Given our conversations in class about religion, the first amendment, and free speech so far, I wonder how we should make sense of these claims. Reminds me a little of early evangelicals suggesting they were being persecuted by main line Protestants, arguing for the need for protection under the Constitution. Still, something about these contemporary arguments about Christians as a "persecuted" group subject to "hate crimes" just does not wash. What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think you can make that argument that some religions deserve constitutional protection from protestants, and you could make it with legitimate points. It may be a weak argument, but you can make it. I mean, the KKK started as a mainline Protestant group that hated everyone who wasn't Protestant, Catholics, other Christians, Jews, everyone, not just Blacks. But, I mean, I'd have to do more research to find out if the mainliners of the religion are still the same, but it there is a history there. I do think, however, that sometimes people say they are being discriminated against or persecuted just for sake of saying it. I don't know if that is happening here, but it does happen.
more than anything I have to say that this comes down to a matter of intention. A common misconception that I've found concerning religious protest is that, for some reason, they largly seem to think that, because they believe they are right, they are incapable of hate speach. In this case, when you get down to it, those 11 christians went down there to tell a bunch of people that they were immoral, hated, and going to hell. That's hate speach, I cant think of a better description short of threats to kill. If they wanted to make this point on their own time, then so be it, but I cant help but think they were looking for either a fight, or publicity. they got both.
perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but, seriously, if not a fight, what were they looking for?
Post a Comment