Alex Blaze

The Anger Gap

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 20, 2007 10:29 PM | comments

Filed in: Living
Tags: Bill Donohue, Christian beliefs, Jeffrey Feldman, religion, rhetoric

Pew Forum on Religion and Public LifeJeffrey Feldman has a great post up over at the Huffington Post about answering the anti-Christian charge that conservatives often level at liberals, especially during the recent Edwards campaign hullabaloo. One thing that I found really interesting was in a table (above, from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, here). Notice how in one year and a half the number of people who thought that religious folk were discriminated against rose by 12%, and the number who didn't dropped by a similar number. There may have been people who interpreted this question differently and thought it was referring to people with strong non-Christian religious beliefs, but that doesn't account for the change.

What this is telling us is that many people who think that Christians are discriminated against aren't basing their opinions on reality. Really, could anyone argue that there's been a significant enough change during 2005, a year where both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by the GOP, to account for such a change? (Well, they wouldn't have very good arguments if they did.) So, if the change wasn't based on a change in actual policy, the next most likely culprit is a rhetorical shift, which would imply that those who think that such discrimination exists do so because of the rhetoric of Bill Donohue and his sort.

Which is why the solution to this problem (of a potentially very progressive institution being hijacked by the Right) is going to have to be a rhetorical one as well. Like everything in American politics, the religious debate is going to be more about form than substance.

(Crossposted from Q-Bomb)

Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Allen J. Lopp | February 20, 2007 11:25 PM

This post addresses an extremely important issue. My take is that lawyers may think that religious freedom is one thing, but the average Joe-on-the-street has an idea that is entirely different. And often wrong.

I observe that many Christians find they are "discriminated against" merely if they are required to play by the same rules that non-Christians must play by. We've seen this in spades here in Indiana: In the legislature, the Christian fundamentalists would go on the warpath if a non-Christian religion was allowed to offer the opening prayer. Yet, if Christian clergymen are required to make their prayers even slightly non-denominational, they are being "shut out" and "discriminated against."

Currently, I understand, there are no opening prayers in our legislature. Attendees are given time to assemble into groups and pray quietly with colleagues who are religiously like-minded.

Perfect! In a civilization that seeks to establish freedom of worship, this is exactly the way non-biased governmental assemblies should be begun! But evangelical Christians claim they are "discriminated against" because they are not allowed to run the show, day in and day out.