Tweet
It’s ironic to see right wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and their followers thrive on a culture of victimhood. After all, as I have noted in the past, the right wing spent years deriding liberals for supposedly building a culture of victimhood. This was a convenient way for rightwingers to dismiss legitimate complaints African-Americans, women and others had about inequality and discrimination.
Over the years, right wingers ended up claiming victimhood as their own calling card and making it into a rallying cry. Whether it is Bill O’Reilly wailing about the secular progressive agenda to get religion out of the public square, Charles Krauthammer fantasizing about a liberal media that ruthlessly persecutes right wing pundits (even as they continue to freely spout their opinions from all corners of the media), Sen. Jim DeMint accusing President Obama of hostility to Christians, or a kooky anti-government group (praised by Pat Buchanan) that thinks the government is about to confiscate their guns and impose martial law, it’s hard to find a right winger who doesn’t see himself or herself as a victim. Rush Limbaugh’s brother David wrote a book with a title that sums it all up: "Persecution"–it’s the untold story of how Christians are mistreated in American life.
The right wing has a persecution complex. One is tempted to simply tell them, as they would have said to the liberal whiners they derided for years: "get over it." The fantasies of an America where Christian white males are oppressed are outlandish, for reasons that are obvious, and that I have gone over in some detail before. However, as has become all too apparent, baseless assertions can still have a great deal of power in current American politics.
Unfortunately, it’s a bit too easy to dismiss the right wing’s paranoid victim complex. For one thing, complaints about persecution seem to resonate with the rank and file. When Norah O’Donnell asked one Palin supporter who was wearing a t-shirt that criticized the financial industry bailout if the young woman knew Palin supported the bailout (including in the book Palin is currently hawking), the Palin supporter was flummoxed. But there was no need to fear. If Palin herself could be elevated to hero status after running a vice presidential campaign in which she was unable to answer basic questions about her reading habits or major Supreme Court decisions, it’s not surprising that some right wingers see Norah O’Donnell’s reasonable question as yet another instance of persecution. (Imagine if an Obama supporter showed up at a big event wearing a t-shirt criticizing health care reform–would it be an "ambush" if a reporter asked the Obama supporter if she knew that the president supports reform?)
It’s clear why the persecution strategy works for right wingers. First, it turns ignorance into a strength (Orwell would be proud): if you’re a right winger who doesn’t know something and the communist media points that out, it only adds evidence to your persecution theory ("see? I was right–the liberal media is so bloodthirsty that it won’t even give me a break when I don’t know what the Cuban missile crisis was.") Also, as Max Blumenthal has aptly observed, it establishes a bond between rank and file right wingers–who may very well have good reason to believe they are being screwed by economic changes wrought, in fact, by their own leaders– and the Palins of the world. Palin and other right wing leaders and opinion makers don’t really have a lot in common with the people who are lining up at Palin book events. The elites are wealthy and comfortable while their supporters are often exactly the opposite. The persecution strategy neatly bridges this divide by making it seem like millionaire right wingers are just as persecuted as their supporters.
It’s just a first step to recognize what’s happening here. The next steps are asking: (1) could this strategy be successful for right wingers and (2) if so, how can it be countered? To me, there’s something sinister and disingenuous going on when privileged right wingers create trumped-up reasons to claim common cause with people who are facing real economic challenges and worrying about how to pay for health care. It’s worth thinking about what this all means for the rest of us.
32 Comments
Good post, Chris! I regularly hear Christians say they are being persecuted because there’s no more prayer in public schools. They’re confusing persecution with loss of privilege, which is the same thing whites are doing when they decry Affirmative Action. They simply don’t understand how they’ve been “more equal” for so long.
thanks very much Jim! this is something I think about a lot. on the school prayer point, there is some misinformation out there…the Supreme Court has said (since the early 1960s) that organized prayer is not ok–but voluntary individual prayer is not only ok, it’s constitutionally protected. Students can say a prayer before eating, before a test–groups of students have even met at the flagpole outside their schools to pray, which is perfectly fine as long as the school is not endorsing it/teachers and staff are not involved, and only students who want to be involved in the prayer participate (it’s not ok to do this at a general event where other students may feel coerced to participate). When people say there is no prayer in schools, what they really mean is that organized prayer is not ok–schools used to require students to recite prayers, whether they wanted to or not. Your “more equal” point is a good one–I think people in the majority sometimes don’t understand who others feel when they’re forced to go along with what the majority wants. But it’s important to note that voluntary student prayer in schools is perfectly fine and even constitutionally protected.
here’s a link that has more information about the annual “see you at the pole” prayer event and other issues related to prayer in the schools:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_syatp.htm
Truth is, I don’t care about the right wing.
They get some things right. Just like the Left.
Left and Right are pitted against each other. Like two pitbulls.
The real question is, who is pulling the strings?
Everything else is a distraction.
might I suggest a series of posts break down the subject more and explain in detail.
Moral equivalence Yes the dems lied us into wars too and destroyed our ecconomy
Remember the high school valedictorian who had her mic cut off when she tried to mention (the Christian) God? I’m curious: what do you suppose would have happened if the school had done that to a Muslim student?
Grumpy, do you have a link to the H.S. valedictorian having her mic cut off? Over the years, I have heard many stories about dastardly school administrators and teachers persecuting Christian students. Without exception they turned out to be just that — stories. Either the facts were misrepresented or misunderstood, or the accounts were entirely fictional.
The law is very clear on the subject of religious expression in public schools: 1) students may pray all they want to the deity of their choice, provided they are not being disruptive, 2) teachers are not allowed to require students to pray, 3) if a school allows one religious organization to meet on school premises and/or otherwise utilize school facilities, then those same privileges must to granted to any other religious groups, should they wish to exercise their rights to same.
It’s a good law. Public schools are supported by texpayers of many religious faiths, as well as those who subscribe to no religion. The unjustness of requiring students of one faith (or non-faith) to pray to the deity of a different faith can perhaps be more easily understood if we substitute Wiccan for Christian. That would get some folks hot under the collar pretty darn quick now, wouldn’t it? Well, it works the same way in reverse. Same goes for relligious groups using public school facilities –
if you’re gonna let Baptists or Mormons meet in the schools. you gotta let the Witches in, too.
Hello, muldoon. I can Google it if I need to. Tell you what: I’ll post the link if you’ll answer the question I asked: “what do you suppose would have happened if the school had done that to a Muslim student?”
Grumpy, you’re making my point. Christians complain about persecution and seem to believe that members of other religions, including Muslims, are being treated preferentially. The student you’re referring to was stopped because school officials said she was proselytizing i.e. she was trying to convert graduation attendees to Christianity. Here’s what a lawyer for the school district had to say: “It only became a problem when that language was proselytizing, quoting passages [from the Bible] and being more aggressive in an apparent attempt to convert others to her religion.” http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1292 In other words, the issue was whether students who were at their graduation ceremony would be required to listen to an attempt to convert them to Christianity. To use your analogy, what do you imagine would happen if a Muslim valedictorian gave a speech quoting from the Koran and trying to convert other students to Islam? It is, of course, a completely hypothetical scenario because it simply doesn’t happen, but I find it baseless to assume school officials (and parents of other graduates) would simply step aside and allow the preaching to go on.
The fact is that members of the majority Christian faith do sometimes try to preach to other students who may not want to be preached to, and the Supreme Court has held that it is not ok (whether the religion in question is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.) There’s nothing discriminatory going on here, this is a neutral rule that would apply in exactly the same way if a Muslim student somehow dared to read from the Koran and try to convert classmates to Islam during a graduation ceremony (which I find outlandish to consider a real possibility). But if it happened, it should and would be treated the same way–no one is saying these rules should only apply to Christians. It’s not ok for anyone to try to convert classmates to their religious faith during a graduation ceremony–no matter what the faith is. This is a red herring argument–no one is suggesting Muslims have special license to preach at graduation ceremonies and there is zero evidence anyone is allowing this.
And many thanks for the post, Chris.
thanks very much Muldoon
reading Frank Rich’s column today, I noticed a Palin supporter has written a book called “The Persecution of Sarah Palin”. persecution is a word that right wingers are throwing around quite a bit as they keep playing the victim card
Hi, Chris,
“an apparent attempt to convert others to her religion”, i.e. a subjective judgment on the part of the school. Isn’t it odd that no one will quote the part they claim violated the rules? I tend to get suspicious when people refuse to present their evidence…
Another odd thing is that no one here will directly address the question, “what do you suppose would have happened if the school had done that to a Muslim student?”
Well, IMO what would have happened is there would have been a diary here at FDL condemning the school, that the ACLU would have sided with the student instead of the school, that there would have been a media outcry about bigotry, and the school board would have apologized.
I don’t mean to be flip, but I also don’t think we need to move into conspiracy theory land. The piece I linked to actually does include some of the specific language that was deemed to be proselytizing: “And I can guarantee 100 percent, no doubt in my mind, that if you choose to fill yourself with God’s love rather than the things society tells us will satisfy us, you will find success, you will find your self worth,” McComb wrote in a segment of her submitted speech that was deemed to be proselytizing. Try substituting “Allah” or “Buddha” and tell me whether you’d feel ok with a student saying this at graduation. No one’s out to get Christians, we just want to be sure that schools are not a place for proselytizing–by any religion. It’s really as simple as that.
I did directly answer your hypothetical question about a Muslim student doing the same thing: “this is a neutral rule that would apply in exactly the same way if a Muslim student somehow dared to read from the Koran and try to convert classmates to Islam during a graduation ceremony (which I find outlandish to consider a real possibility). But if it happened, it should and would be treated the same way–no one is saying these rules should only apply to Christians”
appreciate all the comments–and one thing I want to emphasize again is that this area of constitutional law is not an easy one and there aren’t always clear answers (that’s true for a lot of constitutional issues). I also want to be clear that I am for religious liberty across the spectrum and, as I have noted, I don’t accept the idea of anyone proselytizing about any faith at a public school graduation ceremony.
Thanks for the comments.
and Grumpy, I should emphasize, as noted, that this is not an easy area of constitutional law (I guess few areas are…) and it’s also something that people of all viewpoints feel strongly about. I also want to emphasize that I strongly believe in religious liberty for all–believers and non-believers alike. I appreciate your comments.
Grumpy, Chris already told you what would happen in the unlikely event a Muslim student did the same thing as the Christian student — cut the mic. Yes, of course this is a subjective juidgment call, as are most decisions of this nature. As a former H.S. principal, I can tell you that few issues are entirely black and white; most require, of necessity, subjective judgment calls based on common sense, past experience and, insofar as possible, strict adherence to the law.
Your assumption that the ACLU would only have sided with a Muslim student had the roles been reversed is erroneous. If the school had violated the student’s Constitutional rights, and had that violation been sufficiently egregious to warrant the ACLU’s attention, the student’s religion would have been immaterial. Yes, the ACLU can be annoying as hell at times. Yes,the ACLU sometimes defends unsavory cases. But it is also important to remember that it is the ACLU’s job to protect the Constitutional rights of all American citizens. It is my understanding that even Rush Limbaugh, who railed against the ACLU in the past, was quick to seek their help when he was found to have that little illegal drug problem. You might want to learn a little more about the ACLU before making any more subjective judgments.
Opps: my bad. H.S. principals are allowed to make subjective judgments, but I’m not.
Chris — your response to Grumpy’s question was excellent. I sincerely hope you will continue to write more blogs on this subject. There is considerable misunderstanding about it out there in the religious community.
many thanks Muldoon. It’s a hard thing to write about and talk about as people have strong feelings about this, obviously, which I completely understand. Though I am not religious,I feel very, very strongly about both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution–in other words, I believe very strongly about protecting religious liberty for all (which means protecting faiths that are unpopular and on the fringe as well as those that are well known and mainstream), but I also believe very strongly in making sure that government remains neutral when it comes to religion. That means, in the example Grumpy raised, that students at a graduation should not be forced to listen to another student who is trying to convert them–whether it’s to Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, Wicca, etc. This is not an easy area of the law, by any means, and there aren’t always clear answers. But there are guiding principles–some of which I mentioned here. Thanks very much for all the comments–by all.
Grumpy, how about we start real simple here: what do you know about the ACLU?
Thank you, Chris, and I did enjoy the diary even if I might disagree over how many grains of truth it has (more than one, that’s for sure, though perhaps not as many as you think).
Perhaps I’ve formed a false impression based on the frequent use of the term “Xstain” by people who would never, ever say “raghead”? In any event, my opinion is that the religious tolerance of American Liberalism is selectively applied.
Thanks Grumpy. I think you put it best when you said it’s your “opinion” that religious tolerance is selectively applied. It’s hard for me to respond to an opinion that is unsupported by hard evidence, though (and that flies in the face of so much evidence–if Christians are persecuted, why has every U.S. president been Christian and why are most elected officials Christian? why does the U.S. House of Reps. have an official chaplain who is a Catholic priest? http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/index.html why does the U.S. Senate have a chaplain who is Baptist? http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/person/barry_black.htm (in fact, all Senate chaplains, going back over 200 years, have been Christian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate )
I have never heard of the term Xstain and have no idea what it means. If it’s something derogatory, I reject it. Bigotry and namecalling have no place on any part of the political spectrum.
When you suggest that some of what I’m saying isn’t true, you really ought to be specific. It’s pretty easy to simply say “I don’t believe you” without backing up your claim with anything specific. I have been very specific in my comments. That said, I do appreciate comments–even when someone vaguely/cryptically suggests I’m not telling the truth!
You know, Grumpy, much as we’ve quibbled here, I think if we met in person I’d like you. You are willing to reasonably debate issues. and I truly appreciate that.
As for the “Xstain” substitution for the word “Christian”: In Greek, the letter X (Chi) is the first letter of Christ, and it, or the similar Roman letter X has been used since the mid 16th century to represent Christ. You know, like as … um… in Xmas = Christ’s Mass. This is a traditional honorific that goes back at least 700 years. Prossibly all the way back to Luke (who wrote in Greek)– provided we want to trace it that far. Biblically speaking, there is no offence intended nor should none be taken about the use of “X” to denote Christ.
muldoon, I also appreciate someone who can discuss contentious issues reasonably and civilly.
I won’t put you on the spot by asking if you’ve really never seen Xstain used in a derogatory manner; suffice it to say that I have, usually in conjunction with gooper, rightard, rethuglican, baby jebus, or some combination thereof.
I’m fairly certain we’ve all seen things said to or about Righties which would absolutely be considered hate speech if you just change the race and/or religion of the target. Or the sexual orientation for that matter: would it be acceptable to label a Gay activist movement “teabaggers”?
Yes: there are also Righties spewing that sort of crap and No: I don’t like it any better coming from them.
here’s the problem, though, when we equate rightwing slurs with leftwing slurs. yes, there are idiots on both sides (though I still don’t understand what Xstain refers to…but I have certainly seen people use words like rethuglican). Here’s the problem: not all things are equal. On the one side, we have anonymous left wing blog commenters or ordinary citizens (depending on what you’ve encountered) who are slurring Republicans and rightwingers. On the other hand, we have elected Republican members of Congress who have accused President Obama of being “exactly like Hitler” with regard to national security (Rep. Paul Broun of GA), we have a number of elected Republican members of Congress who claim the President is not or may not be a real American born in this country http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/28/birther_enablers/index.html, we have rightwingers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others repeatedly calling Hitler a Nazi or a Marxist http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/mainstream-media.asp, and we have a number of elected Republicans who stand shoulder to shoulder with tea party protesters who do the same–calling Obama a Nazi, Hitler, terrorist, etc. and comparing health care reform to genocide http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/14290
It’s true that there are people on both sides of the aisle who use insulting, derogatory terms to attack opponents, and that’s wrong on both sides. But it’s not true that the attacks are equivalent. There’s a difference between fringe leftwingers insulting rightwingers and Republican/rightwing leaders comparing the President of the United States to Hitler (to give one of many examples of how such attacks have become commonplace on the right).
when you ask whether it would be acceptable for rightwingers to call gay people teabaggers, you ought to check out what right wing leaders are actually saying about lesbian and gay people–it’s far worse. Michelle Bachmann (and others) compare gay people to pedophiles. http://minnesotaindependent.com/33675/bachmann-compares-gays-to-pedophiles-on-hate-crimes-bill A Republican state rep from Oklahoma (Sally Kern) said gay and lesbian people are “a bigger threat than terrorism or Islam.” http://crooksandliars.com/2008/03/09/oklahoma-state-rep-goes-on-anti-gay-tirade#comment-457216 A Republican state senator from Utah similarly said gays are “the greatest threat” America faces. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705285940,00.html Pat Robertson has compared gay sex to bestiality and he agreed with Jerry Falwell that gays (and others he saw as leftwingers) were to blame for the 9/11 attacks–which Falwell said (of the attacks) were ‘probably what we deserve”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28620-2001Sep14 There’s way more out there–and, as you’ll note, the people I’m citing are elected Republicans or right wing leaders. again, these aren’t random anonymities, and they’re doing a lot worse than calling gay people “teabaggers”.
when it comes to sexual orientation, elected Republicans and right wing leaders are doing far more than calling gay people “teabaggers”. Rep. Michelle Bachmann and others have compared gays to pedophiles. http://minnesotaindependent.com/33675/bachmann-compares-gays-to-pedophiles-on-hate-crimes-bill A Republican state rep. from Oklahoma, Sally Kern, said gay and lesbian people are bigger threat to the U.S. than terrorism. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4444956&page=1 Republican state Senator Chris Buttars of Utah similarly called gay and lesbian people the biggest threat the U.S. faces. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705285940,00.html Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed gay people (and leftwingers) for the 9/11 attacks.
You’ll notice, as I mentioned in my other comment, these are elected Republicans and well known right wing leaders making these slurs, not faceless anonymities. and they’re doing far more than calling gay people teabaggers–they’re comparing them to pedophiles and terrorists. these are just a few examples–check out debate on legislation affecting lesbian and gay people and you’ll see elected Republicans and right wing leaders routinely slurring gay and lesbian and transgender people. This is not something hypothetical–we don’t have to wonder “what would happen if Republicans did this?” they are doing it, pretty much with impunity
(and sorry, this ended up getting doubleposted…)
I was very specific about the only thing I doubted you on: that you had really never seen Xstain used in a derogatory manner. I find that surprising but am perfectly willing to take your word for it: perhaps you read/converse with a more reasonable class of Liberals than I’m accustomed to ;^) In any event, I apologize for doubting you.
“persecuted” was not my term, but I would say being anti-Christian is a socially acceptable prejudice. So there are lots of Christians in office: so what? The POTUS is Black, there is a Black Congressional Caucus, there are/have been Black Supreme Court Justices, Secretaries of State, etc.: does that mean there is no prejudice against Blacks in this country?
Your post #27 is nothing more than justifying your side with a “they do it, too!” argument, or a “they do it worse” argument, if you prefer. Either way, I don’t find that relevant.
I’m at work and have to go, but here’s a thought: Christ on the Cross in a bottle of urine is art and Mohammad with a bomb in his turban is inflammatory and hateful.
appreciate it…I have no idea what Xstain means and have never heard the term before. I still don’t understand what it means, but appreciate your note and apology. (this may have gotten mixed up–I think you were doubting whether Muldoon was familiar with the term? no big deal in any event)
In terms of “they do it, too” re: post #27, no, that’s not my point. My point is that there’s a difference between anonymous bloggers saying something extreme and elected Republican officials or right wing leaders saying something extreme.
There’s a difference between saying that one of 44 presidents is black while 44 of presidents have been Christian (and that 2 S Ct justices have been black, nearly all the rest have been white, etc.). what you’re observing is that a few black or African-American people have held high positions. I think that’s a very positive sign but it’s apples and oranges to compare this to the status of Christians. The country is about 81% Christian and nearly all high office holders (and 100% of all presidents) have been Christians.
I think liberals would generally agree with you that there’s no difference, legally, between the examples you give.
“elected Republican officials or right wing leaders saying something extreme.”
Oh, I get it: like the Speaker of the House comparing the Tea Party protesters to Nazis.
“The country is about 81% Christian and nearly all high office holders (and 100% of all presidents) have been Christians.” In a democracy that makes sense, don’t you think? I don’t see how it affects my impression that — to Liberals — being anti-Christian isn’t a PC violation the way being anti-Muslim or anti-Gay is?
Of course there’s “there’s no difference, legally, between the examples” but there was a hell of a difference in the public reaction. Newspapers ran pics of “Piss Christ” and justified it because the controversy was news. They refused to run the Mohammad cartoons even though that controversy was at least as news-worthy because the cartoons were “offensive.”
“Offensive,” by the way, was the stated reason Columbine High School tore down memorial tiles that mentioned God or Jesus. They had legal ground to stand on but they didn’t (until they were taken to court): it was all about not wanting to offend.
In fact, I just had a thought (it didn’t even didn’t hurt all that much): perhaps the better phrasing is that it seems Liberals are offended by Christians and contemptuously regard them as weak minded and inferior. Rather like the KKK regards Blacks, actually.
I don’t think Pelosi ever called the tea party protesters Nazis. I think this is the closest she came, when speaking of protesters at town hall events: “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.” That is a statement of fact, as you can see if you go to this link and scroll down a bit: http://www.alan.com/2009/08/06/pelosi-is-correctthey-are-carrying-swastikas-at-town-hall-meetings/
We are a constitutional democracy. The majority does not have the right to impose its views on the minority with regard to constitutionally protected rights like free speech, free exercise of religion, etc. The reason I was citing the fact that Christians are a substantial majority is to further support my point that Christians are not oppressed in the United States. It’s very hard to counter your “impression” that anti-Christian bias is ok as I’m essentially trying to prove a negative (i.e. Christians are not oppressed and do not face endemic discrimination), but I’m trying my best.
You’re making a lot of generalizations with few specifics–who are these liberals who regard Christians in the way the KKK regards blacks? as with most of your other points, you’re simply making assertions without backing this up. You’re also playing pretty fast and loose with your references. The KKK has lynched blacks, it has burned crosses on their lawns, it has terrorized them with acts of violence. It’s ludicrous to suggest that liberals are doing anything like this (or perhaps you merely think they “want” to–which I guess would require being able to see into their minds…), but that’s what you’re suggesting when you compare liberals to the KKK. These comparions shouldn’t be made lightly or casually.
You’re changing the terms of debate on Christ in urine v. Muhammad as a bomb thrower. Just because newspapers have the right to print either image doesn’t mean they’re required to do so. Newspapers also have the right to print a cartoon showing the Pope in an offensive manner or comparing the nation’s first black president to a monkey, but editorial judgment (sometimes) wins out. I don’t think it is proof of anti-Christian bias if some papers showed photos of the Christ exhibit. I’d like to know how many of the people at these newspapers were themselves Christian (and I have no idea how many ran the photo–you didn’t provide any specifics. I remember some newspapers ran op-eds regarding the Christ exhibit, but I have no idea how many ran photos).
As for the Muhammad cartoon, liberal commentators defended the rights of newspapers to publish the cartoon http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/editors and a student newspaper in Chicago did just that. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-123093229.html Plenty of media outlets covered the controversy and the liberal Nation magazine wrote multiple pieces defending the cartoonists’ right to free speech (one piece is linked above, here’s another: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/younge )
The Columbine example raises the same issues as the student speaker you mentioned before. The Columbine tiles included the statement “Jesus Christ is Lord.” Children who go to public school are compelled to go there, by compulsory education laws. The question is whether school children in Columbine who don’t agree that Jesus Christ is Lord should have to walk into a school where that message is displayed. Again, to test your view on this, how would you feel if a public school displayed messages saying “Allah is lord” or “Buddha is lord” or even “Satan is lord”. and, if it is ok for one message to praise Christianity, then it must be ok for another to criticize it. what if someone wanted to put up a tile including an offensive message about Christianity–something like “Christianity is not the true path” or something more offensive that I have no interest in saying here, even as a hypothetical example? under your approach, you’d have to allow that–otherwise you’d be discriminating against the religious views and speech of people who disagree with Christianity.
People have every right to express themselves in religious terms about the horrifying murders at Columbine, but they shouldn’t do this in a way that makes other people feel unwelcome in their school. I know how I would have felt walking into my school and seeing the words “Jesus Christ is Lord”. I would have felt unwelcome, I would have felt that I did not belong, and I would have wondered if I had walked into a church instead of a school. If you can put yourself into the shoes of someone who is not religious or does not think public schools are the right place for religious doctrine, then you may see my point.