It IS About Attacking Christianity

The Reconquista Initiative

Presents…

It IS About Attacking Christianity

In our modern era, it has now become quite clear that the attacks that traditional Christians in the West face from both liberal leftist “Christians” and secular progressives against common-sense Christian morality and orthodox Christian ethical views are not, primarily, done for the purpose of seeking equality, or fighting against discrimination, or seeking tolerance, for what these attacks are primarily targeted at is traditional Christianity itself. In fact, these attacks against Christianity are meant to be insidiously and purposely couched in pleasant language about toleration and diversity in order to lull Christians to sleep while the enemy strikes. And while it is not contended that this is necessarily some type of concerted or coordinated or conspiratorial effort on the part of the opponents of the Christianity, it is nevertheless still true that these are attacks specifically against orthodox Christian theism. And the way that we can know this to be true is quite simple, for consider the following facts:

  1. First, we see liberal progressive leftists actively seek out and target Christian bakers, or florists, or whatnot in an effort to be able to bring cultural and societal sanctions against these people, but we do not see one iota of effort from the same people in seeking out Muslim or Orthodox Jewish businesses that would refuse the same services as the Christian parties do.

  1. Second, after every Muslim terror attack, we hear calls from the left not to be ‘Islamophobic’, and that ‘not all Muslims are like that’, and that, most likely, the attack was “somehow” caused by the far-right, and that the worse thing would be an anti-Muslim backlash, and yet when some Catholic priests are convicted of sexual abuse, there is no cry to avoid ‘Catholicophobia’, and no calls not to paint all priests as abusers, and no attempts at making excuses, but rather, the progressives actively and joyously use the sexual abuse crisis as a stick with which to beat the Catholic Church as a whole, something that they would never do with Muslims or other “protected” groups.

  1. Third, and linked to the last point, it is also the case that when a Muslim causes an attack or commits a horrible crime, the progressive media tries to avoid mentioning the Muslim’s religion for as long as possible, but if a “Christian” or a “right-winger” causes an attack, it is almost the first thing mentioned, and it is repeated over and over and over again, even if the link between the attacker and Christianity is tenuous at best. Furthermore, when a “right-winger” causes an attack, the event is often reported in a way that creates blanket condemnation of the whole right-side of the political spectrum rather than recognizing that many right-wing groups are separate entities who want nothing to do with each other; but when some group allied to the leftist-progressives causes an attack, distinctions are immediately made and nuance is introduced to deflect the blame onto a small sub-set of the left-wing.

  1. Fourth, progressive feminists, who, under the law, enjoy full equality in the formerly Christian West, spend inordinate amounts of time whining and complaining about the most idiotic and minor things that happen in Western societies while not only ignoring the horrors against women that occur elsewhere in the world, such as in Muslim countries, but even tacitly covering up for crimes committed against women when the crimes are committed by members of a “protected” group.

  1. Fifth, history and facts are utterly distorted by leftist progressives in order to make what was formerly Christendom and Western Civilization seem abhorrent and horrendous, when, in reality, the West’s sins were absolutely no greater than those of any other culture, and were arguably much less so, and were also readily offset by the great cultural and political benefits that the West brought to the rest of the world which no other culture did; but this latter fact is almost never mentioned, of course.

  1. Sixth, we see leftist progressive politicians and businesses in the West condemn and refuse to do business in areas and states that enact laws to protect Christians from secular progressive discrimination, and yet, all the while, these politicians and businesses are happy to do business in countries that are actively hostile to both progressive ideas as well as to Christian worship (countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba, Iran, etc.) and so it certainly seems that so long as Christians are somehow receiving the lash—both literally and figuratively—then these progressive politicians and businesses are happy.

  1. Seventh, while secular progressives are happy to attack crosses in public spaces or prayer in schools due to the need for the ‘separation of church and state’, they dutifully ignore Muslim segregation of girls and boys in schools while Muslims are literally praying in school cafeterias and they ignore the chanting from minarets across all public spaces, just to name a few issues of this sort.

  1. Eighth, while Christians are routinely harassed and stopped and punished under hate speech laws enacted and enforced by progressives in the West, these laws, strangely, never seem to be used by progressives against Muslim hate-preachers or secular bigots, but mainly against orthodox Christians.

  1. Ninth, while progressives will claim that criticism of Islam or other non-Western religions is racist—a claim which is nonsensical to begin with given that a religion is not a race—they would laugh if you called their criticism of Christianity racist or discriminatory.

  1. Finally, tenth, while we see leftist progressives talk about aiding the needy and helping the destitute, we almost never hear them speak about the fact that the most persecuted victim group in the world are ‘Christians’, for Christians the world over are harmed and killed by their non-Christian country-men more so than any other religious group, and yet about this, you will rarely hear the left make a sound.

And so, the long and short of it is this: it is for reasons like those mentioned above, and for others as well, that we can reasonably come to believe that the progressive left is not aiming to use their social tools and cultural strength for the creation of a “better” world, but rather, they use their power to seek a world without traditional Christianity; but of course, to the progressive left, those two things are synonymous, and so the sooner that Christians recognize this threat, and the sooner they take firm action to counter it, the better.

If you wish, then please show your support here, because any amount of support counts towards keeping this original content coming: www.patreon.com/reconquistainitiative

Anno Domini 2017 02 27

Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “It IS About Attacking Christianity

  1. Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. As an evangelical Christian who also happens to be a liberal (in terms of politics), I thought I would take a few minutes to respond. Please forgive the longevity, I wanted to be thorough.

    >First, we see liberal progressive leftists actively seek out and target Christian bakers…

    I believe this is a consequence of Christians making up a larger part of the US population – thus making the potential outcome of a successful campaign much broader. This is not an attack on Christianity, per se, but an attack on the influence of some Christian individuals’ decisions of how to carry out their beliefs in the public square. I think we have to be careful about these two very different issues. An attack on Christianity, in my estimation, would be constituted of preventing Christians from believing and worshipping, a real phenomena suffered by Christians around the globe.

    I find this particular issue quite troubling, though. It seems that the principle applied by the bakers, florists, etc. is that “one ought not facilitate sin in commerce.” At face value, this seems obviously true, but we must be cognizant of how it is applied. It is right for a florist to deny flowers to a reception of a gay marriage? What about flowers for valentines day of a couple you suspect are having premarital sex? Should a store clerk refuse to sell contraception to someone without a wedding ring on? Should they refuse to sell a candy bar to an overweight person? Cigarettes? Should a gas station shut off the pump to a car that they saw speeding the day before? Should a grocery store cashier refuse to sell unleavened bread to a Jew? Refuse to sell dates to a Muslim during Ramadan? All of these are situations in which commerce potentially facilitates sin. The underlying principle, “one ought not facilitate sin in commerce,” seems utterly unworkable when pressed for consistency. We seem forced to cherry pick which ones are OK.

    Instead, as Christians, I find we are called to something higher, but also something harder. We are called to have the conviction to either (1) not refuse service but use the opportunity to evangelize or (2) choose another line of work. If we continue with our current path of cherry picking particular sins, we are convicted under Matthew 7:5.

    >Islamaphobia vs Catholic-bashing

    Once again, I think there is greater nuance here than you portray. Have you ever seen or heard of a Catholic parishoner being attacked because of accusations against Catholic priests? The concern with Islamaphobia is that it has and continues to cause demonstrable harm to innocent people. Just last week two non-Muslim individuals were shot because the perpetrator believed them to be middle-eastern Muslims (http://crooksandliars.com/2017/02/kansas-man-arrested-shooting-two-middle). You will be hard pressed to find anything like that in the issue with Catholic priests. After a good deal of effort, I was able to find only one story in which the priest accused of molestation was shot by one of his supposed victims. The response against Islamaphobia is to prevent further bloodshed. If Catholic believers started turning up dead at the hands of those opposed to the behavior of a small set of priests, we would see a different balance of news.

    >The progressive media tries to avoid mentioning the Muslim terrorist’s religion.

    I’d like to see some evidence of this. Once the culprit has been identified and the religion of the culprit has been established, I haven’t seen evidence that the description of the culprit’s religion was suppressed. Feel free to share some evidence.

    >”right-winger” causes an attack, it is almost the first thing mentioned

    This hasn’t been my experience. Once again, please provide some evidence.

    >often reported in a way that creates blanket condemnation of the whole right-side of the political spectrum

    Once again, please provide some evidence. I have yet to see a major publication paint a person like, for example, John McCain as a terrorist.

    >when some group allied to the leftist-progressives causes an attack, distinctions are immediately made

    Please provide some evidence.

    >progressive feminists spend inordinate amounts of time whining… about… minor things…

    I’m not sure how this amounts to an attack on Christianity. It looks like you just wanted to find a way to say something derogatory towards feminists. At any rate, the prioritization of what is immediately accessible to us is common. I imagine that if the maltreatment of women in prominently Muslim countries were occurring here in the West, regularly, it would be at the top of their agenda. Similarly, the Christian Right spends an awful lot of time complaining about a baker having to make a cake for a gay couple when Christians are being murdered in other parts of the world. The sword cuts both ways.

    >Fifth, history and facts are utterly distorted by leftist progressives in order to make what was formerly Christendom and Western Civilization seem abhorrent and horrendous

    Perhaps. While I only took a handful of history classes in college, I certainly remember a caustic tone towards much of Western History, but I also don’t much at all about the history of the rest of the world. I can only speak from my experience (do you have something other than anecdote which you could share?), but it seems to me that Western History does get a good deal of bashing, but it also gets the only bit of promotion.

    >Sixth, we see leftist progressive politicians and businesses in the West condemn and refuse to do business in areas and states that enact laws to protect Christians from secular progressive discrimination, and yet, all the while, these politicians and businesses are happy to do business in countries that are actively hostile to both progressive ideas as well as to Christian worship (countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cuba, Iran, etc.) and so it certainly seems that so long as Christians are somehow receiving the lash—both literally and figuratively—then these progressive politicians and businesses are happy.

    The Right seems just as willing to do business in these areas. I also think there is a confusion here – as we are referring to two different groups of people. Boycotting NC after HB2, for example, was performed primarily by individuals and organizations that do business in NC. These same individuals hardly do business in the Middle East. To my recollection, the ACC Tournament hasn’t played much in Iran and I don’t recall Springsteen playing Saudi Arabia. As a liberal, I think we should take a stronger stance against human rights abuses in Middle Eastern countries perpetrated against Christians (and others), but other than voting, I’m not sure what I can do about it. I do know what I can do about HB2.

    >Seventh… ‘separation of church and state’

    Christian children are more than welcome to pray in school. I did before my lunches. Should church bells be silenced?

    >Hate speech

    This seems to be a common thread throughout your argument – “They get away with it, why can’t I.” Why do you want Christians to be able to engage in hate speech? I welcome being held to a higher standard because, as a Christian, I am called to one.

    >Ninth, while progressives will claim that criticism of Islam or other non-Western religions is racist—a claim which is nonsensical to begin with given that a religion is not a race—they would laugh if you called their criticism of Christianity racist or discriminatory.

    I don’t think they call criticism of Islam racist, I think they point out that the association with Islam and Middle Eastern ethnicities is common, leading to racial assumptions. A perfect example of this is the two men recently shot because someone thought they were middle eastern Muslims (they were not). Unfortunately, race and religion have become inextricably mixed.

    >Christian Persecution

    This is what a real attack on Christianity looks like. The actual persecution of Christians.

    Final thoughts:

    I do think there are attacks on Christianity, but what you have described here doesn’t seem to amount to much. I think we should spend more time evangelizing, caring for others, and stopping true persecution

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s