The Last Bastion of Allowable Prejudice.

[PoliticalChic]

TITLE: Piss Christ
ARTIST: Andres Serrano




its just amazing to me, that with all of the Misogyny , lack of tolerance, violence and the rest that is prevalent in other religions as Serrano chose this as his piece and was championed as a 'disturbing but artistic statement on how belief and spirituality has been debased'.

No one has stepped forward using some such alike Icon, to create same artistic statement speaking to Islams 'disturbing but artistic statement on how belief and spirituality has been debased'. And I think we know why.

Excellent example of the government of the United States using taxpayer funds to deprecate religion, and Christianity in particular.

And the Obama administrtion used the same strategy to prop up its far left wing agenda:


1. White House Ministry of Propaganda:

a. “At first glance, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) conference call of August 10th, 2009 sounds innocent enough because it’s supposedly been organized by Michael Skolnik, political director for Russell Simmons and someone not officially associated with any government agency. Skolnik appears to be acting independently as a concerned citizen and to have taken it upon himself to gather together a group of artists and art organizations hoping to move them towards “national service.”

b. … the conference call was a ruse, a front for a White House using Skolnik as a kind of beard in order to put an innocent spin on their abuse of the NEA and two non-partisan volunteer organizations (United We Serve – an initiative overseen by The Corporation for National and Community Service – a federal agency, and the White House’ Office of Public Engagement).

c. Skolnik states openly that the White House and NEA asked him to round everyone up…
"I have been asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA about a month ago in a conversation that was had. We had the idea that I would help bring together the independent artists community around the country. “ Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Propaganda, Health Care and ACORN: Full Context of NEA Conference Call Reveals Disturbing Pattern

2. The NEA briefly appeared on radar screens in the mid-90s due to objections from conservatives over its funding of controversial (sexually explicit and often offensive) works by artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano. After losing a court case when it subsequently tried to refuse funding to four artists over content concerns, the NEA at Congress’ direction subsequently stopped directly funding individual artists, in favor of supporting group projects and collaboratives, arts education and leadership initiatives.

a. As of this month, the NEA is now using your tax dollars to organize and promote art projects specifically designed to advocate for President Obama’s political initiatives, including health care reform and climate action. NEA using your tax dollars to fund left-wing propaganda « Sanity Injection

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.

How quickly the lamenting of "anti-religious bigotry" evaporates when someone pivots to a religion other than Christianity. Impressive display.

Are you pretending that you fail to see any difference between terroristic violence and offering to discuss ones religious views?

I know you're not the fool you pretend to be...

...are you?

 

[Woyzeck]

It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.

How quickly the lamenting of "anti-religious bigotry" evaporates when someone pivots to a religion other than Christianity. Impressive display.

Are you pretending that you fail to see any difference between terroristic violence and offering to discuss ones religious views?

I know you're not the fool you pretend to be...

...are you?

Prejudice against Christians is the last bastion of allowable prejudice.

Except, y'know, the stuff against Muslims. But they don't count, they're all dirty filthy terrorists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How quickly the lamenting of "anti-religious bigotry" evaporates when someone pivots to a religion other than Christianity. Impressive display.

Are you pretending that you fail to see any difference between terroristic violence and offering to discuss ones religious views?

I know you're not the fool you pretend to be...

...are you?

Prejudice against Christians is the last bastion of allowable prejudice.

Except, y'know, the stuff against Muslims. But they don't count, they're all dirty filthy terrorists.

Your words, not mine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought racism towards whites was "The Last Bastion of Allowable Prejudice", which one is it?

It's whites who are Christian.

Not whites who are Jewish or Muslim? Just white Christians?

I wonder if you might see my point in the following salient, albeit simple example of an anti-Christian bias which, it seems is totally acceptable in the common culture.

A recent child's film which hit the big screen around Easter, a film about the Easter bunny called "Hop."


This "Easter" film has no references to the Christian religion. None. Nothing about Jesus on Easter. Not even going to church. Nada. There is, however, a possible pagan allusion. Even thousands of years before Christ, say, 4,000 years ago, some in the Middle East worshipped a goddess named Astarte. Some say this fertility goddess is the source of the egg traditions that surround Easter, the name of which is supposedly derived from Astarte. Others attribute the eggs and rabbits of Easter to a later, German goddess, Eostre. Regardless of whether Easter came from Astarte or Eostre, the Christian church attempted to "redeem" this worship by attaching its festivals to Christ's resurrection. The bunnies and eggs remained, but the meaning has largely been about Jesus for centuries. Apparently, now that we've thrown out Jesus, but not the eggs and bunnies, the concept has come full circle, as the Easter Bunny Dad in "Hop" refers to the delivering of eggs and Easter baskets as a "4,000-year tradition." Hmm.


Read more: Easter Bunny lays an egg Easter Bunny lays an egg

 

[Woyzeck]

Are you pretending that you fail to see any difference between terroristic violence and offering to discuss ones religious views?

I know you're not the fool you pretend to be...

...are you?

Prejudice against Christians is the last bastion of allowable prejudice.

Except, y'know, the stuff against Muslims. But they don't count, they're all dirty filthy terrorists.

Your words, not mine.

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

 

[tonystewart1]

Why is it unreasonable for us to not want to stay in our churches when we have the right, as well as the privilege and duty to live the Gospel in all areas of our lives and share it with all people?

Which Church is established if a Bible verse is mentioned publically?

Interestingly enough, I've never had a Buddhist come up to me and ask "have you heard the good news about Buddha"?

I've never had a Muslim come up to me and ask if I wanted to follow Mohammed.

No Jewish person has ever come up to me asking if I wish to go to their temple.

The only people that seem intent on doing that are Christians. Interestingly enough, when they ask me if I knew Yeshua (Jesus to you Christians), I tell them yeah, He's my big brother. Then they ask me if I know God, and then I tell them yeah, I do, because I study Judaic theology.

Most of 'em leave me alone after that.

That's because they haven't heard you expound about Noah and how he slept with his daughters yet.


If they'd ever heard your ignorant ramblings, they'd be all over you, I'm sure. Or maybe it's just that in the biker bar where you tend bar, you don't come across the cream of the crop when it comes to Christian witnesses...

Noah did not sleep with his daughters. Read the Word. Genesis 9:21-25. Noah's youngest son saw him naked and was cursed. Lot's daughter did sleep with him Genesis 19:30-38. They did that because they thought they where the only people left on earth.

 

[Montrovant]

It's whites who are Christian.

Not whites who are Jewish or Muslim? Just white Christians?

I wonder if you might see my point in the following salient, albeit simple example of an anti-Christian bias which, it seems is totally acceptable in the common culture.

A recent child's film which hit the big screen around Easter, a film about the Easter bunny called "Hop."


This "Easter" film has no references to the Christian religion. None. Nothing about Jesus on Easter. Not even going to church. Nada. There is, however, a possible pagan allusion. Even thousands of years before Christ, say, 4,000 years ago, some in the Middle East worshipped a goddess named Astarte. Some say this fertility goddess is the source of the egg traditions that surround Easter, the name of which is supposedly derived from Astarte. Others attribute the eggs and rabbits of Easter to a later, German goddess, Eostre. Regardless of whether Easter came from Astarte or Eostre, the Christian church attempted to "redeem" this worship by attaching its festivals to Christ's resurrection. The bunnies and eggs remained, but the meaning has largely been about Jesus for centuries. Apparently, now that we've thrown out Jesus, but not the eggs and bunnies, the concept has come full circle, as the Easter Bunny Dad in "Hop" refers to the delivering of eggs and Easter baskets as a "4,000-year tradition." Hmm.


Read more: Easter Bunny lays an egg Easter Bunny lays an egg

Are you really using the commercialization of Easter as an argument that Christianity is put upon? Are Christmas movies that involve Santa and Rudolf and Frosty but don't mention Christ or Christianity examples of anti-Christian bigotry?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prejudice against Christians is the last bastion of allowable prejudice.

Except, y'know, the stuff against Muslims. But they don't count, they're all dirty filthy terrorists.

Your words, not mine.

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

1. "...this rebuttal of Sallow's link..." on which you base the assertion that I believe that "Muslims...they're all dirty filthy terrorists." is very clear in specifying
a) 100 mosques, 81% of which offer their adherents violence projecting texts, and
b) the actual words of, again, a specified group of muslims...

To be correct in your statement, you would have to argue that all Muslims either belong to those mosques which suggest violence, or belong to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Based on this analysis, the premise of your post fails.

2. "...trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims..."

The definition of bigotry is as follows: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

As proven in item #1 above, the post you reference is very specific, and does not indict "any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
Rather, the post identifies those of a specific belief, i.e., involved in or considering violence against my nation and its people.

The only conclusions possible are a) an indictment of your skills of analysis, or..and this may be worse...
b) an attempt to dishonestly characterize my post.

Which is it?

3. "...Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice..." Do I see, buried in this phrase, an acceptance of the idea that there is predudice against Christians in the popular culture?
Well, then, we are on the same page.

I just re-read the OP...and see the above sentiment referenced, but find your point to be a stretch....that this is the only prejudice in our society. Rather, I leave it up to other groups to trumpet their cause.
Prove otherwise?
Retract?

4. "...and then debase Muslims, members of a religion..."
Again, a fib on your part.
Retract?

5. "I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity."
Actually, it is morality that I wish to see as more prominent in our society, and any religion that supports the freedom and well-being of our fellow man is fine with me...no matter the religion. This is pretty much the view of the Founders.

I am firmly opposed to any view that suggests
a)all must believe the same, i.e., that religion is not a personal matter
b) the Constitution is misguided in the view that all are entitled to the free expression of their religion (the brick thing).
and c) violence and oppression of any physical variety should be used in the agency of a view.

Now, I must tell you that, although totally wrong in your post, you did a good job, wrote well and supported your point in an adult manner.....
....rep on the way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not whites who are Jewish or Muslim? Just white Christians?

I wonder if you might see my point in the following salient, albeit simple example of an anti-Christian bias which, it seems is totally acceptable in the common culture.

A recent child's film which hit the big screen around Easter, a film about the Easter bunny called "Hop."


This "Easter" film has no references to the Christian religion. None. Nothing about Jesus on Easter. Not even going to church. Nada. There is, however, a possible pagan allusion. Even thousands of years before Christ, say, 4,000 years ago, some in the Middle East worshipped a goddess named Astarte. Some say this fertility goddess is the source of the egg traditions that surround Easter, the name of which is supposedly derived from Astarte. Others attribute the eggs and rabbits of Easter to a later, German goddess, Eostre. Regardless of whether Easter came from Astarte or Eostre, the Christian church attempted to "redeem" this worship by attaching its festivals to Christ's resurrection. The bunnies and eggs remained, but the meaning has largely been about Jesus for centuries. Apparently, now that we've thrown out Jesus, but not the eggs and bunnies, the concept has come full circle, as the Easter Bunny Dad in "Hop" refers to the delivering of eggs and Easter baskets as a "4,000-year tradition." Hmm.


Read more: Easter Bunny lays an egg Easter Bunny lays an egg

Are you really using the commercialization of Easter as an argument that Christianity is put upon? Are Christmas movies that involve Santa and Rudolf and Frosty but don't mention Christ or Christianity examples of anti-Christian bigotry?

Are you using "the commercialization of Easter" as an excuse for anti-Christian propaganda?

 

[syrenn]

And the school certainly has the right to deny Christians the privilege of putting biblical excerpts on fund-raising bricks. It's idiotic, but they're within their rights.

the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To claim it does just advertises the ignorance of our educators.

If it is a publicly funded school no religious messages, of any religion, should ever be allowed.

Nonsense. Neither the Constitution, statute nor case law supports that assertion. There's no grounds in the law to prohibit such a thing in this particular case under these circumstances. The school simply chose not to do the project because it knew damn well it would have to include them.

Besides, you don't believe what you're saying anyway. No. You would simply block the expression of anything traditionally thought of as being religious, an arbitrary and subjective exercise in tyranny.

We live in a PC world...and that means no religion in public schools. If you want religion..go to a religious school.

The school chose not to do the project because it was getting sued. Again... the devil is in the details. Hopefully they have learned their lesson and stipulate what can be said.

LOL...i sure do believe what i say. I would block ANY expression of ANY religion in public. schools. Freedom FROM religion is the only way to go in public places. You can practice what you want in your own home.

 

[syrenn]

And the school certainly has the right to deny Christians the privilege of putting biblical excerpts on fund-raising bricks. It's idiotic, but they're within their rights.

the problem with it is that it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To claim it does just advertises the ignorance of our educators.

If it is a publicly funded school no religious messages, of any religion, should ever be allowed.

Except THAT'S NOT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Separation of church and state exists ONLY to prevent the government from establishing a religion. Our first schools taught FROM THE BIBLE.

The whole movement to eradicate all references to religion from any state sponsored site/spot/employee is a bastard movement that has nothing to do with our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers.

I really don't care if it is or isn't. The fact remains it is what it is. What it boils down to is no one wanting to be sued one way or the other. The safest way to cover you ass is to remove any and ALL religion in public places.

 

[ConHog]

some people are just fucking stupid. The First Amendment does NOT read freedom FROM religion, it reads freedom OF religion.

ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The difference in meaning of those two statements couldn't more disparate. People have the right to enjoy their religion. People do NOT have the right to not be exposed to ANY religion.

 

[syrenn]

Of course I would. I don't care what people put on school bricks because it's not a method of establishing a government religion. If the phrase itself was inappropriate to the age..that would be something else again.

And what happens if someone is offended by the brick? And in this day and age...someone is always offended about something.

 

[Trajan]

I'm trying to figure out how discussing the salient points of Islam is the same as shutting down a school program because of a couple of biblical references.

Or wanting to shut down the construction of a mosque?

Given that Muslims were brought up in the context of that incident (i.e. the pressure folks tried to exert on the Manhattan Borough Board to shut down that project) and Peter King's Muslim HUAC hearings, I would've thought that at least a few of the opponents of "anti-religious bigotry" would feel a little solidarity, even with folks of a different religion. Perhaps if bricks had been involved in those instances.

Muslim huac hearings...you should really stick to the boiler room, boiler plate of obama care, seriously.

 

[syrenn]

some people are just fucking stupid. The First Amendment does NOT read freedom FROM religion, it reads freedom OF religion.

ongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The difference in meaning of those two statements couldn't more disparate. People have the right to enjoy their religion. People do NOT have the right to not be exposed to ANY religion.

I am not saying anything about the first amendment. The school should have been more specific in what was allowed to be placed on the bricks.

The only way to protect yourself from law suits is freedom FROM religion. All religion. They were getting sued so scraped the project.

 

[AllieBaba]

Prejudice against Christians is the last bastion of allowable prejudice.

Except, y'know, the stuff against Muslims. But they don't count, they're all dirty filthy terrorists.

Your words, not mine.

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

Really? Can you point to any post of mine where I support freedom of Christianity only? Or where I support legislation that establishes a particular religion in our government?

Your vituperative hogwash toward PC is about as far off the mark as a person can get. I suggest you kick back and do some reading before you jump in with both feet. You obviously don't know a thing about me, and your idiocy regarding PC of all people is so far off the mark as to make you an object of ridicule.

 

[ConHog]

Your words, not mine.

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

Really? Can you point to any post of mine where I support freedom of Christianity only? Or where I support legislation that establishes a particular religion in our government?

Your vituperative hogwash toward PC is about as far off the mark as a person can get. I suggest you kick back and do some reading before you jump in with both feet. You obviously don't know a thing about me, and your idiocy regarding PC of all people is so far off the mark as to make you an object of ridicule.

After reading this thread I am convinced that most on this board are of the opinion that Christians should shut up and not offend anyone. Hey a gay parade down main street is a okay, but don't you dare put a Bible verse on a brick.

Damn people are dumb.

 

[AllieBaba]

The people who want to prevent Christians from practicing their religion or in any way openly embracing it are the same people who would support genetic engineering, forced euthanasia and abortion, and who in the old days supported Nazism. They are supremely arrogant in their belief and they feel they are justified when they seek to stifle the rights of others, so that they are not *subjected* to any differing viewpoints on any topic.

 

[Woyzeck]

Your words, not mine.

You made the thread and the assertion that anti-religion bigotry was palpable, and this rebuttal of Sallow's link to videos of anti-Muslim prejudice. Instead of admitting the thread premise is invalid by his information, you instead gave us stats about Muslim radicalism. You were pretty clearly trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims, to somehow make it not count so Christians could continue being the sole victim of prejudice. This does not negate the point of Sallow, or Greenbeard, or myself in that Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice in America these days.

In fact, much of the evidence you brought up, like the brick thing, is purely immature and childish in comparison. You groan over Bible verses not being allowed on bricks. Muslims get protests when they build their mosques, when it has been advocated they should be banned from moving here, when their holy texts are burned in order to insult them, and when it is said their mosques should be monitored for propaganda. Christians are not the sole bastion of prejudice, acceptable or otherwise, and they are certainly not on the receiving end of the worst.

You cry about the need for the religious to stand up against the non-religious and secular movements for equal footing, and then debase Muslims, members of a religion. Even if you and others in this thread didn't decide to deride Muslims as violent radicals, the "last bastion" argument is invalid thanks in large part to the rest of America. It is, as you said, quite palpable.

I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity.'

1. "...this rebuttal of Sallow's link..." on which you base the assertion that I believe that "Muslims...they're all dirty filthy terrorists." is very clear in specifying
a) 100 mosques, 81% of which offer their adherents violence projecting texts, and
b) the actual words of, again, a specified group of muslims...

To be correct in your statement, you would have to argue that all Muslims either belong to those mosques which suggest violence, or belong to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Based on this analysis, the premise of your post fails.

So what's the point of linking it Poli? From what I can gather, now you wish to say you were making a distinction between radical Muslims and moderate ones. Here's the problem with your logic. If your point was to refute Sallow's link, saying the bigotry was just against radical Muslims, well you invalidated of your OP. There exists bigotry against all Muslims and you're ignoring that. But let's say your OP is about all religious people, not just Christians. I linked to bigotry that extends to all Muslims. Than that invalidates your reply to Sallow, because you don't discuss this bigotry at all. You link to articles concerning radical Muslims, but in light of all I have just said, it becomes quite puzzling why you would post it in the first place.

In short, if you take your OP to mean all religious people, then your post to Sallow looks like your linking the bigotry to only that against radical Muslims. Except there exists large amounts of it against all Muslims. So your reply to him is invalid and irrelevant, but highly suggestive of what you think of Muslims. Not only that, but the evidence you presented in the OP makes Christians look very immature and childish, while Muslims suffer real bigotry in America.

In shorter terms, your inflating the bigotry against Christians, and ignoring the greater bigotry we have in America today. That says a lot about you.

However, if we take your OP to mean just Christians, then your OP is invalidated. The bigotry against Muslims isn't against the radical ones (as you suggest with your reply to Sallow), there is plenty against all of them, radical or not. So your OP is rendered moot.

Also keep in mind, it isn't just people like myself who think you meant only Christians in the OP. Judging by Allie's replies, it looks like she thinks so too.

2. "...trying to justify the bigotry against Muslims..."

The definition of bigotry is as follows: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

As proven in item #1 above, the post you reference is very specific, and does not indict "any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."
Rather, the post identifies those of a specific belief, i.e., involved in or considering violence against my nation and its people.

So then your reply to Sallow suggests the bigotry is aimed at that, radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood. But anti-Muslim bigotry is often extended to all Muslims, whether proven radical, or not. So what was the point of the reply to Sallow?

3. "...Christians are not the sole victim of prejudice..." Do I see, buried in this phrase, an acceptance of the idea that there is prejudice against Christians in the popular culture?
Well, then, we are on the same page.

Not quite. Everyone has someone invariably prejudiced against them. I do not deny that Christians don't have prejudice against them, but I do deny they are the soles receiver of it today. I even deny that the religious are the sole bastions of allowable prejudice if you want to read your OP that way.

I just re-read the OP...and see the above sentiment referenced, but find your point to be a stretch....that this is the only prejudice in our society. Rather, I leave it up to other groups to trumpet their cause.
Prove otherwise?
Retract?

That it's the only prejudice in society? This comes from you. It's not up to me to retract it. You were quite clear in your OP. It's in the thread title "sole bastion of allowable prejudice." Which is in itself laughable.

4. "...and then debase Muslims, members of a religion..."
Again, a fib on your part.
Retract?

See above where your reply to Sallow doesn't quite make sense for the ideas you wish to convey now.

[5. "I think you, much like Allie, believe that 'freedom of religion' in America, is defined as 'freedom of Christianity."
Actually, it is morality that I wish to see as more prominent in our society, and any religion that supports the freedom and well-being of our fellow man is fine with me...no matter the religion. This is pretty much the view of the Founders.

I am firmly opposed to any view that suggests
a)all must believe the same, i.e., that religion is not a personal matter
b) the Constitution is misguided in the view that all are entitled to the free expression of their religion (the brick thing).
and c) violence and oppression of any physical variety should be used in the agency of a view.

It's how you've been coming off. See the bulk of my reply above to why this is so. Otherwise I'd be repeating myself quite a bit in this reply.

But what do you think of the bigotry against all Muslims? I posted some proof of some folks that have it against all Muslims. Are these people wrong to stereotype like they have?

And what did you mean in the OP? All religions? Or simply Christianity? If it was about all religions, why did you bring up the evidence you did about prejudice against Christians, and not the stronger prejudice against Muslims? If it's about all religions, why reply to Sallow the way you did? Why did you ignore the blatant anti-Muslim sentiment in this nation and make this thread about Christian bricks and Easter movies? If this thread was just about Christianity, then your OP and this thread of yours is rendered entirely pointless by the existence of anti-Muslim bigotry.