American Christians as victims – of themselves

Talk radio host Michael Brown writes,

When a white supremacist murdered black parishioners in Charleston, SC, there was national outrage leading to the banning of the Confederate Flag and a fresh discussion of race relations in America. But when Christians are targeted and murdered on a campus in Oregon, much of the nation yawns.

Because millions of Christians voted for the Obama regime. A Jesuit explained in 2008 that Obama’s aggressive pro-abortion stand was okay because he was “for social justice.” How’s that working out?

Perhaps a storefront Jesus church might not know how cold his regime would be to the civil liberties of Christians. But there is no excuse for the educated Christian elite. All the signs were there.

Hillary Clinton has made clear up front that the church would have to change under her rule (as an alternative to state-sponsored persecution?). But we can be fairly sure that many will find an excuse to vote for her anyway. Especially those who depend on government for food or shelter.

According to eyewitness reports, the Oregon shooter asked students what their religion was, and if they said “Christian” he shot them in the head. Yet the secular media, for the most part, is focusing more on gun laws than on the shooter’s alleged anti-Christian motivation. Why?

Because the “secular” legacy mainstream media (MSM) increasingly exist only to serve progressive government—think Pravda. Progressive government wants to own all the guns and can get sufficient numbers of Christians’ votes no matter what.

More to the point, Christians watch Hollywood’s movies, listen to MSM drivel, and vote for candidates the MSM supports.

One thing to see here is that the legacy media are no longer necessary as an information source. We can read Hurriyet Daily (Turkey, English edition) or South China Morning Post or the Irish Times free on line. That is, we can get our own news now. Thus the MSM have had to double down hard on the role of spouts for progressive messaging.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the shooter went into a creative arts class, asked the students to declare their sexual orientation, and if they said “gay” shot them in the head?

“Gay” is a cool identity; “Christian” is not. But then gays would fight and Christians would have some reason not to.

Brown makes the case for: overcoming hatred with love. I make the case for: stop funding and voting for your enemies, in whatever party. These are not mutually exclusive ideas but the latter strategy is not just religious words.

In any event, let’s all stop whining about things one could change if one wanted to.

Note: Brown makes many good points, especially about how anti-Christian bigotry is becoming more mainstream than in the past. But that is all the more reason for hard-headed thinking. Love sometimes means setting and enforcing limits on what one will tolerate.