Christianity's Persecution Complex.

"Help, help! I'm being repressed"

Sure, we've come a long way since Christians were thrown to the lions in Ancient Rome. Sure, Christianity is now a dominant world religion which in many places is dangerously intertwined with the state. But repression against those who chose to follow Christ still exists, even in the (primarily) Christian West (apparently)...

Britain's Christian population is being oppressed and downtrodden; their church organisations are locked out of influence in the state and denied resources. Society from the PM down is practising a war of "aggressive secularisation" and Christianity is being insulted and blasphemed constantly. 

Or at least that's what you'd think if you took seriously the Lord Careys and Anne Widdecombes of this country - incidentally, Lord Carey - when did we elect him to our legislature? Oh, that's right - he's entitled to his position (along with 25 other pious old men) because of his affiliation with the Church of England, the state church - oh sorry, state church? How did they manage that in an age of aggressive secularism and discrimination against Christianity? What about the fact that 33.78% of state schools are faith-based - paid for by our (parents') tax money. Or the fact that the Queen is the also the head of the Church and the "Defender of the Faith". Or that daily collective Christian worship is still a legal requirement in our school system.

So, that editorial, let's see if Lord Carey has a case to make here, shall we? Okay, well, at least he acknowledges that "few in the UK are actually persecuted"; the article goes downhill from there though. Here come all the old anti-gay tropes:

I am very suspicious that behind the plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial.

By dividing marriage into religious and civil the Government threatens the church and state link which they purport to support. But they also threaten to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.

1) Gay marriage doesn't "change the nature of marriage", at least not for straight couples - when was the last time a married couple were harmed by someone else having the right to marry?

2) What has "glued society together" is relationships, people, love - not a particular kind of a particular social contract, families don't require a marriage license to exist.

3) Threatening the "church and state link", emptying marriage of "fundamental religious...meaning" - good, go right ahead!

4) Do I have to hear this one again - "what about the children?" - fine, fertility tests shall be required for marriage licenses, no one can marry if they are infertile, old, celibate, or just unwilling to procreate (a tragic decision for our dangerously underpopulated planet - hang on...) is that how it works? No, it isn't, and besides that - why can't a gay couple be involved in the "upbringing of children" (quick hint - they can!).

Carey then goes on to cite some cases of discrimination that will, he claims, result from the law - all I have to say is that the freedom to be bigoted should exist in public speech, it should not be allowed to impinge on professional conduct or an individual's ability to do their job - if, as a registrar, you refuse to marry a couple that is legally allowed to do so, tough luck.

Right, so marriage equality is the problem here...even Bill O'Reilly gets it, the fundies are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of justice (skip to 4.45 for the important bit):

Adding to the collective moan of self-pity from a Christian lobby that is rapidly losing its grip, Anne Widdecombe recently produced a "documentary" for the BBC called "Are You Having a Laugh? - Comedy and Christianity" - "documentary" being a generous term for this hour long fit of whining and crying wolf. Her argument was that though there have "always been jokes about Christianity", they have in recent years become more aggressive and nasty; maybe the fact that in previous eras " jokes about the Church would have been met by state repression, up to and including torture and execution, the last British arrest for blasphemy was in 1992.

At least not everyone seems to share her attitude - even the Christians don't agree - one points out that a "mature Christian should have a sense of humour" and Marcus Brigstocke is there to challenge her and inject some lightness into the endeavour - when Widdy says that watching the abuse of a communion wafer is like joking about a recent bereavement, Marcus is quick to ask "how long is the grieving period for Jesus, then".

Her argument was interesting - that mocking of Christians is okay, but not mocking of their dogma - I've always thought of it the other way round - attack ideas, not those who hold them - apparently though, for the devout among us, their faith is more personal than their very person.

At least she is right about one thing - mockery is a weapon in the cultural and intellectual war on religion, and so it should be, though old Widdy seems to find this idea horrifying; apparently assertive Bible-thumping is a-ok but assertive statements of non-belief are not. Christians should be out and proud and proselytising; atheists, back to the sidelines please, bow your heads and pretend you haven't worked out the scam yet.

You have no right not to be offended, grow up and get over it. Oh, and here is an "offensive" and "nasty" comic about Christianity, enjoy ;)