So many groups are protected from hate. Or at least those full of hate for them are condemned.
If you attack blacks or show you hate them, you are condemned.
If you attack gays or show you hate them, you are condemned.
If you attack women or show you hate them, you are condemned.
All rightfully so.
But if you attack or show you hate Christians, you get applauded.
Why?
Sure, some Christians are anything but. Is that really a reason to hate Christians as a whole? We cannot hate all blacks because of some gang-bangers. If you do, you are a hateful person.
Yet, that’s what happens to Christians on a regular basis.
Look at Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson. All he said was homosexuality was a sin, and everyone was calling for his head on a platter.
But there’s some really strange stuff behind that, too.
First, if you are a Christian, you cannot dispute what he said. It is a sin. Second, if you are not a Christian or do not believe in God, then you do not believe there is any sin, therefore what he said would have been meaningless.
Also, he didn’t just say it about homosexuality. He said it about gamblers, adulterers, drunkards, terrorists, etc. He listed quite a few groups of people. Why was it, folks only got upset about the gays? We didn’t hear a peep from the swinger community, even though he named adulterers. We didn’t hear a word from the folks that frequent Vegas for gambling, even though they were also named. Why was it just the homosexual comment that got him in trouble?
Was is just an excuse to hate him?
Why was our President allowed to spew hatred towards Christians with his “cling to their guns and bibles” comment? I mean, these are two Constitutionally guaranteed rights we’re talking about here. Not only was it accepted, it was applauded!
Could you imagine the uproar if someone said something similar about another group?
“The gays will cling to their lube and dildos.”
or
“The blacks will cling to their Colt45 and saggy pants.”
“Women will cling to their make-up and perfumes.”
“Mexicans will cling to their sombreros and donkeys.”
All would have caused an outrage. But not when our own President says it about Christians.
It’s perfectly acceptable to call Christians ignorant because they believe in a higher being. Even though it has yet to be disproven that a higher being could exist. But it’s ok to belive in a big bang that hasn’t been proven, or that life spontaneously occurred, though it has never been proven to be a possibility, let alone even actually happen.
It’s acceptable to claim Christians all hate. Even though it is clearly not the case.
It’s acceptable to ignore the good Christianity has done. Children’s hospitals, homeless shelters, food kitchens, women’s shelters. All things done on a massively successful scale by Christians.
It’s ok to blame wars on Christians even though that’s far from the truth. Sure, some wars were waged by Christians. Other wars were waged by atheists. All were waged by people who perverted the beliefs of their group for personal gain. That will happen regardless of religion or not.
Not only has it become acceptable to attack Christianity falsely, it’s almost encouraged. We see it everywhere. Go read an article about Duck Dynasty and look at the hatred that spews from those that don’t agree with them.
All for simply having a different view.
Why is it acceptable in this instance, but not others?
You may not like it… but it’s just the Grim Truth!
grimtruth 