The media's persecution of Christians

[Disco]

I'm having a discussion with a Christian about the pastor who recently resigned after national media attention focused on his support of Bush in church. He doggedly insists that the media constantly stereotypes the religious as conservatives, and does not pay equal attention to the "religious left".

I just don't understand this particular subset of Christianity, those who feel persecuted by the media, Hollywood, and the "liberal elite". So, I found the following commentary to be quite interesting. I've asked for his take on it, but I'd also like to get some points of view from skeptics.

here's the link:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/152/story_15216_1.html

Should these folks receive compassion for their plight, or are they just paranoid?


MHB

[crimresearch]

I don't know if it could rightly be called 'paranoia', if it is just a pretextual tactic to take power away from others.

[Tony]

Originally posted by ooh_child


Should these folks receive compassion for their plight, or are they just paranoid?



I'd say they are simply playing the victim.

[Cleon]

Well, there is a religious left. But they don't have the sort of mass power base that the religious right does.

A few weeks ago, the Family Research Council organized a mass rally to oppose filibusters--it was carried on national television, and featured speakers like Bill Frist. That's not even a major rally--these folks can churn out tens, sometimes even hundreds, of thousands of people to these sorts of things.

When was the last time the Quakers pulled off something like that? Even Jesse Jackson doesn't get that kind of attention.

[thaiboxerken]

People like O'Reilly, Hannity and Rush Limbaugh perpetuate this tactic of Christian victimization. Anytime the Christian agenda is stifled, they cry that they are being persecuted. Anytime the Christian's win, they still cry that they are being persecuted. Bush get's a faith-based government, and they still cry that they are being persecuted. Kansas will soon teach Creationism as science, and they will still cry that they are being persecuted.

When they have the power to hang homosexuals and burn witches, they'll still cry that Christianity is under assault.

[Disco]

As far as a "religious left" wing of the Democratic party goes, I've wondered how large & effective such a group might be. The party's stands on abortion, stem-cell reasearch, and gay civil unions seem to be deal-breakers for many religious folk. I don't see how they could get around those issues to court a religious lefty.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by ooh_child
As far as a "religious left" wing of the Democratic party goes, I've wondered how large & effective such a group might be. The party's stands on abortion, stem-cell reasearch, and gay civil unions seem to be deal-breakers for many religious folk. I don't see how they could get around those issues to court a religious lefty.

Well, because there are a large number of religious folks who have no problem with abortion, stem-cell research, and gay civil unions (even--*gasp*--gay marriage).

[Disco]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, because there are a large number of religious folks who have no problem with abortion, stem-cell research, and gay civil unions (even--*gasp*--gay marriage).

Sure, but do they label themselves "religious liberals", like the religious conservatives do? Do they claim religious persecution by the media?

MHB

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by ooh_child
I'm having a discussion with a Christian about the pastor who recently resigned after national media attention focused on his support of Bush in church. He doggedly insists that the media constantly stereotypes the religious as conservatives, and does not pay equal attention to the "religious left".

I just don't understand this particular subset of Christianity, those who feel persecuted by the media, Hollywood, and the "liberal elite". So, I found the following commentary to be quite interesting. I've asked for his take on it, but I'd also like to get some points of view from skeptics.

I would say, follow the money. The media will report on whatever stories they think will garner the most attention and gain the most in ratings. What the media "persecutes" is tied to their viewers' pocketbooks. Religious folks, particularly Christians, are in the vast majority in America, and likewise make up the majority of the media's viewers. It then doesn't follow that Chistians would continue to pay for their own persecution.

This isn't to say that there aren't corrections. I think the success of FOXNews and other conservative entities is a sign of a populace that is finding the current state of its media to be perhaps too liberal or too anti-religious, etc.

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by ooh_child
Sure, but do they label themselves "religious liberals", like the religious conservatives do? Do they claim religious persecution by the media?

MHB

More so, are they a strong political entity and have they hijacked a major political party? :)

[Disco]

True, Christians wouldn't pay to support their own persecution, unless they can work it to their own benefit. Or maybe those folks aren't true Christians anyway.

Good points, rhoadp. Thanks.

MHB

[geni]

I don't know but what it do know is that it is mildly entertaining to watch american athiests and american christians both claim they are being persicuted.

[thaiboxerken]

The difference is that american atheists don't have the seat of power to persecute anyone. Meanwhile, creationism is to be taught in Kansas public schools..

[thaiboxerken]

It then doesn't follow that Chistians would continue to pay for their own persecution.


But they do love to pay for the perception of persecution. They love to say that people are oppressing christians, even while they light fire to a witch.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The difference is that american atheists don't have the seat of power to persecute anyone.

How long do you think it would take me to find the inverse claim on RR?



Meanwhile, creationism is to be taught in Kansas public schools.

On the basis that that is technicaly persicution of the largest relgious sect on the planet I feel that claiming it as athiest specific is a little odd.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by geni
How long do you think it would take me to find the inverse claim on RR?

Not long, since they are liars.


On the basis that that is technicaly persicution of the largest relgious sect on the planet I feel that claiming it as athiest specific is a little odd.

I'm not claiming that it's atheist specific. Also, it's not a persecution of religion, but of science. I used the example to show just how powerful the RR is getting in the USA.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Not long, since they are liars.

No on the basis that the goverment of the US is still functioning I think that it is safe to say that it isn't being run by RR types.



I'm not claiming that it's atheist specific. Also, it's not a persecution of religion, but of science. I used the example to show just how powerful the RR is getting in the USA.

Technicaly it is the presicution of relgion since some forms of relgion accept/belive in evolution.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by geni
I don't know but what it do know is that it is mildly entertaining to watch american athiests and american christians both claim they are being persicuted.
The article cites a study which showed that some people would not vote for an evangelist. But if you actually look at the study, 15% said that about evangelists, HALF said it about atheists. How can they claim to be persecuted, when one of them is president, and none of us can be? Especially since evangelism can be a perfectly valid basis on which to discriminate, while discrimination against atheists is bigotry. BTW, some punctuation would really make your posts more readable.

Technicaly it is the presicution of relgion since some forms of relgion accept/belive in evolution.
:confused:
Huh? How does that make it persecution of religion?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by geni
No on the basis that the goverment of the US is still functioning I think that it is safe to say that it isn't being run by RR types.

BS!! Believe it or not, there are governments that function that are run by RR types.


Technicaly it is the presicution of relgion since some forms of relgion accept/belive in evolution.

Wrong. Evolution is not a religious concept at all, thus it cannot be an attack no religion to attack evolution.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
BS!! Believe it or not, there are governments that function that are run by RR types.

Nope. There are a few that appear on the surface to be run by RR types but none that in fact are


[b]
Wrong. Evolution is not a religious concept at all, thus it cannot be an attack no religion to attack evolution.

going against evolution goes against C of E doctrain just ask the arc bish

[geni]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
[B]The article cites a study which showed that some people would not vote for an evangelist. But if you actually look at the study, 15% said that about evangelists, HALF said it about atheists. How can they claim to be persecuted, when one of them is president, and none of us can be? Especially since evangelism can be a perfectly valid basis on which to discriminate, while discrimination against atheists is bigotry.

Only if you assume that athism is the correct position.

Now lets look at the rest of your claim. US presedent is only one office and what people say they want in a presedent has a very poor history of mapping on to what they vote for in the end

Now you seem to be claiming that the christian right has a lot of power. Lets see how well those ten conmadments they seem to feel are so important are being inforced:

1. Hard to tell
2.not in any way shape or form
3.not really
4.variable
5. depends on your POV by thier's no
6.no
7.yes
8.depends on the situation
9.not universally
10.you are in fact encouraged to break this one.


So much for them haveing real power. See why they feel opressed?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by geni
Nope. There are a few that appear on the surface to be run by RR types but none that in fact are

You are a liar.


going against evolution goes against C of E doctrain just ask the arc bish

He is a liar.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You are a liar.

Prove it



He is a liar.

Nope he was one of the guys who wrote letters of complain when a private school in the UK started teaching creationism.

[Disco]

How exactly did this become about evolution? Perceived persecution by the religious right does not always equate to a creo/evo debate, guys.

Geesh!

:p

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by geni
Prove it

You need to prove your statements to be true.


Nope he was one of the guys who wrote letters of complain when a private school in the UK started teaching creationism.

That doesn't mean it's the truth.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, because there are a large number of religious folks who have no problem with abortion, stem-cell research, and gay civil unions (even--*gasp*--gay marriage).

There are even GOP-voting conservative/libertarians like myself who feel the same way!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ooh_child
How exactly did this become about evolution? Perceived persecution by the religious right does not always equate to a creo/evo debate, guys.

Geesh!



True, but it's usually either that, teacher led prayer in schools, or displaying the ten commandments.

[thaiboxerken]

Let's not forget same-sex marriage. The RR thinks that allowing same-sex couples to marry is an assault on christianity.

[Ladewig]

No. Persecution would be a news article saying "Believers are flocking to a stain that religious people describe as an image of the Virgin Mary; however, no rational person could describe the stain as representing anything like a human face. Furthermore, even if there were a human likeness, there is no way of knowing that what Jesus's mother looked like, so it is meaningless to claim such an image resembles the Virgin Mary."

Ask your friend for specific articles that indicate persecution.

[Disco]

Ladewig, he presented searchs from various media publications showing "religious conservative" vs "religious liberal" usage in articles. Of course, many more articles used the term "religious conservative".

I pointed out quotes from various conservatives, including Jerry Falwell & Karl Rove, using the term "religious (right or conservative)" and said that this is probably where the media gets the term from. He totally rejected the notion and insisted that the media uses the term "religious" in a negative, stereotypical way.

I'm still tryinq to get him tell me WHY he feels this way.

MHB

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by ooh_child
Ladewig, he presented searchs from various media publications showing "religious conservative" vs "religious liberal" usage in articles. Of course, many more articles used the term "religious conservative".

I pointed out quotes from various conservatives, including Jerry Falwell & Karl Rove, using the term "religious (right or conservative)" and said that this is probably where the media gets the term from. He totally rejected the notion and insisted that the media uses the term "religious" in a negative, stereotypical way.

I'm still tryinq to get him tell me WHY he feels this way.

MHB

I still don't understand why he thinks "religious" is being used in a negative way. Can he give specific examples where religious people were described in derogatory manner?

[Disco]

Well, he finally gave one example in the SF Chronicle, with an explanation. Am I allowed to reprint what he has written on another board?

MHB

[Moliere]

Originally posted by Cleon
Well, there is a religious left. But they don't have the sort of mass power base that the religious right does.

The religious left can also be known as the environmental movement. Environmental extremists are the same as any religion: fanatical belief without evidence. Their power base is quite extensive and they certainly have the support of the mainstream.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by geni
going against evolution goes against C of E doctrain just ask the arc bish Just because there are Anglicans that believe in evolution, that does not mean evolution is part of the Anglican religion. If an Anglican bishop likes to ski, would that make skiing part of Anglicism?

[discrimination against atheists is bigotry] Only if you assume that athism is the correct position.Even if God exists, that doesn't justify discrimination against atheists.

US presedent is only one officeAll right, name one openly atheist US senator. Just one.

and what people say they want in a presedent has a very poor history of mapping on to what they vote for in the end
Really? We've had 43 presidents, and 43 of those presidents have been Christian. Sure looks like being atheist disqualifies one from being president.

Lets see how well those ten conmadments they seem to feel are so important are being inforced:Uhh.. mind including to which "Ten Commandments" you are referring?

So much for them haveing real power. See why they feel opressed?See, this is exactly why peoiple have such a problem with evangelicals. When they don't get what they want, they throw a temper tantrum and whine about being "oppressed". Anyone who, when they are presented from imposing their religious views on others, claims to be "oppressed" is a conceited *******.

There are laws against doing things on Sunday, against sodomy, against bigamy, and so on. So don't try to tell me they don't have real power.

[Ladewig]

This media conspiracy is much more far reaching than I ever could have imagined.

Here is Christianity Today Magazine (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/005/26.58.html) using the term religious right.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by ooh_child
insisted that the media uses the term "religious" in a negative, stereotypical way.


If the word "religious" is so negative, what word does he want the media to use instead?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well, if there was a powerful "religious" left, I don't think I'd care for them anymore than I do the religious right.

Waitaminute, wouldn't the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton count? They use religion to advance their particular brand of left-leaning politics.

[username]

Originally posted by ooh_child
I'm having a discussion with a Christian about the pastor who recently resigned after national media attention focused on his support of Bush in church. He doggedly insists that the media constantly stereotypes the religious as conservatives, and does not pay equal attention to the "religious left".

I just don't understand this particular subset of Christianity, those who feel persecuted by the media, Hollywood, and the "liberal elite". So, I found the following commentary to be quite interesting. I've asked for his take on it, but I'd also like to get some points of view from skeptics.


Well last time I checked no religious person was being persecuted for being a religious person in the US. It is when religious people invoke their diety as an authority for their political position that they incur wrath.

Go ahead and be religious. No problem. Go ahead and be politically active, no problem. Go ahead and be politically active and claim Jesus as your authority and we have a big problem.

When religious nutjobs want to believe that all that exists sprang into existence in 6 days and all life was created exactly as it is today I really don't care. When they take their beliefs and attempt to force them into secular public schools I really do care.

Respect the wall of seperation between church and state and I have no problem. Climb over that wall and I consider you an invading force to be shot on sight.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by ooh_child
Well, he finally gave one example in the SF Chronicle, with an explanation. Am I allowed to reprint what he has written on another board?

MHB

A link with a brief excerpt or two will violate neither forum rules nor copyright laws.

[geni]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You need to prove your statements to be true.

Which countries are you claiming are run by RR types?



That doesn't mean it's the truth.

You want a more dirrect example? The last pope's statement on evolution means that it is part of catholic doctrine.

[Disco]

I suppose it's okay to c&p what he said over there, since it's a public forum.

News media created and perpetuates the stereotype that religious people are politically conservative. During the Terri Schiavo debacle, the news media often referred to the protesters as being conservative. The San Francisco Chronicle, in one of its stories, wrote "…some protesters who have been here for the past week were brought in by conservative Christian groups…" while others "…followed their hearts or a higher calling…". What is one to believe from this statement in the San Francisco Chronicle? That the author queried every protester to define affiliation? While I suppose this is possible, I find it doubtful. Based on the values statements, other than those concerning the sanctity of life, at its website, the Pax Christi organization can not be considered a conservative Christian organization by any stretch. I find it conceivable that members of Pax Christi would have been protesting to save Terri's life, yet, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, all protesters not identified as being unaffiliated, were affiliated with a "conservative Christian" organization. The stereotype could have been avoided and, quite possibly, made the story more accurate by simply stating that "…some protesters who have been here for the past week were brought in by Christian groups…".

Links:
http://www.paxchristiusa.org/about_statement_purpose.asp

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/24/MNGPUBU27T1.DTL

So, seems he's changed the goalposts from "religious" to "conservative".

I'm really having some fun with him!

MHB

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by geni
Which countries are you claiming are run by RR types?

Iran is one.


You want a more dirrect example? The last pope's statement on evolution means that it is part of catholic doctrine.

Because the Pope decided that the catholics should make room for evolution in their religion doesn't mean that evolution is religious in nature. I'm thinking most catholics accept mathematics as well, but does that mean math is religious?

The attack on evolution is an attack on science. Some religious people may be offended by that attack on science, but attacking evolution is not attacking their religion in any direct sense.

You are still a liar.