Julian Sanchez of Reason on The True Spirit of Xmas: How 4/5 of the country became an oppressed minority:
So are we really seeing an unprecedented wave of hostility toward either Christmas or Christianity? Or is it, rather, that the waning of the cultural hegemony to which some Christians have come to feel entitled is perceived as an attack? Many of the most loudly trumpeted complaints in this vein are, after all, complaints about the absence of special treatment: no special spot for the Ten Commandments in the courthouse rotunda; no pride of place for Christmas among those happy winter holidays; no exceptions for the Christian charity.
Exactly. There is a big difference between being persecuted (which does happen to some Christians) and not being granted special privileges above others (which is what most of the complaining is about). Like it or lump it, your Christianity isn't my concern. My friends and colleagues run the gamut from Christian to Jewish to Muslim to Buddhist to Bahai to Athiest to Agnostic to whatever. Like Rob Carr, I try to customize my holiday greeting to the person being greeted. That isn't oppression, and it isn't persecution. Its just plain polite.
Further, I shouldn't have to wonder if my religious beliefs will be taken into consideration when I enter the courthouse. The Ten Commandments is a religious document, not the law of our land. When I appear before a judge, I want to know whether or not my legal rights will be protected. I'm not at all interested in a public employee's (judge or otherwise) kneejerk compulsion to constantly portray our legal system as being based on theocratic doctrine, rather than individual rights.
Since "special rights" has been a term of aspersion among conservatives for decades, would-be theocrats have at least the decency to be too ashamed to demand them explicitly. Instead, they've learned the power of the victim narrative, of framing the debate to cast themselves as underdogs. Rather than attempting to entrench their values, demagogues purport to be playing defense against a plot to "purge religion from the public square," trading on the same ambiguity in the word "public" that has eased the acceptance of ever more regulation of privately owned establishments that are open to the public, and allowed for the metastasis of the term "public health," which now apparently covers not just infectious disease control or mosquito abatement, but smoking and obesity. Since the battle is a reactive one against the undifferentiated forces of anti-Christian bigotry, such nice distinctions as that between a business that fails to cater to its customers and an arm of the state adhering to strict neutrality can be dispensed with. More importantly, moderate Christians with no desire to impose their faith on others might be convinced to support a re-Christianization of public life on the premise that they'd only be defending themselves against marauding secularists.
In other words, if you don't elevate SOME Christians' beliefs above all others, then you are somehow victimizing them. Somehow. Some way. I was raised in a Christian home and attended several different denominational and nondenominational churches before declaring myself agnostic. I've seen Christians truly persecuted by those who disagree with their faith, and I've also seen Christians proudly practicing persecution of others. And I fully well know the difference between the two.
But fuck it, its 2004 and neutrality is the new bigotry. Lack of special treatment is oppression.
I give up. Just call me Winston and tell me when what time to show up for my reprogramming session.
Rob Carr has a related posting here.