Are Christians Oppressed?

Well, if you listen to some, yes. And if you listen to the left (and apparently the NYT), then you might come to the conclusion that Christian Evangelicals are the oppressor. If you listen to moderate bloggers, like Instapundit and TheModerateVoice, you might get the impression that most Evangelicals are OK, but there are a few Christian leaders, who seem to get all the air time, who are quite radical and should not be seen as representative of Christians in general. They are seen as pulling the Republican party to the right in the same way that MoveOn.org is pulling the Democrat party to the left.
Here is what is causing these two moderates to ponder the victimized Christian syndrome (Josh Phillips of the Washington Post):

I have been looking at myself, and millions of my brethren, fellow evangelicals along with traditional Catholics, in a ghastly arcade mirror lately -- courtesy of this newspaper and the New York Times. Readers have been assured, among other dreadful things, that we are living in "a theocracy" and that this theocratic federal state has reached the dire level of -- hold your breath -- a "jihad."

In more than 50 years of direct engagement in and observation of the major news media I have never encountered anything remotely like the fear and loathing lavished on us by opinion mongers in these world-class newspapers in the past 40 days. If I had a $5 bill for every time the word "frightening" and its close lexicographical kin have appeared in the Times and The Post, with an accusatory finger pointed at the Christian right, I could take my stack to the stock market.

First off, I'm sure that he could find other examples of "fear and loathing" by major media persons for one thing or another. Search a bit. Most of the time though, in the last 15 or 20 years, objects of media loathing are more likely to be on the conservative side of the political spectrum. That's my impression.
Anyway, here is what Joe Gandelman of the Moderate Voice says about this guy.

But he ignores putting high up in his thought provoking piece the fact that there has been TRIGGER for these events over the past few weeks which has led to some folks expressing fears of a trend towards theocracy:

• The role of Evangelicals in pressing the move to get a ban on gay marriage. The clamor on that hasn't come from libertarian Republicans.
  
• The GOP's move to solidify this loyal and energetic constituency as one of the pillars of the party.
  
• The Terri Shiavo case.
  
• The clamor by the Evangelical part of the GOP for judges that rule their way on issues, coupled by the Republicans starting to talk about going for the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster to get more socially conservative judges (the judges the Democrats seek to hold up are not generally considered moderates).
  
• Majority Leader Bill Frist appearing before a group that suggested opponents were "faithless" who opposed Bush's judicial nominees.
  
• The recent comments (condemned by a healthy number of thoughtful Republicans by the way) of Pat Robertson suggesting some present judges are a greater threat to the country than Osama bin Laden.
  

The bottom line is that columnists did not just START writing about this. There was a trigger — and it was the Evangelicals' political stances and pressures on GOPers to get their agenda passed on several fronts. There is nothing wrong or illegal about that — but it is a fact that this was the context.

OK, I can agree with some of these things, but not all of them. If you want to blame hatred on triggers that the victims of that hatred pull, then you are walking into dangerous territory. Far be it from me to go all they way to equating that with hating other ethnic groups for various whiny and lame reasons, like blaming the United States for 9/11. I'll instead stick to the points mentioned above.
1. You can find a trigger in the form of Gay activists pushing to make gay marriage available now through the court system. If you like you can keep going back and forth from one group to another indicating triggers that caused each subsequent stage of the issue we now discuss.
2. The GOP is always solidifying different groups so it knows it has the votes of those groups. For that matter the Democrats do it too. Hypocrisy.
3. Terry Schiavo. I did disagree with the tenacity of some who made a huge deal out of this. But my angst was only because they were trying to force this through the federal court system because they were not getting the answer they were looking for, and in turn, looking a lot like the liberal activists that they often criticize. But I never said that they were wrong to raise the issue. And perhaps they weren't.
4. Actually, if again you want to talk about triggers, blame judges who are, in fact, taking a more active roll in lawmaking. Also blame the Democrats for using the filibuster in a way that it's never been used before, to block judicial appointments.
5. and 6. Frist and Robertson. OK, Robertson has been making interesting comments for years. What's the NYT's excuse for dissing Christians NOW on this issue.
Well, I guess the answer to that is that Christian leaders are making a big public deal out of some of these things. The values haven't changed, but they are feeling much more free to express that it is, in fact, their religious values that are behind how they think. And, of course, the left can't stand the fact that Christians guide their lives, including their political decisions, on their faith.

Gandelman then goes on to criticize statements by Phillips regarding the original intent of the establishment clause and how the liberals want to flush religion from all parts of public life. To which Gandelman exclaims that no one is trying to do that, but it's the ADDING ON of religious agenda that the debate is about.
Once again. Trigger: Phillips has a point, in that you will find that Christians get quite irate when liberals attempt to eradicate things like "under God" from the anthem, Christmas plays and the Boy Scouts from public schools, and the cross from the flag of Los Angeles. We see a pattern here. So I ask you, what's the trigger?
When debated, I've found that many on the left have nothing but bile for the Christian point of view, so when I see opinions like what Mr. Phillips saw, as an Evangelical Christian I have very similar feelings. I'm not feeling oppressed, mind you. I'm just not feeling the utopian love from that side of the political spectrum that often lauds itself on being tolerant and inclusive.

And by the way, Bush is a Christian himself. I get the feeling that his views are his own, and that he doesn't take his cues from Pat Robertson. He might just agree with him sometimes, though, and that's a tremendous difference.

Here's another one, on the same day, from Glenn Reynolds, speaking about the Christian Right. More specifically, right to lifers. The issue is a new vaccine developed to fight cervical cancer.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, and the vaccine would have to be administered before a girl became active in that area.
Glenn, as well as Eugene Volokh, are pretty hard on the Family Research Council. The FRC opposes the vaccine, presumably because the think that it will make girls more sexually active knowing that they won't have to worry about HPV. Volokh makes the point that girls probably aren't thinking about HPV now, as it is, so why would this change anything. A subsequent writer says

I'm an evangelical Christian. What's really involved is this -- for several years the more extreme social conservatives have been trying to scare kids into abstinence by saying, "You know, condoms don't protect you against the most common STD, and it's one that could cause cancer." Having a vaccine takes away that club.

Too bad. If your encouragement of abstinence on SPIRITUAL grounds isn't strong enough to convince a person, then it borders on the reprehensible to try to scare them into the behavior YOU desire. I believe it was Reinhold Niebuhr who said (paraphrasing from memory) "Frantic orthodoxy is a sign not of strength, but of weakness."

Ok, I agree and I disagree. I agree that SPIRITUAL grounds for remaining abstinent should be what Evangelical leaders are really pushing here. I'm sure the HPV was one way of saying to young girls that there are more serious consequences to having pre-marital sex than just STDs. I disagree with the writer, though, on why he thinks that leading Christians are just pissed that they are losing a "club" with which to beat the abstinence drum with.
I think that Evangelical leaders are probably torn on this issue. I would be. I would by thinking that medically it's great that a cure for this flavor of cancer has been developed, but listen, kids, why should you need it at all if you are going to wait until marriage? This, as well as abortion and other "family planning methods" aren't necessary if you are playing by God's rules, right?
I think that the FRC cannot, in it's own mind, support the use of the vaccine. If it declares the vaccine a good thing, then it might be seen as a bow to the social forces of teen sex, and I don't think it wants to do that.

Anyway. I think I've rambled on long enough. I'll be keeping an eye on anti-Christian sentiment in the blogosphere. I just might have another one of these bloated posts before you know it.

Update: George Will has an article where he admonishes the Christian Right for their overplaying the victim card. I agree with this to a certain extent. I think it's right for Christians to point out when people are being abusive and vitriolic in debate, rather than being constructive. However, to say that we are victims is to whine instead of suffer in silence for our Lord. Whining will not win anyone over (that's experience with my kids talking there).

Christopher Hitchens writes why he's rooting against the religious right.
James Taranto (Wall St Journal) writes why he's rooting for the religious right.
Hat tip Winds of Change.