Every Christian Right Group Needs to Take This Quiz

So much for their “religious liberties” being threatened.

United Church of Christ Rev. Emily C. Heath put together a nice quick quiz to determine if your religious liberty is, indeed, under attack.

A sampling of the questions:

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

Spoiler alert: If you’re answering B for anything, stop whining. You’re not at risk! Go celebrate!

(Thanks to Dick for the link!)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Thalfon

    I love how the top two (ignoring other) basically contradict one another. One says religious freedom is being threatened by being pulled out of government, the other says it’s threatened because it’s in the government.

  • onamission5

    Let me get this straight, 21% of people who believe their religious liberty is being threatened don’t actually know of any tangible way that is happening, but they are sure it’s happening anyway?

    Because, I presume, someone on tv somewhere told them it was?

  • Dan

     That category includes ‘don’t know’ with ‘other’ responses. The data certainly doesn’t show that all 21% said they don’t know.

  • observer

    But…telling me my religious liberty isn’t under attack is a threat to my religious liberty!
    How else am I suppose to get what I want if people find out I’m not actually being harmed by gays marrying, women getting birth control, etc.?

  • Guest

    Yes, because nothing says freedom like being told you have to do something privately.  FWIW, under that logic, gays have complete freedom today as long as they keep it private and say nothing public about being gay.   But then, the United Church of Christ is probably the most radically left leaning denomination of the Christian Faith.  It’s also dying, by its own admission.  So I wouldn’t sweat a definition of freedom that comes straight out of the ‘Freedom to Worship’ playbook by a leader from a soon to be extinct expression of reality.

  • 3lemenope

    Yes, because nothing says freedom like being told you have to do something privately.

    If you want to walk around in the nude, please do so in private.
    If you want to have sex or masturbate, please do so in private.
    If you want to shout at the top of your lungs at 1 am, please do so in private.
    If you want to swear obscenities at the next nearest living thing, please do so in private.

    I know, so much oppression.

  • nakedanthropologist

    No one is telling you that you’re only allowed to be who you are in private (unlike some of your other posts that have led many of the regular commenters here to conclude that you would love for non-heterosexual and non-christian peeps to hide who they are).  You have the civil right to be who you are – and so does everyone else.  What you don’t have is the authority to force yourself or your views on others.  Pray all day long/wear a jesus freak t-shirt/eat spaghetti and peanut butter sandwiches - we don’t care.  However, you do not have the right to make other people pray or do anything else in regards to faith or no-faith.  Being publicly gay is like being publicly caucasian – it forces nothing on anyone else.  Being involved in a same-sex marriage is like being involved in an opposite-sex marriage – its a question of orientation and preference.  This is the 21st century and humanity is (hopefully) working towards an age where we can all be ourselves and embrace equality without fear of ostracizement or violence.  Including people who are  lgbt, christian, atheist, taoist, and so on.  My advise is that you let go of your bigotry and delusions of persecution – see a therapist if you need to, because you’re talking like a crazy person. 

  • Guest

    And if we lived in a society working overtime to keep offensive language, sexuality, and nudity in private you know what?  I’d almost believe you.  But I can’t help but notice that the ones fighting the hardest to break down all those old puritanical barriers by bringing more sex, drugs, and bathroom humor into the light of day just happen – no doubt coincidently – to be the ones saying that religion needs to stay behind closed doors with the shades drawn if it’s to be openly practiced.  But then, as I say, the modern secular left treats religion the way folks used to treat sex, and treats sex the way folks used to treat religion, which explains a lot if you think about it.  

  • Guest

    And your reply would have tremendous buckshot to it had not the first reply to my post been from someone that religion, like sex, masturbation, and nudity, should be kept in private behind closed doors where it belongs.  Or perhaps he was arguing that there is no freedom unless we can have sex, masturbate, walk around nude, and take a dumb in the middle of the town square.  I honestly don’t know now that I read it again.

    Anyway, I absolutely agree.  Under no circumstances should anyone ever be forced to pray to this or that religion – or pray at all.  Your view is fine.  You’re saying that folks should be able to exercise their religion, pray, fly flags or whatever.  Great. I’m with you.  Atheist trees or prayers to the divine Earth mother?  I’m behind you all the way. 
    But when a person says that if your prayers are confined to the limitations of private prayer, I’m sorry.  That approach has already been tried in many countries.  Not the least of which were those from where the Founding Fathers hailed.  Protestant in Catholic England?  No problem at all.  Just make sure you kept it private, and for the most part, you were just fine.  Which might be why the Founders added that second little part of the First Amendment: or prohibit the free exercise thereof.  Without that, any fool could use the first half of the amendment to establish a tyranny dedicated to rooting out religious wrongthink – non-Christian or otherwise.  

    Oh, and overall you seem a reasonable person, try to avoid the modern tendency of saying that unless you conform to the left’s dogmatic definitions of superior morality regarding such things as the acceptance of non-heterosexual normality, then you must be a filthy bigot.  That’s a tolerance level that even Archie Bunker can surpass.

  • 3lemenope

    And if we lived in a society working overtime to keep offensive language, sexuality, and nudity in private you know what?  I’d almost believe you.

    Uh, we do. It is illegal in all fifty states to have sex in public, and it is likewise illegal outside of certain cordoned beaches to be nude in public, and those laws are enforced. Offensive language, depending upon the context and content, can get you a disorderly conduct or even an assault charge for your trouble.

    Unless you’re referring to portrayals in art and media, in which case I suppose we’d have to throw the written history of Western Civilization under the bus. Naked statues, Roman graffiti, Song of Songs, oh my! Read Titus Andronicus and then tell me Shakespeare didn’t have a smutty mind.

    “But then, as I say, the modern secular left treats religion the way folks used to treat sex, and treats sex the way folks used to treat religion…”.

  • Baby_Raptor

    A gay person saying something publically does not force everyone around them to suddenly become gay, suddenly approve of homosexuality, or suddenly be participating in something homosexual. 

    A public prayer forces everyone around to be involved. 

    Please come back when you have a decent analogy. And quit hiding. Put your name on your ever-so-enlightened opinions. You just look like a wimp.

  • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

    I’m still scratching my head, trying to figure out why you brought up being forced to pray only in private. Who is saying that? The real problem is when people are coerced to utter prayers or when governmental agents use their public roles to utter prayers publicly. If you’re a private citizen (including public officials who are not acting in their public capacities), then knock yourself out with public – or private – prayer.

  • phantomreader42

    “Guest” will NEVER have a decent analogy.  Willful ignorance , shameless lying, and breathtaking hypocrisy are the core tenets of the death cult it worships.  For it to behave in a manner that so much as suggests rational thought or honesty would be the most unthinkable blasphemy. 

  • phantomreader42

     OH, the poor, poor, widdle death cultist!  It’s no longer allowed to openly slaughter infidels and bathe in their blood!  How horribly, HORRIBLY oppressed “guest” is! 

    We get it, you answered “B” to every single question, and you are too fucking stupid to comprehend why that doesn’t make you the most persecuted victim in the history of the universe.  But the fact that you’re dumber than week-old dog shit is YOUR problem. 

  • Jim_Lahey

    You are right. move to Iran, Im sure state dictated religion is right up your ally!

    happy trolling!

  • Jim_Lahey

    Only a tard that takes that shit seriously could possibly believe the wholly babbel!


  • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

    “Guest” is also a consistent asshole douchecanoe.

  • phantomreader42

     But it suggests that a significant portion of the paranoid lunatics who claim that not allowing them to hijack the government, steal tax money, promote their cult to captive audiences, and murder and torture with impunity constitutes persecution either:

    A) Have no idea at all what they think is threatening their religious liberty, or
    B) Can’t even come close to agreeing on any consistent description of the boogeyman they’re so terrified of, or
    C) Are basing their cries of persecution entirely on the testimony of the voices in their heads, or
    D) All of the above. 

  • Glasofruix

    I assume that you want a theocracy, a religion run country, correct? So answer that simple question, how do you see your own freedom in a theocracy?

  • kaydenpat

    No one in their right minds believes that Christians, who make up the MAJORITY in the US, are anywhere close to being persecuted/oppressed.  Christians in other countries, i.e., where Islam dominates, could speak about persecution, but not here in America.

    The whining seems to come when Christians are stopped from forcing their beliefs down the throats of society as a whole.   Like anyone actually believes that there’s a war against Christmas! Right.

  • nakedanthropologist

    Wow, just wow.  First of all, maybe you should read the article before you pontificate on matters discussed in the comments.  I was being a reasonable person – in response to rwlawoffice.  However you are acting like filthy bigot, so why don’t you go fuck yourself while the adults talk, okay?

  • Alex

    For what it’s worth, I totally support your right to tell me about the good news of Jesus, Mohammed, or whatever other Xenu you are worshiping, publicly or privately. Just as much as I have a right to call bullshit on your  delusions, also privately or publicly.