I came across this priceless comment on a rightwing blog. It was rewarded with a cascade of “hear hear’s!” Initially I thought it must be satire, but nope.
There are two different kinds of persecution for Christians. The first one is physical persecution. It is commonly practiced in some developing countries and where tyrannical governments or oppressive cultures exist like India, China, Afganistan, and other countries.
The second one is mental persecution, and that is what Christians in the West are experiencing for most part. For example, I as a born-again Christian have to avert my eyes when a beautiful woman in immodest clothes walks by or downright immoral commerical ads on TV. In a number of places, sharing Gospel is not permitted or frowned upon, simply because tolerance is now the mantra and acts as a double standard against Christians. Some laws are immoral that we as Christians are forced to tolerate, because the Bible commands us to obey law. Placing children in public schools is fast becoming a very dangerous practice as it introduces all wrong kinds of teachings. Christians are mocked when they proclaim their belief in literal creation as told in Genesis, evolution and humanistic beliefs are taking root everywhere in America and other countries.
Christians who suffer both forms of persecution will be rewarded by God, He is just to all and will reward accordingly in proportion to a Christian’s work on the Earth. God’s ways are equal in His eyes, but unequal in our eyes, which is all I can say about us mere mortal beings.
Sadly, one thing I do know for sure is that America someday will turn into a pagan nation, because we as Christians have failed to obey God’s commandments just as Israel failed in that area and was punished by God…severely. Thankfully, I believe for now, Americans have a chance to put America back on the right track, and I’m not talking about Election 2008.
In any case, I pray that each and every Christian make right decision in electing the next President of the United States, because once we make that decision, it’s completely irreversible.
————
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
Because of course it is the immodestly dressed woman who is responsible for his desire. Someone seems to have missed the point of what persecution is. How is it possible for such people to be functional in the world? At any rate, after we amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage I suppose we’ll have to set about writing a Constitutional amendment with a dress code. Burkas everyone?
Larval Subjects . 
October 16, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Creepy, indeed. Check out pervegalit.wordpress.com, they too have some interesting posts/news snippets about politics and religion. Not to mention a note on another right wing gem, Ann Coulter: http://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/coulter-to-jews-convert/
October 16, 2007 at 5:21 pm
could you give a reference? i’d like to see where this is from – of course, to equate “physical persecution” with a slight uncomfort of being embarrassed by an underdressed woman is ridiculous – i wonder if Jesus was “mentally persecuted” while hanging out with all those prostitutes and sinners? on the other hand, it is a strange view indeed – does it mean that everyone who is forced to be around people who do not share his/her views on life is “mentally persecuted”?
October 16, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I realize this sounds paranoid, but I make it a policy not to link to rightwing blogs as I have seen them ferret out personal information such as home addresses and post it online, and also contact employers. This, for instance, is what’s going on with the Frost family. I’d be happy to give you the link through email.
October 17, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Dr Sinthome, a Christian reader who was tracked down by wordpress´s tracker entered the following search term in google when he bumped into the parody center:
sex positions for christians
October 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Just out of curiosity what would be your response to someone critically engaged with corporate advertisers in the hopes that they might become more “modest” as opposed to invasive in their tactics (I am not thinking of particular ads but of the social spaces of advertising). I am not trying to push the comparison too far only to see if there is any shared ground in addressing how our environment shapes our mental landscape. I am only thinking of all the ‘hear, hears’ from the left for creating more modest dress for the social body of advertising.
October 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I don’t know that I would have any response at all. I think this is a perfectly legitimate agenda, though I don’t find myself particularly bothered by immodesty. The issue I take with the person who wrote this post is their view that they are somehow being persecuted by the person who dresses immodestly. This person is blaming his own desire on the other person.
October 17, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I do, of course, agree that environment has a formative influence on us. This is what all my talk of individuation is about:
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2006/09/29/working-notes-for-an-appendix-on-deleuzes-theory-of-individuation/
However, I would disagree that there are transcendent, transhistorical, non-situated values through which we might posit values to evaluate situations. Values must themselves be individuated or emerge out of the structure of situations. The person arguing that there is something intrinsically negative about immodest dress has a pretty tall mountain to climb: think of the Greeks, Romans, tribes that wear nothing more than a loin cloth. It is difficult to see how the case can be made that such things have an intrinsically negative psychological or detrimental impact. Rather, just as written text allows for certain possibilities that oral traditions or the internet do not, while also closing off other formations, so too with modes of dress and forms of life. Simply going on the basis of my own readings of Scripture, I find the obsession of many Christians with issues surrounding sex to be bizarre. The Old Testament seems more worried about questions of food and hospitality than sex. The New Testament seems more concerned with questions of how we ought to relate to our neighbor and whether we should pray in public.
October 21, 2007 at 7:55 am
It might be illuminating to learn what the writer means by “immodest clothes.” In my own forays into the dark heart of Christian fundie websites, I once came across the writings of a man who objected to a woman wearing pants — because the “V” formed by the crotch directed his gaze to this “immodest” display of her, um, forbidden zone. Turnabout being fair play, he then realized that his trousers were focusing the attention of all & sundry on his own reproductive organs (of course!), so now he is an advocate for kilts. My point being that notions of “immodesty” sometimes go far beyond mainstream concerns such as necklines and bare midriffs. Seriously, I think some of these fundamentalists are sexually repressed to a degree which is pathological.
October 21, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Doesn’t entirely surprise me, having once been a member of a fundamentalist UK church. (Not something I’m very proud of….) It is more extreme over in the US though.