See other Editorial Articles
Title: Conservatives Love to Fantasize About Their Own Persecution and Subversiveness
Source:
Kos
URL Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/6/211121/9816
Published: Apr 6, 2007
Author: EmperorHadrian
Post Date: 2007-04-06 22:48:45 by ...
Keywords: None
Views: 1091
Comments: 94
I was watching Scarborough Country on MSNBC the other day. He seemed to suggest that he thinks Christians are being persecuted. That got me thinking about a larger issue. Why is it that conservatives love to revel in fantasies of their own marginality and persecution? Why is it they have these persecution fantasies? You don't just notice this with the religious right. You notice this amongst all varieties of social conservative. "Christians" think they are being persecuted by evil secularists who run everything from Wal-Mart to the courts. People who oppose gay rights think they are continuously looked down upon, and their views are constantly under assault by, the "gay agenda." So I must ask this question: why is it conservatives love to play victims, and fantasize about being persecuted? One thing that is interesting about the conservative persecution fantasy is that it is remarkably similar to leftist persecution fantasies during the early 20th century. Conservative complaints about an effete overclass, which the common middle American man can never defeat is remarkably similar to Marxist beliefs of the 1920s and 1930s, that the common man was caught in a machine run by the elite capitalists. Complaints by people like Rush Limbaugh, that the "liberal elite" is running and ruining everything are remarkably similar to Marxist complaints about how evil capitalists were doing the same thing. One way to answer the question about the right-wing persecution complex is to look at where most conservatives are on the ideological spectrum. Any democrat who might be viewed as "far left" (such as Denis Kucinich) isn't a fraction as far to the left as people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney are to the right. People on the extreme of either end of the ideological spectrum are ideologues. Since most conservatives are so far to the right, many of them are ideologues. Ideologues are uninterested in fact or reason. They are convinced that they are always right about everything. Thus no one can convince them they are wrong about anything or reason with them. If you knew the absolute truth about everything, why would you let someone use facts or anything else to convince you that you don't know the absolute truth about everything? Since conservatives are ideologues, it appears that part of their ideology is that they are constantly being persecuted by an overclass that looks down on them. The overcalass that they believe is perseucting them is what they call the "liberal elite." Much like Emmanuel Goldstien in George Orwell's book "Nineteen-Eightyfour," this elite overclass deosn't actually exist. It isn't the ACLU that forces Wal-Mart clerks to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," it is the management of Wal-Mart, who sees "Happy Holidays" as being more neutral in our pluralistic society. It isn't the "Hollywood elite" who continuesly pushes every form of social deviance through movies and television, it is the economic conservatives who run Hollywood. Hollywood and Wal-Mart are both commercial enterprises, run by economic conservatives. The same can be said about everything from the media to corporate policies regarding equal employment for gays. Becuase conservatives are ideologues, we can never convince them that they aren't being persecuted. Thus, we cannot reason with these conservatives on this issue, just like we can't reason with Bush on the escalation in Iraq, or that Saddam wasn't actually behind 9/11, or that WMDs were not actually found in Iraq. They are both convinced that they know the absolute truth. One of the more ridiculous of the persecution fantasies is the idea that somehow Christians are being persecuted. Now by "Christians," typically we mean Evangelicals. Evangelicals routinely use the term "Christian" interchangeably with the term "Evangelical." Except for a few fundamentalist Catholics, few Catholics and few mainline protestants claim to be persecuted. And few of these people use the term "Christian" to be interchangeable with their denomination. What makes the claim that "Christians" are persecuted so ridiculous is that 85% of all Americans are Christians. Wal-Mart isn't run by atheists. The courts aren't full of atheists. One toy the religious right loves is when some companies tell their employees to saw "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" to customers. The religious right sees this as a great assault on "Christians." Never mind that the decision to have employees say this (usually the companies don't care which one their employees use anyway) has a marketing and public relations rationale. It isn't because atheists run corporate America and hate "Christians." We saw another example of this religious right persecution fantasy with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments monument. Make no mistkae, Moore put this monument outside of the Alabama Courthouse deliberately to draw a lawsuit from the ACLU. And the only possible outcome of such a lawsuit would be that a federal court orders Moore to remove the monument. And then he tried to turn himself into a "martyr" by refusing to abide by the orders of the federal court, which costed him his job. Another area where the right-wing loves to play the victim is with gay rights. They love to act as though gays demanding equal rights is an assault on their "values" and actually the demand for greater rights than everyone else by the "homosexual agenda." They claim to be persecuted by the "homosexual agenda" when, in something typical of a right-wing claim, the exact opposite is true. It is the right-wing who is persecuting gays, not the other way around. This again goes to an interesting point in these right-wing claims, regardless of if they are about gay-rights, religion, or whatever: that these people who claim to be persecuted are actually part of a majority group. Typically it has been minorities (or sometimes majority groups that have been disenfranchised and thus had been politically powerless for generations) that have been persecuted. You can't have congress persecute the majority, when the majority is what elects congress. Another area you see these ludicrous arguments are in relation to the media. Conservatives claim they are victims of "liberal bias" in the media. In reality, the media (whether its CBS, ABC, NBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, or whoever) is not biased. Reality has a liberal bias. The MSM is biased only so far as it is biased towards reality. Since conservative claims typically don't come from fact or reality, and yet what the MSM reports on does come from fact and reality, conservatives claim liberal bias. This is a useful mechanism, because it allows them to dismiss all negative stories about them as being the products of bias. Again, in a manner you find throughout conservative claims, what they claim is actually the exact opposite of what is true. It isn't the MSM that is biased, and the "conservative media" that is "fair and balanced" and presents "the conservative side of the story." The conservative media doesn't just present the conservative side of the story, it does exactly what conservatives accuse the MSM of doing: it distorts facts, makes up reality, exists solely for the benefit of a single political party, and filters everything through a partisan and ideological lens. Thomas Frank talks about this conservative persecution fantasy in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" His convincingly argues that these persecution fantasies are generated by the (decidedly not persecuted) economic conservatives who run the republican party. They use these fantasies to stroke the anger and indignation of social conservatives. They make those social conservatives feel helpless and like victims. The enemy, they are told, is the Frenchified "liberal elite," who looks down its nose at these "regular people" in "middle America." It is this persecution complex that the social conservatives end up with, that caused them to continue electing republicans. It doesn't matter that, when in office, those same republicans pass laws that screw the social conservatives economicly. It doesn't matter that these republicans deregulate, deunionize, keep wages low, outsource jobs, keep college expensive and keep healthcare unaffordable. Not only that, but the republicans in power ignore the demands of the social conservatives. Abortion is never outlawed, school praryer never returns, gay rights are never rolled back. The social conservatives don't care because every two years they are again told about the evils of gay marriage and abortion, and how democrats have Christianity and love killing babies. The fiscal conservatives running for office make the social conservatives feel like perseucted victims. And because of that, the social conservatives return to the ballot box again and again, to proudly reelect their republican masters.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: BeAChooser (#0)
You're a whiner. Maybe this will help you with your self realization.
.
The first mistake of the day. Just stop this foolishness, and things will go much better for you.
It seems important that someone should watch this dreck and report back to us. I nominate "...". Does grammar count?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Great analysis. Maybe extremists need scapegoats? Someone to focus your hate on.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
exactly - and these people vote against their own economic self-interest over and over. it's absurd. I like to ask social conservatives why the republicans have controlled the entire government for several years now and these issues still remain. the obvious answer is that the republicans need those issues every election cycle. the standard answer: obstructionist democrats.
Central to American "conservative" identity is the persecution complex. They are besieged. Constantly. Enemies everywhere. Great vast swirling conspiracies of nebulous "liberals" are out to "get them" and "Destroy America". A conspiracy of a few powerful wealthy families motivated by wealth and power and legacy and control? No- that is "kookery". But some sort of multi generational march of "liberals" to destroy them and their "way of life"? Yep- they embrace that. It is funny- as much time as these "conservatives" spend denouncing "conspiracy theories"- central to their beliefs is the presence of multiple conspiracies against them. As a reichwinger myself- and a devourer of reichwinger propaganda growing up- one of things I now see- is how a constant state of fear and hate of various enemies was always being fostered- and always at a fever pitch of alarm. American "conservatives" are always one election away from having their "way of life" destroyed. They are kept in a constant state of alarm- of emergency. In the very simple universe of American "Conservatives" there are only two types of people- evil "Liberals" whom they think literally want to kill them, and good conservatives. By the way- Dems are encouraged to think the same in reverse. They literally are incapable of framing anything remotely political without using that paradigm. Don't support the Iraq war? Well- you are a liberal! Or a "useful idiot" of the Liberls. What is "Conservative" about the Iraq war? Nothing. But that doesn't matter. Note that when Limbaugh and Coulter and the other ranks of "conservative media" personalities talk about these "liberals"- they rarely mention names. And when they do- they misrepresent their opinions. "Conservatives" have been pretending that Dems are "antiwar" despite their very pro war rhetoric- and their actions. They have to pretend that Hillary is "Antiwar". Have to keep the rubes in a state of alarm and fear.
I once saw Mathews dismember Coulter this way. He got her to give a point by point description of a "typical liberal". At the end he asked her to name one real person who fit her "typical" description. She couldn't of course. Instead she stumbled around and said things like "all of them" and "lots of them".
.
Grammar? If you discount reason, why in the world would you be concerned about grammar? Lord help us all. Quickly, please. Thank you.
Liberals? Ain't they fat people that drink beers?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
If a neocon jumped off a cliff, how many genrations of innocent workers would be paying for the candleabras at his wake? Is two fingers snapping appreciably louder than one?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The "liberals" of which Coulter speaks can be found. In a few enclaves on the Coasts- San Francisco, Boston, New York, LA. But these people are not in charge of anything. They are true believers in the "system" for the most part. Ride their bikes, sort their garbage for recycling, put up solar panels, support "gay" rights, and have their little meaningless town councils that vote to impeach Bush. They are big advocates of voting. Big advocates of petitions. Always organizing something. They fully believe in the status quo for the most part. In other words- they are every bit as deluded as their reichwinger counterparts. They hardly control anything much less run vast conspiracies against reichwingers in Red States. The "liberal" is a cultural boogeyman whored pundits like Coulter tell ghost stories about. They don't really exist as some conspiratorial force out to "destroy America" and make the Christians take down their Christmas trees. IT IS A FAKE PARADIGM- A DEVICE OF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL.
Not if they are Catholics and it is Friday and the beer isn't made from fish.
.
Very good! Now, for 200, who first used the phrase "bicketty bam" ?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
If yur so smart, how are corrugated boxes made?
.
With corrogation approved by local standards?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
It is the sound of one clap clapping.
.
It's Polka magic. "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
That's best explanation so far, you win!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
They got with the program a long time ago, sucked into the PC multicult. Little more than social clubs, really.
Remember the movie Groundhog Day? Good flick. What if instead of waking up over and over to the same day, time went on, but everyone in the town suffered from a recurring amnesia? And what if instead of falling in love, Bill Murray's protagonist wanted to be mayor? That'd be a neat movie.
Is two fingers snapping appreciably louder than one? "People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar Dakmar posted on 2007-04-06 23:16:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #11. To: ... (#7) The "liberals" of which Coulter speaks can be found. In a few enclaves on the Coasts- San Francisco, Boston, New York, LA. But these people are not in charge of anything. They are true believers in the "system" for the most part. Ride their bikes, sort their garbage for recycling, put up solar panels, support "gay" rights, and have their little meaningless town councils that vote to impeach Bush. They are big advocates of voting. Big advocates of petitions. Always organizing something. They fully believe in the status quo for the most part. In other words- they are every bit as deluded as their reichwinger counterparts. They hardly control anything much less run vast conspiracies against reichwingers in Red States. The "liberal" is a cultural boogeyman whored pundits like Coulter tell ghost stories about. They don't really exist as some conspiratorial force out to "destroy America" and make the Christians take down their Christmas trees. IT IS A FAKE PARADIGM- A DEVICE OF MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL. Great stuff. Good thoughts, and thank you, both. Evening cheers.
The Zio-Communists killed 60,000,000 people in Russia and most of these people were Christians. They should pay attention to systemactic anti-Christian campaigns. And conservatives are not ideologues. We are for principles, such as, free markets, property rights and the Bill of Rights which have proven themselves beneficial. Neo-Cons are Zionists and not true conservatives. They are self- destructive and will destroy America.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Yes, I go in for the extreme religion myself. I often put seeds in my mouth and rest in a lotus position until they sprout and grow out my left nostril. Dakmar taught me this one.
.
Louie, louie! "People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Remember to drink lots of water, and dig your toes into the sand anytime you feel like.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I know I do...without a doubt, but I've slacked off as of late!!! :/
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
This isn't Russia. There are no cadres of murderous communists running around burning icons and using churches as Red Army Stables. There is no "Conspiracy" against Christians in this country. And it's nice that you and the three other "real conservatives" want to still use that term to describe yourselves- but in the real world of commonly accepted political parlance- American "conservatism" is defined by the reichwingers at Freerepublic and the mainstream of the GOP- fascism, state worship, and militarism- without principle or honor and utterly amoral. That is what "conservative" has come to mean in this country.
25% is not a majority. He could at least try to be consistent. Make no mistkae, Moore put this monument outside of the Alabama Courthouse deliberately to draw a lawsuit from the ACLU. And the only possible outcome of such a lawsuit would be that a federal court orders Moore to remove the monument. And then he tried to turn himself into a "martyr" by refusing to abide by the orders of the federal court, which costed him his job. I wonder: Did MLK suspect marches might result in violence against marchers? You can't have congress persecute the majority, when the majority is what elects congress. And after 2000 the author accepts the facade at face value? He should read Competitive Altruism and White Self-Destruction. Then, maybe, he'll get a clue. His convincingly argues that these persecution fantasies are generated by the (decidedly not persecuted) economic conservatives who run the republican party. They use these fantasies to stroke the anger and indignation of social conservatives. They make those social conservatives feel helpless and like victims. Not bad. To the non-Bolshi remnant of America the Republican party establishment is the "good cop." And yes, the establishment wants them to feel helpless, which makes it easier to screw 'em over. They do this in order to keep people buying into the system, and keep living with each other under the system, which they might not otherwise do. The feeling of helplessness makes them cooperate in their own undoing.
Remember the movie Groundhog Day? Good flick. What if instead of waking up over and over to the same day, time went on, but everyone in the town suffered from a recurring amnesia? And what if instead of falling in love, Bill Murray's protagonist wanted to be mayor? That'd be a neat movie.
Unless they are overseas Orthodox Christians - see Bosnia, Kosovo, Russia and the elimination of Orthodox Christians from Iraq and the planned elimination of Orthodox/Eastern Christians from the only Middle Eastern countries where they live persecution free - Syria and Iran.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Probably - Peace rallies are designed to show the intolerance of the oppressor. See this example from history: The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, also known as the Amritsar Massacre, was named after the Jallianwala Bagh (Garden) in the northern Indian city of Amritsar, where, on April 13, 1919, British Indian Army soldiers under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. The firing lasted about 10 minutes and 1600 rounds were fired. Official sources place the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 2000 wounded,[1] and Civil Surgeon Dr Smith indicated that they were over 1800.[2] The troops were commanded by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer who, immediately upon entering the Bagh and without the slightest warning to the crowd to disperse, ordered his fifty riflemen to fire, concentrating especially on the areas where the crowd was thickest. The firing started at 17:15 and lasted for about ten to fifteen minutes. During the shooting a total of 1650 rounds were discharged into the crowd. The bagh, or garden, was bounded on all sides by brick walls and buildings and had only five narrow entrances, most of which were kept permanently locked. Since there was only one exit except for the one already manned by the troops, people desperately tried to climb the walls of the park. Many of the people jumped into a well inside the compound to escape from the bullets. A plaque in the monument says that 120 bodies were plucked out of the well alone. After the firing was over, hundreds of people had been killed and thousands had been injured. Official estimates put the figures at 379 killed (337 men, 41 boys and a six week old baby) and 200 injured, though the actual figure is hotly disputed and many Indian sources put it much higher (see above); the wounded could not be moved from where they had fallen, as a curfew had been declared. Debate about the actual figures continues to this day. Back in his headquarters Dyer reported to his superiors that he had been confronted by a revolutionary army, and had been obliged to teach a moral lesson to the Punjab. In a telegram sent to Dyer, British Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer wrote: "Your action is correct. Lieutenant Governor approves."[3] Many Englishmen in India, as well as the British press, defended Dyer as the man who had saved British pride and honour. The Morning Post opened a fund for Dyer, and contributions poured in. An American woman donated 100 pounds, adding "I fear for the British women there now that Dyer has been dismissed." O'Dwyer requested that martial law be imposed upon Amritsar and other areas; this was granted by the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, after the massacre. Dyer was called to appear before the Hunter Commission, a commission of inquiry into the massacre that was ordered to convene by Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, in late 1919. Dyer admitted before the commission that he came to know about the meeting at the Jallianwala Bagh at 12:40 hours that day but took no steps to prevent it. He stated that he had gone to the Bagh with the deliberate intention of opening fire if he found a crowd assembled there. "I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself." — Dyer's response to the Hunter Commission Enquiry. Dyer said he would have used his machine guns if he could have got them into the enclosure, but these were mounted on armoured cars. He said he did not stop firing when the crowd began to disperse because he thought it was his duty to keep firing until the crowd dispersed, and that a little firing would do no good. He confessed that he did not take any steps to tend to the wounded after the firing. "Certainly not. It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone there," was his response. In the storm of outrage which followed the release of the Hunter Report in 1920, Dyer was placed on the inactive list and his rank reverted to Colonel since he was no longer in command of a Brigade. The then Commander-in-Chief stated that Dyer would no longer be offered employment in India. Dyer was also in very poor health, and so he was sent home to England on a hospital ship. Some senior British officers applauded his suppression of "another Indian Mutiny". The House of Lords passed a measure commending him. The House of Commons, however, censured him; in the debate Winston Churchill claimed: "The incident in Jallian Wala Bagh was an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation". Dyer's action was condemned worldwide. He was officially censured by the British Government and resigned in 1920. However, many in Britain did not condemn Dyer's actions, some labelling him the "Saviour of the Punjab". The Morning Post started a sympathy fund for Dyer and received over £26,000. Dyer was presented with a memorial book inscribed with the names of well-wishers. In India the massacre evoked feelings of deep anguish and anger. It catalysed the freedom movement in the Punjab against British rule and paved the way for Mohandas Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement against the British in 1920. It was also motivation for a number of other revolutionaries, including Bhagat Singh. The Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore returned his knighthood to the King- Emperor in protest. The massacre ultimately became an important catalyst of the Indian independence movement.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It's wingnuts, not conservatives, who feel persecuted. The conservatives have been driven out of the GOP. Only the real nuts left. "Shrink the gummint down so you can drown it in a bathtub" or "Jeebus be comin down to take me and my family away any minute now." Not much else left. Except the fascists who exploit the dimwits.
I'm looking forward to the new comic strip, Dakmar and Jeff Rense.
Remember the movie Groundhog Day? Good flick. What if instead of waking up over and over to the same day, time went on, but everyone in the town suffered from a recurring amnesia? And what if instead of falling in love, Bill Murray's protagonist wanted to be mayor? That'd be a neat movie.
Sounds like fun. I get to be Arthur Dent, ok?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
And Darth wanted Luke to strike at him in anger.
Remember the movie Groundhog Day? Good flick. What if instead of waking up over and over to the same day, time went on, but everyone in the town suffered from a recurring amnesia? And what if instead of falling in love, Bill Murray's protagonist wanted to be mayor? That'd be a neat movie.
Something like that.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Those are not conspiracies against Christians. In all those areas- the religion of the people is of no consequence to what is happening or has happened to them. If the Serbs of Kosovo were Rastafarians they would have been treated no differently by our Cabal government. I doubt anyone in Washington has given a fig of thought to the fate of Christian minorities in Iraq or anywhere else they might invade and conquoer. They don't care. Quite simply- no one is persecuting Christians for the sake of them being Christians.
The "christian" countries are the only ones being pressured to multi-culturalise, how do you explain that, kung-fu?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, do the branches on one side get smashed when it hits the ground?
.
Not exactly. Orthodox Christians being a type of Christian alien to the reichwingers as you so aptly named them makes them fall into the other category and thus why they are not given much thought. I have a feeling that if there existed an evangelical Christian country out there with all the social values the Freepernuts claim they stand for but it stood in the way of American foreign policy they would find a reason to support a war against them. It always amused me that Freepernuts would pile on the hate for France's Chirac when his party is a right of center party. They got it into their heads that France was lefty while the Freepernut love affair with the UK's Blair is not hindered by the fact he is left of 'Hitlery'.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I am sure Iraq would rather be pressed to "multi culturize" rather than be occupied and subject to murder, mayhem, and abject grinding poverty. Iraq is de facto three countries right now. The Serbs should be thankful they don't sit over oil fields rather than a pipeline route and some mines of semi precious metals. And a good way to keep your middle class in line and diverted is to foist some minority on them and then sit back and let things play out. The reason why Moslem countries are not being subjected to this- is because they are getting worse- war and pillage.
It's not the question that's anti-semetic, only the answer.
We should talk the Senate into paying us not to call people "kung-fu" anymore. With me?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Comments (42 - 94) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: ... (#0)
I was watching Scarborough Country on MSNBC the other day.
#3. To: lodwick, ... (#2)
#4. To: ... (#1)
#5. To: ... (#0)
The social conservatives don't care because every two years they are again told about the evils of gay marriage and abortion, and how democrats have Christianity and love killing babies. The fiscal conservatives running for office make the social conservatives feel like perseucted victims. And because of that, the social conservatives return to the ballot box again and again, to proudly reelect their republican masters.
#6. To: ... (#0)
#7. To: Burkeman1 (#6)
#8. To: Dakmar (#3)
Does grammar count?
#9. To: ... (#7)
#10. To: lodwick (#8)
#11. To: ... (#7)
#12. To: Dakmar (#9)
Liberals? Ain't they fat people that drink beers?
#13. To: ... (#12)
#14. To: Dakmar (#3)
It seems important that someone should watch this dreck and report back to us.
#15. To: ..., BeAChooser (#14)
If yur so smart, how are corrugated boxes made?
#16. To: Dakmar (#13)
who first used the phrase "bicketty bam"
#17. To: ... (#14)
#18. To: ... (#16)
It is the sound of one clap clapping.
#19. To: ... (#0)
Except for a few fundamentalist Catholics, few Catholics and few mainline protestants claim to be persecuted.
#20. To: Burkeman1 (#11)
If a neocon jumped off a cliff, how many genrations of innocent workers would be paying for the candleabras at his wake?
#21. To: ..., Burkeman1, Lodwick (#0)
Why is it they have these persecution fantasies?
#22. To: Tauzero (#19)
They got with the program a long time ago, sucked into the PC multicult. Little more than social clubs, really.
#23. To: Tauzero, robin (#19)
polka?
#24. To: ... (#22)
I often put seeds in my mouth and rest in a lotus position until they sprout and grow out my left nostril.
#25. To: Destro (#4)
Maybe extremists need scapegoats? Someone to focus your hate on.
#26. To: Horse (#21)
#27. To: ... (#0)
This again goes to an interesting point in these right-wing claims, regardless of if they are about gay-rights, religion, or whatever: that these people who claim to be persecuted are actually part of a majority group.
#28. To: Burkeman1 (#26)
There is no "Conspiracy" against Christians in this country.
#29. To: Tauzero (#27)
Did MLK suspect marches might result in violence against marchers?
#30. To: ... (#0)
#31. To: Dakmar (#23)
#32. To: Tauzero (#31)
#33. To: Destro (#29)
#34. To: Tauzero (#33)
And Darth wanted Luke to strike at him in anger.
#35. To: Destro (#28)
#36. To: Burkeman1 (#35)
#37. To: Dakmar (#36)
#38. To: Burkeman1 (#35)
(Edited)
I doubt anyone in Washington has given a fig of thought to the fate of Christian minorities in Iraq or anywhere else they might invade and conquoer. They don't care. Quite simply- no one is persecuting Christians for the sake of them being Christians.
#39. To: Dakmar (#36)
#40. To: Dakmar (#36)
The "christian" countries are the only ones being pressured to multi-culturalise, how do you explain that, kung-fu?
#41. To: Esso (#40)
.
.
.