes?

And what about union members who are homophobes? A lot of those Reagan Democrats were union members who are socially conservative. Union members are not known for being gay-friendly.

[m berst]

49. Baloney?

You don't think that the largely blue collar and rural Christian community is oppressed? Do you really think that the Republican party party is granting them any privilege, or is their friend? Republican policies have devastated their communities, so, yes I think they are oppressed, but as I said, not because they are Christians and not by liberals.

It seems that you skimmed my message, decided that I was the enemy, and went on the attack here.

"If you didn't read the gay marriage threads, then you didn't happen to notice that even liberal Christians can easily justify oppression of their fellow liberals."

No, I have avoided those threads. Are you saying that liberals have justified oppression of GLBT people with Christianity?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Again my friend (and sorry for the use of the word baloney) ALLOWING

ones self to be used is hardly being oppressed...in Nazi Germany..the people who SUPPORTED the Nazi's were being USED..the JEWS were the ones who were OPPRESSED.....there is a critical distinction there that has to do with consent...no?

[m berst]

66. you missed my point

I probably wasn't clear. "ALLOWING ones self to be used is hardly being oppressed" you say. I am not saying that they are the same thing. Rural people have a sense of being oppressed. That feeling is accurate, they are being oppressed, as the mult-national agribusiness corporations and banking industry have destroyed their farming livelihood and their communities. Along comes the dishonest preacher and politician and assigns blame to a scapegoat.

The two things - being oppressed, and scapegoating other groups - exist separately and both are true.

The reason that this is an important point is because we are seeing a divide and conquer strategy being used against the American people.

The more hopeless people feel, the more vulnerable they are to find solace in religion. There is deep and real suffering in the farming communities and rural areas. This doesn't excuse or justify hatred or prejudice.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. I understand that..but again...they chose to have their religion in their

politics like pnut butter in their chocolate. They too could look and see where the bulk of Monsanto's political contributions go...it's REAL easy to follow the money. If my livelihood were on the line, I'd turn off Rush Limbaugh or the 700 Club or whatever and go find out everything I needed to know about who was pulling the strings that were tugging my livelihood out from under me...they chose a faithbased response void of the intellect God gave them to go figure it out.

Anyway..I admire your empathy...I'm running out of it. Peace.

[m berst]

71. where do we draw the line?

9 out of 10 Democratic friends of mine away from DU think I am whacked out when I tell them that they "could look and see where the bulk of Monsanto's political contributions go" and are no more interested in seeing the truth or in seeing who is pulling the strings in their lives. They should turn off CNN and MSNBC and find out everything THEY need to know about what is happening. YES they are somewhat better informed than their Republican neighbors, but not by much.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Maybe we need to get better at connecting dots than drawing lines

;-) I don't know the answers..with media concentration it truly seems like an effort worthy of Sisyphus.

[m berst]

84. there are allies there

I strongly believe that there are potential allies over there for a strong progressive movement. The Dominionists and the neo-cons have created a shaky alliance of people to support them, but it can be easily demonstrated that they are seriously misleading their supporters. Most rural people are not inherently any more or less hateful than people anywhere else - ignorant, yes, and therefore easy to mislead. They don't see how their Christianity is being used and turned into an instrument of hatred, but then how many Democrats see that their liberalism is being co-opted and turned into a justification and sugar-coating for corporate imperialism? Of course rural people are unfamiliar with the reality for urban people, but the same can be said for urban people about rural people.

Had the party taken a strong stand on universal health care, and on economic issues; had the party opposed NAFTA and WTO, it would take all the wind out of the neo-cons sails. Had the party taken a strong stand against the war, that would have trumped the Dominionists' phony moral issues.

That tells us (if you accept that what I say is true about it) that there are deeper more important issues that the Democratic party is not connecting to people on. This leaves a vacuum, and the con-men and hucksters in the Republican party and in the Evangelical community move in to that vacuum. If we attack the "sheep" in that flock - no matter how much we believe them to deserve it - we drive them closer to the con men and charlatans.

[sangh0]

75. That's a very interesting point

For years now, I've been talking to my friends about the dangers posed by various political power centers such as corporations, TheoCons, etc and for the most part, my reward has been poorly hidden smirks. It's gotten alittle better as time goes by and my freinds come to see that many of things I've told them about have come to make it into the news, but if I bring up some new travesty, I have to start all over with the smirks.

I'm talking about liberals here. Not particularly aware of politics the way many DUers are, but liberals all the same. And if I have so much trouble getting them to listen, how can we expect any of those people in the rural areas to listen to this without smirking?

[JanMichael]

78. Damn! I think I'm on Michael's name again

But, I am going to answer anyway....

You are correct; Liberal Christians do indeed justify oppression of the Gay Marriages...and it fucking chaps my ass. I get so damned tired of hearing their crap about "Civil Unions."

Sadly, even some Liberal Christians don't use the gift of intellect and free will that God, or Goddess, or Pan, or the Universe gave them.

It sucks.

I totally agree with every word you have written.

Stephanie

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. You and Salin are the liberal Christians I love most :)

[progmom]

110. The only thing I object to..

...and in no way does this come under the heading of oppression - the only thing I object to is the stereotyping. Yes, there are a lot of Christians who are dumb. Definitely. There are even (gasp) dumb liberals. And you're right - there are a lot of intolerant liberal Christians.

But there are also lots of tolerant Christians. Truly liberal Christians. And all I want is for you to understand that being a Christian does not automatically preclude a person from being tolerant.


Thanks.

[Selwynn]

169. But NSMA, where can you find any group that does not have this

You're right. There are liberal Christians here and elsewhere who have totally broken my heart by participating in the active oppression of gay people. It just makes me sick, sad, angry -- all at the same time. Civil Unions? In my book any one who says they don't support gay marriage but support "separate but equal" civil unions are no better than segregationists of the 50s.

So yeah, it just completely KILLS me to see that happen. But, there are "Liberals" who supported the war, liberals who oppose all gun laws, liberals who oppose choice, etc. Those things really kill me too. But I don't understand what the larger point is, my dear friend (well, I may not be dear to you, but you are to me - one of my favorite writers on DU.)

There are liberals who aren't Christian who also don't have the right attitude toward you or others. There are always people in any group that are wrong. So I don't understand the language of "the liberal Christian community" when saying things like "the liberal Christian community can easily justify oppression of other liberals." As a liberal Christian, I definitely don't support that. So if you say, "well not you, but there are SOME who do," I can only respond that there are ALWAYS "some" in any group that suck. :) What can ya do except resist their suckiness at every turn.

I can make you this promise: if you ever see a "liberal Christian" acting like a dumbass and taking a disgusting oppressive attitude toward my gay brothers and sisters - you please give me a PM. I'd like to be sure I have the change to join the "discussion" and get my frank comments on the record. :)

Sel

[Pithlet]

72. There have been all kinds of posts

wailing about the oppression of Christians and Christian viewpoints on DU, or by Democrats in general. Or how it's the reason why Bush won, because we alienate people of faith. Or, "The minute I mention I'm Christian on DU, someone says <insert insult here>" Blah blah blah blee blah. And it seems to have increased dramatically after the election, for some reason.

[NinetySix]

30. They are not at liberty to impose their will on us all...

...therefore they're oppressed. QED.

Once we all knuckle under to their moral authority, then they'll be EQUAL (although a bit more equal than us).

[Quill Pen]

33. Loose definition of "oppression."

As a Christian who is fiercely pro-separation of church and state, I'd have to agree that it bemuses me, too.

I used to work for a law firm that handled immigrants' rights. During the Eritrean-Ethiopian civil war (about 14 years ago) we had a couple of asylum cases who were Anglican ministers. The Ethiopian government was rounding up "country parsons" like these men; they'd be imprisoned and tortured. Both of our clients had been bayoneted, one clear through, and it was a miracle he survived.

When I tutored English at a local community college a couple of years later, I helped a young Eritrean woman with a paper about her father -- he, too, had been a clergyman. He was imprisoned and tortured to death. None of his captors even bothered to call a doctor for him.

You want to talk about persecution? That's persecution. Not getting to wail hymns and pass out copies of "Daily Bread" in the middle of sixth-period History is disappointment, not oppression.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. BEST.POST.EVER. on this particular subject

Thanks very much for demonstrating what real oppression is.

[Senator Lamb]

50. the principles

of Christianity stand in line with the principles of the Democratic Party. They should never be opposed to each other. Christianity is currently used to get the masses to vote against their own interests in favor of the corporate elite. ironically, these are the people Jesus criticized.

[progmom]

112. YES!

Very well said.

[Pithlet]

53. It actually makes sense.

Why should other groups who actually are oppressed get all the fun? After all, if you are in the majority but are insecure about that, what better way to take the heat off - and not have to deal with the behavior of other members of your group - then pretend you're not the majority. That way, no one will pay attention to what is really going on.

Besides it's got to be tough being a member of a majority group. It's difficult to look at things from other people's perspective and see the problems they may be dealing with because they aren't in the majority. Much easier to pretend that discussing those issues are instead an attack on you personally, and get all indignant about it. Voila, oppression.

[Hamlette]

58. fundamentalism, by definition, includes feeling threatened

it is growing in all three monotheistic religions (all religions really). Karen Armstrong writes about it and how dangerous it is.

Fundamentalism, and with it the feeling of oppression or being threatened, has happened whenever society undergoes a big change (think about the Renaissance and the Spanish inquisition happening at the same time).

It is entirely emotional. I can get along with religious people but I have long since given up that I can have any kind of meaningful relationship with one. You always hit a brick wall when they use god to justify a position. There is no getting past that. And that's just the garden variety religious person. Fundamentalists are impossible.

[rndmprsn]

60. freedom of religion...more than just words

sadly...its becoming just that...words.

[David Zephyr]

61. I'm So With You!

:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Oppressed? What a laugh. They run the country.

It's kind of like reading the journals of the slaveholders who were "burdened" with slaves. Or, the trials and tribulations of the wealthy.

Hell, it's damn near impossible to hear a politician who doesnt' end every speech with an unctuous "God Bless America".

Ironically, the very things that Jesus preached against.

[greyfox]

74. As a NON-supporting Bush Christian

mayI say YES!!!! I agree with you. I am one of those Bible thumping, foot stomping, shouting to the rooftops, tongue talking Christians and I find your note to be right on.
I apologize profusely for those of US who have given you those thoughts, but you are correct in having them. We have a long way to go before we can lay claim to being persecuted. BUT, if we were it wold be by BOTH sides of this political coin for sure. Neither is any better than the other when it comes to Christian-bashing when things don't go their way.
I imagine Jesus nearly vomits at times from how we act and react to one another.
Please don't let us (or anyone else) be a catapult for turning you away from the Lord (as He is revealed to you).

[arwalden]

90. Too Late. The Damage Has Been Done.

The harm is irreparable.

[greyfox]

166. Then shucks...

we BOTH lose.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. I completely appreciate your post and always do my best to distinguish

those that act like the beatitudes and those that assault others by hitting them over the head with their bible.

[greyfox]

167. Well, thanks...

but I just figure that I have enough to do keeping myself straight before (my) God than to hit you or anyone over the head with the Word as I see it. God may lead you down a different path than me, so I will just choose to respect that in your life (well, the lives of whomever). If ASKED how I believe God is leading ME, sure I will share; but I long ago stopped feeling it had to be MY way. I have seen God work wonders in so many people's lives and guess what? Some of them did not line up with how He dealth with me! I chose to learn from that rather than deny it and fuss. Ha ha oh well.. we all carry our own crosses I guess.
Thanks anyway for a kind word.

[arwalden]

85. Thank You For Posting This!

[ventvon]

89. Move to the middle east if you want to see oppression

If you want to see "Christians" set on fire alive by Muslims.

Go to asian nations where radical islam is present if you want to see Christian villagers beat up in front of their children, or men beat up and held as muslims rape their wives and daughters as young as 10 or 12.

Go to some african nations and see children of Christians nailed to boards in order to try and get the parents to "Renounce Christ." I wonder why their main purpose is just to get them to "Reject Christ."

People in this country don't know anything about oppression.

And don't bring up what "Bush" has done to people through the military. He is not a "follower of Christ" (Christian). You can't be that and be a follower of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, as Falwell is also in league with Moon who claims to be "the returning Lord and Savior here to fix what Jesus screwed up." Bush is a follower of this guy.

That makes him a fraud!

He can say anything, but nothing he does is authentically "Christian." He's just deceive Christians and most of you.

Not Christians.
Not non-Christians who think that Christians are overbearing when they try to convert them.

Wake up!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

114. Um....we're not dropping 2 ton bombs on Christians over there

And I find it humorous that yesterday you were making NO distinctions amongst fundamentalists and today., out of convenience for your own point you are.

[Djinn]

127. you know that the

civil wars in various parts of asia between "muslims" and "cheristians' ahve been going on for decades and BOTH sides have been guilty of rapes, beatings and murders? you're aware that it really has little to do with religion?

[slutticus]

92. People of faith are constantly oppressed.

Ironically, It's usually by other people of faith.

[ventvon]

93. What is a person of "faith"?

[slutticus]

95. Well, as an atheist I don't know first hand, but generally..

...I consider a "person of faith" as someone who believes something even in the complete absence of evidence. In the context of this thread, it means a person with religious beliefs.

[Selwynn]

168. How about this definition:

A person of faith usually disagrees about the definition of "evidence." A person of faith usually gives weight to experiential/perceptual phenomena in addition to objective concrete observation. Some skeptics simplify it and say that people of faith give credence to "feelings" as evidence of truths as well as empirical data as evidence of truths. That's probably not real far from the truth.

As a person of faith, I don't feel I can accept a definition that says belief in something despite completely lack of evidence. Because that's not what I feel. I believe that I have have come to believe the best explanation to fit all the evidence I have in my personal life, which includes empirical sense data and my experiential perceptions of my life and the world around me.

We can totally disagree about the legitimacy of that "data." You can argue that what I feel is projectionism, or emotionalistic, not based in any real perception of an external reality. I accept all that as reasonable argument. But today, so far in my thinking and reflecting, I don't agree. :)

Anyway, faith doesn't "feel" like believe without evidence to us. To us it feels like to not have faith would be to deny and ignore large chunks of evidence we've encountered.

Sel

[mainer]

118. True. We don't hear much about "bands of atheists" killing Christians

It's the christians against the muslims or the hindus against the christians or the jews against the muslims. So where are the murdering bands of agnostics?

[arwalden]

108. It Is Irrational To Give Religious Dogma An Exemption From Harsh Criticism

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/bash.html

<SNIP>

When we fear being accused of "religion bashing," we are buying into the trap our opponents have set for us. Republicans can criticize the political philosophy of Democrats and vice versa. Socialists and capitalists can criticize each other's basic worldview. Religionists, however, have insidiously snuck into the public consciousness the notion that religious doctrines deserve special insulation from criticism, ridicule, and doubt.

Religionists have poisoned the debate about religion by passing off this concept that, from the outset, religious claims must be treated with a kinder and gentler type of criticism than that leveled at other types of belief systems.

<SNIP>

[bloom]

133. That does seem to sum up what I have witnessed

around DU. "Religionists, however, have insidiously snuck into the public consciousness the notion that religious doctrines deserve special insulation from criticism, ridicule, and doubt."

---

I don't know if I can think of ANYONE who does not feel oppressed for one reason or another.

There is something about the Christian religion and the Jewish religion, as well - where it seems that there is a Biblical concept that they are and will be forever oppressed. As if it is somehow important to the identity of the group.

Like it binds them together or something.

This may be the case with other groups as well.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. in my experience

Often, those in power project what they are in fact guilty of. I see Christians claiming discrimination or oppression but ignore their own actual discriminatory acts. I see whites bitching about not having a "White History Month." I see straights complaining about "Why is their no Straight Pride Parade?" The majority tries to play role of victim when a minority group makes a move for equality. It is NOT to say that discrimination against those in majority does not occur, because we all know it does. But, if it occurred as much as minority discrimination occurred, I think there would be many in the majority who might change their tunes! They would finally understand true discrimination and oppression!

[m berst]

117. you are so right

I sometimes think I am living in "opposite world" where everything people say is the opposite of its true meaning.

You nailed the reverse racism fallacy - the idea of racism against the dominant and privileged group is a contradiction in terms and betrays a lack of understanding of the meaning of race and of racism. Discrimination without the power to enforce it is much different than discrimination that has no force behind it. White people are free to hate people of color - that is stupidity, not racism. It is acting against people - or speaking and voting and funding those who act against people - on the arbitrary and meaningless criteria of skin color that is racism. It doesn't have anything to do intrinsically with minotrities ot majorities either, since the dominant and powerful group can be in the minority and still be racist.

We have 500 years of racism being directed by Europeans against the rest of the world. Eurpoeans invented the concept of race. To ginore this historical context is to render any discussion of racism ridiculous and meaningless.

Are the statements by Christian DU-ers - perceived by non-Christian DU-ers as whining and as falsely claiming imagined persecution - analogous to reverse racism, or are there other factors involved?

Many Christians do see themselves as oppressed and persecuted. We can easily ridicule and deride them for this, but what would we lose in trying to understand this?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

120. Two posts in two days (at least on my threads) where you beautifully

nail it! :thumbsup:

[Behind the Aegis]

144. I did?!

Thank you! Where else did I do good?! I need some "back patting!" I have had a bad week! :( Thanks for the compliment!

BB!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

161. In the lounge th other day

BTW..just so you know...I often read your posts and appreciate the depths you go to in order to explain your reasoning :D

[Behind the Aegis]

172. You made my day!

I have to admit reading your response made me feel very good. I don't post unless I have something to say. I appreciate that you can see when I post I am not being capricious, but actually have given thought to what I am typing. Again, thank you!

[southlandshari]

140. Direct hit - well said

Thanks for that! =)

[mitchum]

113. They seem to forget "You will be hated, just as they hate me"

I am also sick of their whining

[Sin]

116. yes yes

Oppressed I meen heres a list of how bad it is I tell you just look at all the opression.

http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/lioaca.html

[Jack Schitt]

134. Amen!

[hunter]

135. Oh for goodness sakes! Christians *like* to be oppressed!

It makes us feel worthy.

:silly:

[m berst]

146. ROFL

Can't stop laughing. There is some truth to that one, all right.

[RPM]

136. agreed - 1500 years of framing debates...

... of morality, religion and (in many cases) politics - Yet, somehow Christians have the impression that the world is against them.

While they may be outnumbered, globally, they are the solid majority in the western world; As such, they control the debate there and have the resources to reach out into other lands (have you ever had a hindu come to your door and try to give his testimonial.... there's a reason)

On the whole, Christianity is frustrated - 1500 years of control and no real progress; Likely the cause for the modern, militant christianity.

[m berst]

147. all true

Excepting that there is no monolithic block or common thread througout the ages linking all Christians. It would be silly to talk about Germans that way, for example. Many different things happen in many different places under many different banners. Yes, many bad things happened in Europe in the name of Christianity, but so did just about everything good that happened. Neither tells us anything in particular about Christianity. Crediting Christianity with the work of Bach, for example, makes no more sense than blaming Christianity for wars. Bach's work, though, was more closely related to the church than most European wars, and was much more typical of what the church did.

The reason I object to your description is not to defend Christianity nor any Christians, but for the sake of accuracy and for the sake of the power of our response to a very real threat. We are facing the threat of theocracy, and failing to parse out the elements within the religion that are responsible for this is to risk missing the mark with any remedy we apply. Small comfort it will be to any of us should we fail, and have nothing to show for our efforts except a reinforced simplistic historical view of Christianity as being the cause of all evils, including the demise of our Consitution. Even if we are right about that, we still lose our country if we refuse to see the true nature of the threat, because we see the danger as monolithic and all contained in a grab bag called "Christianity" and leave it at that.

[southlandshari]

138. I'm with you, nothingshocksmeanymore

As a strong, proud, progressive Christian member of DU, I am just as turned off by assertions by American Christians (of any denomination or political persuasion) that they are an oppressed class. Ugh.

I haven't seen much of this on DU - am I missing something? I don't think liberal Christians typically feel oppressed in this country; most of us are too busy fighting for the rights of and respect of the truly oppressed, including those who practice other faiths or follow no organized religion.

But I sure as hell hear it from right-wing crybabies given airtime in the media and plenty of conservative Christians around these parts. And it is a sick, self-absorbed and wholly un-Christian attitude to take.

[southlandshari]

139. What do you make of this?

Reflecting on this post, I find it interesting that I have felt a lot of frustration at the stereotypes and generalized bashing of the South since the election, but have not found much of anything in posts about right-wing fundamentalists that has really offended me in that same time.

I have felt that the majority of posts involving politics and the Christian faith have been more accurately worded than those involving the South. In other words, it has felt to me that more folks understand that there are "good" and "bad" Christians than those who also believe there are "good" and "bad" Southerners. Sorry for the oversimplified terms (good/bad), just trying to keep my point clear.

I certainly feel more of a bond to my faith than I do than to my hometown and the geographical region in which I live. Friends here know I have no problem wading in to challenge what I see as overly broad stereotypes here. I'd be much quicker to defend Christianity than Alabama if both were equally maligned.

[Lexingtonian]

149. If I understand the question you're asking

it's: Why are people so much angier at Southerners than politically active conservative Christians per se.

It's American history. The South has historically been aggressive and its reactionary elite has wanted privileged status from Day One of the Republic and never ceased- look at Washington today and the Dixiecrats yesterday and so on backwards. I.o.w. it's the political elites of the South let loose on the national scene that are percieved as a running problem in the other parts, and the persistent anger at Southern society/electorates comes from its partial coconspiracy (on the one hand) and apparent unwillingness to rein in the arrogance and entitlement of these 'representatives' (on the other).

Then, there's the question of what is meant with 'Southern' now. Culturally, Settlement split the Lower Fortyeight into three pieces. There's North, and South, and the historical tiebreaker has been the Midlands.

The Midlands begins on Chesapeake Bay near Philadelphia (not included in it) and contains Baltimore, runs west as a band roughly along the Mason Dixon line into the Alleghenies, then widens in them to fill the southern 3/4 of Ohio and both banks of that river and continues. At the Mississippi the band widens again, running straight on the northern flank- across southern Iowa and Nebraska to Wyoming and into Idaho- but sweeping southwestward in Missouri into Kansas with a border that passes through southern Colorado or reaches northern New Mexico. So it includes parts of, or defines, just about all the Border States. (I personally think its eastern end is wider and extends from the mouth of the Susquehannah River to the Rappahannock River in northern Virginia, not the Potomac, but that's just me.)

The Midlands reluctantly sided with the North in the domestic social conflicts between 1790-1865 (abolishing slavery) and 1865-1940 (voter enfranchisement). It has sided with the South, with reluctance, in the present era of social conflict (racial and gender equality).

That different taking of sides has not gone unnoticed, and it has kept the balance of power tipped to the reactionaries for longer than in the previous arguments. And it accounts for some of the harsher but less accurate regionalist obloquy on the progressive side, i.e. the Northern one, with 'South' or 'Southern' becoming more amorphous as people in the Ohio and Missouri basins started being taken to be part of that side.

[southlandshari]

175. Thanks!

That was very interesting, and definitely answered half my question (which I know was kind of rambling).

I guess the second half of the question was:

Why are so many people able to see that there are Christians at both ends of the political spectrum (and everywhere in between), but cannot see the same is true of Southerners?

This is an especially interesting question to me since I think it was fundamentalist Christians all over the U.S. who played the pivotal role in pushing Bush's votes up in this election (whether the actual results were accurate or not).

It has just been interesting for me, someone who has NEVER been a Southern apologist at any point in my life, to have felt so defensive about the South lately, while I haven't felt a similar or stronger need to rise to the defense of my Christian faith (which, in my mind, has not been attacked anywhere near as much as the South has been).

Am I making ANY sense yet? I know what I mean to say, just not sure if I'm getting it out right!

[Lexingtonian]

181. more historical stuff

I'll let William T. Sherman do the talking here about the politically important parts of Southern society. Don't forget that he spent a couple of well-enjoyed years in the South before the Civil War, teaching/running the Louisiana state military academy created for the purpose- he realized later- of winning a Civil War.

He's always construed as hating Southerners, but that's not the truth of the matter. He resorted to the Burning of Georgia and South Carolina for political and strategic military reasons, but he also says somewhere in his letters that the reason the Civil War started was that Southern society defined itself by property rather than morality, that covetousness was its engrained sin and that there was only one way to demonstrate this to the South and the world at large. And if you look at Southern Civil War writings about Sherman (I like Charles Colcock Jones's book about fighting Sherman for Georgia and Savannah)- there is an unbelievable hatred expressed at Sherman on the count of property begin destroyed. For having the gall to take slaves along and let plantations be plundered- most of the worst maraudings were later shown to have been committed by Confederate deserters and, famously, Wheeler's cavalry (also Confederate)- whereas the overall militarily significant effects (railroad busting, requisitioned food and industry destroyed) of it all were 'merely' a ruining of stuff no one privately owned: and gets utterly ignored. Sherman knew where to hit these fellas so it hurt, and it came at miniscule cost in human lives or human violence.

If you look at analysis by Sherman in that letter to Halleck, the Southern social order is such that the strongest people in society are unabashedly predatory on the rest. In sociopolitical terms, what Sherman describes is a medieval aristocratic system, serfdom and mediocrity of the leaders all. Whenever the Southern elites talk of 'freedom' it's remarkably divorced of all other social virtues and values, assumes a feudal social arrangement, and that grates in parts of the country where greater egalitarianism is necessary.

Some Southern social forms are made necessary by Southern geography and climate. It's a wooded land with lots of parallel, swampy, river drainages, it's rainy in winter rather than snowed in, terribly hot and humid in summers, and hit by hurricanes with some regularity. The social geography of the South is thus naturally lots of competitive, agrarian, small semi-tribal groups. The winters of the kind don't force these groups into internal or external interdependence arrangements outside of the person's clan, and the long idle periods of summer and winter- not that much work in the fields or woods is necessary for good enough yields- are pretty good breeding grounds for hostility and discontent. High internal hostility levels lead to a militaristic feudal social pyramid. And due to the hurricanes and flooding Native societies in the South spent a lot of time and effort at appeasing the Nature Deities- much like their successors do now. (Change will come with depopulation of rural areas- dominance of the cities- and with substantial Hispanic intermarriage breaking down the black/white racial division, but that's a generation or more off.)


http://www.sonshi.com/sherman13.html

The letter from Sherman to Halleck, September 17 1864, is about 3/4 of the way down. This is the subheader:

HEADQUARTERS, FIFTEENTH ARMY CORPS, CAMP ON BIG BLACK, MISSISSIPPI, September 17 1863 H. W. HALLECK, Commander-in-Chief, Washington, D. C.

"We accepted the issue, and now they begin to realize that war is a two-edged sword, and it may be that many of the inhabitants cry for peace. I know them well, and the very impulses of their nature; and to deal with the inhabitants of that part of the South which borders on the great river, we must recognize the classes into which they have divided themselves.

First. The large planters, owning lands, slaves, and all kinds of personal property.
....
Second. The smaller farmers, mechanics, merchants, and laborers. This class will probably number three-quarters of the whole;
....
Third. The Union men of the South. I must confess I have little respect for this class.
....
Fourth. The young bloods of the South: sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard-players and sportsmen, men who never did work and never will.

+++
Looking back over this, I don't quite know what to tell you in real answer to your question about why goodhearted Southerners get so little credit. I can tell you my suspicion that you folks get drowned out, that 'we' Northerners have felt besieged for so long that it's a defect and part of the price of the conflict to see only the strong powers arrayed against us. But there's also an element that the N/S division is not just between but within the Parties now- Northeastern Republicans are sort of an illegitimate species to the true believer Republicans, as too compromised, and the feeling that Southern Democrats are the laggards and drags on the Party is also real at the moment. But it's a sense born of frustration at the overall fight not breaking the right way, on each side, and sober people know that we are dependent on each other.

Father, forgive them- they know not what they do....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

162. Lexingtonian said it better than I could

[the other rick]

171. Try looking at the thread "outrage!!"

narrow minded bigotry against religious people is alive and well on these very boards

[KnowerOfLogic]

141. Yep; they call it discrimination when they're not allowed to discriminate.

[Old Mouse]

143. not a popular view but...

In many ways fundamentalist Christians are oppressed in modern America.

I'm no freeper, I swear to Buddha, and I love DU more than anything on the web, but I think people forget how far and fast our society has progressed: South Park, a show based on the single premise that it was unthinkable to say or do the things they do just a few years ago is more popular than actual Church attendance. For someone of their faith there could be nothing more sacrilegious, yet they put up with our teeshirts and action figures... our Monty Pythons, MADTv, SNL and our oh-so-delicious Daily Show.

We poke fun at their beliefs, they are the low hanging fruit for comedy and ridicule, and we continually try to convert them to science or logically convince them to change the tenants of their faith. It's in a general way true of how our society as a whole treats all Christian faiths... We always berate the Pope for his lack of modernization, but forget he does actually believe what he teaches, and therefore can't change Church doctrine until God whispers in his ear.

Christianity in America was a lot more Christian 40 years ago. I think this new aggressive, violent incarnation is a survival response to changes in overall social consciousness that threaten to make organized religion obsolete.

[m berst]

152. welcome

Nice post Old Mouse, thanks. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

Mike

[sangh0]

156. Welcome to DU

That was a great post. I hope you post more often. DU could you a bit more compassion and understanding

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

163. Sorry my friend but look at the big bucks in organized religion

Currently it gets mocked for the same reason a black person might call a white person a honkey and for the same reason "Ve Heil..right in the fuehrer's face!" was funny.....it's mocking those that yeild POWER over us.

[TWiley]

164. I heard a story on NPR

where "Christian Missionaries" in Iraq have been opening Liquor stores in a country that is largely opposed to it. After their stores got fire-bombed, they cried that they were attacked because they were Christian.

In too many cases I see fundamentalists being the aggressors and then interpreting any opposition on the part of the victim as being "oppression".

Apparently, they expect everyone to just stand there, take it, chant the magic prayer, then go to church with them.

[Selwynn]

165. We need to understand the social / political dichotomy

Socially speaking, fundamentalist ultra-conservatives are in the minority.

Politically speaking, fundamentalists ultra-conservative groups have been steadily gaining power and control over the last two decades. If you doubt this claim, I can give you resources to help trace this emerging power. Politically speaking, fundamentalists religious Dominions are the second more powerful political force in America, behind the corporate lobby.

See, fundamentalists ultra conservatives lost the social war, and their attempts to enact a counter-social revolution on the 70s and early 80s failed. So they began to infiltrate politics. Their ultimate aim is to take total control of government and LEGISLATE the social society they want to see, since they couldn't do it by persuasion in the public square.

[Old Mouse]

178. Possibly...

But I think Bush and company have been looking for a likely place to claim their extra votes came from; it wasn't in Latinos, or women voters, like they first tried to claim, so "moral values" came to the fore. The fundamentalists themselves have been fooled into believing they have some sort of power over society, and are currently making the most of it on camera.

Rove's propaganda machine creates an illusion of numbers that don't exist. How many people were upset with Janet Jackson's breast? Almost none. How many people were were upset with the fake memo on 60 minutes? Almost none. How many of America 270 million people are fundamentalist Christian? Less then four million. How many of them are rich? Almost none. I do not believe we are the prisoners of four million poor, under-educated religious extremists.

The current administration does not care at all about religion, they care about corporate profit. But nothing keeps a population divided and fighting against themselves more than a religious divide. If we are busy fighting about civil unions, it's easier to slip by drilling in the Alaska.

[Selwynn]

180. http://www.theocracywatch.org

read. learn. resist.

[Lexingtonian]

145. I'm with you

Still, I have to agree somewhat with Old Mouse's point. Every reasonable Modern person presents the kind of people we're talking about with a problem they don't really feel competent to deal with, no matter their pretense at superiority. They do feel like aliens, beamed down into a world where they have title to Everything but are disenfranchised. Yes, they live, in some way, in a world that is forever 1885 and Sunday Best and whitewashed chapels with a steeple. And don't forget that it's not 'Liberals' watching MTV and Britney Spears that pains them, it's their own kind leaving and disavowing the Divine Order Of The World they themselves were taught. It's the denial that any Divine Order matters at all in the public arena, an Order which was so certain to 'everyone' when they were young, that leaves them feeling helpless.

But: they can't admit that what they've bought into is barely Christianity- it's the psychological colonialism that's been part and parcel of the Settlement they can't do without, or that the Religious Right politics means consent to the continued infliction of material colonialism on themselves. They can't admit that the Divine Order they were taught is a crutch, not a crown.

Every major change in a society leaves a lot of people disinherited of what they consider their birthright. A historian of the Ancient World said that thousands of years ago (I paraphrase, and don't remember which one exactly) and it holds true. It's horrifyingly arrogant of their kind to assert the Christian Nation claim in a political manner- their occultism internally and paganism of their politics toward Others in the society voids any title deed they may claim to have.

"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure
that we are doubly sure." -Reinhold Niebuhr, US Protestant theologian

"If Jesus were alive today, there is one thing he would not be: a Christian." -Mark Twain

"CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired
book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who
follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with
a life of sin." -Ambrose Bierce

As far as I can tell, there's only one of you of significance that has been crucified and even HE wouldn't support half the shit that is being suggested as a means to appeal to his followers.

And even He said, on that particular occasion, about those who permitted the injustice perpetrated on him in the name of political power and privilege and intolerance, this: "Forgive them, they know not what they do."

[m berst]

154. I love Bierce

"CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin." -Ambrose Bierce

Dying laughing here. I had forgotten that one. Thanks. It is true without being cruel or destructive and a good antidote to the self-important attitudes many are taking.

Puffed up self-righteous Christians led by unscrupulous men are an enormous danger, but then puffed up self-righteous non-Christians led by unscrupulous men are just as dangerous.

[johnaries]

153. I am now a Taoist, but I was raised as a Christian and studied

the Gospels. No doubt about it, Jesus was a Liberal. Jerry Falwell and Jim Robertson and most of the Religious Right would have been the first in line to scream "Crucify Him!"

[patcox2]

158. So you find people who act oppressed oppressive.

Very ironic.

[Selwynn]

160. Wow, I'm shocked, NSMA. I have come to expect a more nuanced argument...

..from you. Let's get under the hood, shall we? :)

First let's start here - can you and I agree that most of us in America - especially those of us who are white and middle class, don't have a lot of ground to be talking about being "oppressed" at all? And we ought to really be careful how quickly we throw that word around. For a white, middle class person in America who has a full time job and a roof over his head and clothes on his back to talk about being "oppressed" is probably a poor choice of words in light of how much brutal and devastating oppression there actually is in the world.

Second, can we agree to apply this concept of the misuse of the term "oppression" fairly? So for example, it is no less outrageous for atheists in America to talk about how brutally oppressed they are for their lack of belief. "Oppression" is the right word. Atheists are certainly in the minority, and that means running into some kinds of social obstacles. But to develop a "victim" complex because of it is not productive, and it is alienating to other people. The same principle holds true for Christians who truly do have the same kind of "persecution complex." That kind of self-pitying victim-mentality attitude is irritating and unjustifiable.

Ok, so are we - more or less - together in agreement so far? Ok, well what I want to say next is this:

Who exactly are you targeting your comments too? The problem with the reasoning in your post is that - very uncharacteristically of what I've read from you - there is no attempt to avoid sweeping generalization. To explain, I think it is very disgusting when Christian organizations act as though they are persecuted in America and try to glorify that myth. However, don't you think that in the current climate in America that liberal and progressive Christians might feel more under attack on all sides.

Other liberal and progressives are so turned off by the fanatical fundamentalism they see that they keep making less and less of a distinction between the personal, private faith of a progressive and the institutionalized, corrupt agenda of a religious dominionist. And as organized Christian institutions drift more and more to the right and all under the growing influence of religious dominionism, liberal and progressive Christan's feel rejected and alienated from that community as well?

Are we liberal Christians oppressed? No! That is the wrong word - it is too strong, and it doesn't take seriously the amount of real oppression in the world. But it is true that it is a more difficult time to be a progressive Christian today than it has been at any other time since I have been alive. So of course we can all agree that hearing Pat Robertson on the 700 club speak about Christian persecution in America can make us all want to throw up. But somehow I get the impression that really wasn't want you were referring to. Perhaps I am totally mistaken, but I certainly get the impression that just maybe you weren't delivering a rant about fundamentalists Christian conservatives -- we can all agree that they are outrageous in their claims of persecution -- but rather a rant about Christians a little more closer to home, maybe even right in this community.

I think it takes a tremendous act of willful blindness to not see the fact that liberal and progressive Christians are going to be one of the most isolated and alienated groups in America in the next four years. Liberals hate us because they have trouble seeing the difference between us and the evil they see done in the name of faith. Religious fundamentalists hate us because we reject their fundamentalism. It's not oppression, it's loneliness. And what many of the liberal Christians here are writing the community and asking for is an extra does of mercy and compassion. Sure, maybe we're no more deserving that anyone else. But mercy isn't about deservedness now is it?

What I desire, in my ideal world, would be for this community to be a place where, in addition to all the other groups who feel welcome and at home, liberal progressive Christians would not just be welcomed - which we are, I don't feel "persecuted" - but would be considered as much a part of the family as anyone else. So that, when the tough times come - and believe me, these next years are going to be some of the worst times for us - we can draw on a community of real support and strength. A community that thinks so highly of even its liberal Christian members, that it makes clear distinctions between its liberal Christian brothers and sisters that it loves and supports and doesn't want to change, and the evils done in the name of Christianity out there in the world which are disgusting and must be fought.

A lot of us are cringing and already expecting the next four years to be miserable, both here at DU and everywhere else we go in the world. Maybe we're wrong - maybe we do have some kind of "complex" but I know a lot of liberal Christian folk are already preparing to get treated like shit, and lumped in with every other slime ball who decides to call himself or herself a Christian and pursue a fanatical dominionist agenda. And I really wish it didn't have to be that way. I wish that this community would rise up and protect its weakest members - just like I would rise up and protect and support women on womens issues, just like I would rise up to defend and support gays on gay issues, etc. I have striven to develop an attitude where I defend - rigorously - the people and groups I care about. So that when I am somewhere else in my public life, and a comment gets made in some chauvinist way toward women - I'm right there to stand against that. When some religious person starts berating and attacking atheists, I am right there to defend the atheists I know who are amazing wonderful people that I don't ever want to change. When someone starts throwing around hurtful slang about gays, or starts stereotyping them, I am right there to confront that and defend those that I care about.

And when people come to this community for shelter from the meanness and hardship they've faced at the hands of others in their real life, I would like to help this place be a bastion of comfort, strength, rest, and support -- not another place where people have to feel defensive or on edge about who they are.

NSMA, I think that's what a great many liberal progressive Christians here on these boards have been asking for and talking about lately. It's not a persecution complex. I don't feel like we are oppressed. But I am asking for special mercy and support from this wonderful liberal community to some of its most vulnerable community members - the next four years are going to be brutal and very isolating for many of us. Asking for that is not inappropriate in any way. And it deserves to be responded to in an attitude of reflection and openness, not hostility.

Now, having said all that - if I have misunderstood your meaning, I apologize and ask for clarification.
Thanks,
Sel

[ScreamingMeemie]

177. I agree with everything you said. It is the sarcasm and the condescension

that I abhor. As one who tries to "be good to my neighbor", it sorely bothers me sometimes to read the postings of those who don't believe at times. Disagreeing is one thing....belittling another.

Ah heck, I'm going to hell anyway. ;)

[shockra]

182. Religious fanatics are oppressed by society...

...the same way that alcoholics are oppressed by AA. Anyone who tries to introduce some reality into their lives is "persecuting" them.

This is religion devoid of spirituality, an addiction.

Addiction is part and parcel of a patriarchal culture (When Society Becomes an Addict, Ann Wilson Schaef) and the church is one of its pillars, which makes religion more conducive to addictive behavior. There are numerous characteristics that addicts share; lying, self-centeredness, control, denial, disordered thinking, confusion, arrogance and on and on... Feminists call patriarchy death-oriented, and addiction-oriented amounts to the same thing. America is an addictive society in spades. Capitalism is about consume, consume, consume. Not only does it separate people from their money, addiction makes people more amenable to control.

When Society Becomes an Addict was easily one of the most important books I've ever read. These days it looks like a manual for the way the Bush administration conducts business!