More weeping of persecution from fellow Patheos blogger Rebecca Hamilton. This time it was in response to the destruction of the Oklahoma 10 commandments monument, in which she implies the destruction of the OK 10 commandments monument is an example of another “attack” on religious iconography:
Attacks! Christians and their monuments are being attacked! Welp, let’s click on those links and see just what these attacks look like.
Link #1: a blog post by Hamilton about the Temple of Satan wanting to put up its own monument titled “Satanists Reveal Uber Creepy Monument They Want to Place on Oklahoma’s Capitol Grounds.” Yeah, the ten commandments which demand the worship of the Christian god, forbid working on Saturday, prohibit graven images, and more all under penalty of death in the books of the bible in which they were introduced isn’t good and wholesome, definitely not creepy! But that depiction of a god hugging children? He’s got…like…scales and shit! Talk about creepy.
Well Rebecca, wanting the same access to government land as the Christians isn’t an attack, it’s the pursuit of equality. It speaks volumes of you that you see the pursuit of equality and consider it an attack on Christianity.
Link #2: a link to an article talking about how American Atheists wants the monument removed. This is not an attack. The government is elevating one religion over all others by allowing a Christian monument and forbidding monuments from other faiths. The excuse is that its historic, not a nod to Christianity, which is a flat out lie – because if the reps in Oklahoma admitted it was a nod to Christianity, which it clearly is (and all Oklahoma Christians know it is, including Rebecca Hamilton) then they’re legally dead in the water. But it’s not the Christians lying that concerns Hamilton, it’s the atheist group pursuing equality for all faiths and the maintenance of the separation of church and state. That, to Hamilton’s eyes, qualifies as an “attack.” Right.
The third link is more of the same via link #2.
But I’ll concede that someone intentionally destroying the monument by ramming a car into it (and pissing on the monument before doing so) is an attack. Of course, that man is a Christian. All atheists are doing is trying to protect religious liberty for all by making sure no religion is elevated above any of the others by the government. This is a noble endeavor that would protect Christians if they were a minority that needed such protections (and would be unnecessary if enough Christians could imagine what that is like). But nope, to Hamilton this is an attack.
I’ll go ahead and copy/paste what I said on my article about the perpetrator the other day:
…whenever they complain about religious liberty being under attack by American politicians, the politicians they think are assaulting their
privilegeliberty are almost always (if not always) Christians. When they complain about activist judges attacking Christianity, those judges are almost always (if not always) Christians. And now a Christian man has performed the radical attack of crashing his car into their monument (that was on the capitol building to the exclusion of monuments from any other religion, because persecution) that is prompting copious gnashing of teeth over “attacks” against Christians. The message is clear: Christianity is under attack in America, and someone needs to rise up to save it from the oppressive majority religion. Somebody must save Christianity from the Christians.
That message is pants-on-head ridiculous, but I guess no more ridiculous than the thought of someone rising from the dead. Barely.
The people fingered as “attackers” of Christianity are frequently Christians themselves. To believe that Christianity is under attack in a nation where it fills almost every role of authority is only slightly less ridiculous than believing someone rose from the dead and walked on water, which might explain why so many people who build their lives around the latter can so easily accept the former. But the fact remains that both are outlandish and untrue.
And take a moment to examine the reaction of these “attackers” Rebecca. Someone destroyed a Christian icon and the atheist community immediately comes out with statements against it (myself and your other atheist colleagues at Patheos included). Compare that to when a Christian defaces atheist signs and the Christian community always gives us crickets. Or compare the atheist reaction to this very event compared to that of Christians. After the monument was destroyed there was outrage of attacks and claims that this shows how wicked atheists are. After it was revealed the perpetrator was a Christian, we are again met with crickets (or even continued blame in many circles).
The behavior of atheists in this whole affair, Rebecca, is what the moral high ground looks like.