Is anyone else getting the feeling

[Melichoir]

No but when an organization that holds tremendous power and influence and use that to create laws and govern a nation in a way they see fit then undermine in every way they can anyone asking for any recognition or the rights to do the most common or simple of things, is so used to being untouchable that even the perception of the slightest criticism or critique in a game that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population will play and comes with no consequence personal or otherwise makes them cry persecution while they still hold all then power, it is frivolous and frankly, as I stated before, is funny.

Soo...are we talking about religion in general? Cause this statement can be applied to many organized religions. And before the "Im talking about Christianity", the only sect of Christianity that has an very large organized power structure which youre referring to is Catholicism, and most prostestant sects of Christianity operate on a more independent scale that are loosely related. Furthermore, Of those states that have Christianity as an official state religion, very few of them are a actual theocracies.

Lastly, this doesnt address the key point: You are collectivizing a group and then saying "Because this group is a majority or has 'the power' they cannot be persecuted." Persecution more frequently in western nations happens at the individual scale between individuals, and not from the state. You can persecute someone whos a christian even in a christian nation, let alone one that isnt officially christian.

not to mention another way to hold on to said power through the magic of sympathy.

Yes, something that is not unique to Christianity, or faith in general, or even broader categories. Its actually quite the problem that sympathy and victimhood complexes are being used as means to either gain power or maintain it. Creates an issue where real problems cant be addressed because people become jaded.

Just because your feelings were hurt, doesn't mean you are persecuted.

I agree. It doesnt mean youve been persecuted.

If you were persecuted that means you would have your rights taken away, you couldn't get a job, you were forced into poverty, you were not allowed to marry, you would have to hide yourself physically, mentally and spiritually.

This is semi right and wrong. You dont have to have your rights taken away, lose your job, forced into poverty etc to be persecuted. None of these are necessary for persecution, though do accompany it at times. All that is nearly needed to an arbitrary disdain or attack on a person for a characteristic they hold. As a point, you can persecute a person by specifically going out of your way to attack them on a personal level because of some aspect, collectivizing them based on that aspect, and attempting to force them out of social interactions based on that aspect. And not all persecution has to be overt. As I said, if you collectivize then immediately dismiss an individuals concerns on the basis of their group affiliation rather than on the points provided by the individual, you are acting out a very covert form of persecution as well as intolerance. If an individual has grievances, you either say that their individual grievances arent worth your personal time, or you address their points rebuffing them. If you go ahead and say their poitns arent worth addressing because of their group affiliation and your opinion on that group, youre not acting in good faith anymore.

With the amount of cultures, languages, histories, stories, etc that have and continue to be erased and undermined thanks to certain institutions with incredible power in already powerful countries, I think a little critiquing of them, purposeful or not, doesn't really add up to persecution.

My biggest bone is you dont seem to have valid criticisms, but rather overly broad opinions that you justify with seemingly vague proof of concept. The way you frame points or what not doesnt speak as someone who has criticisms, but someone who has a personal investment in hating said institutions. You want to do valid criticisms, it requires that you also acknowledge the nuance and speak about specifics. Simply saying "Big institutions which do all these terrible things are deserving of criticism, and its not persecution to go out of my way to be incredibly negative" isnt a criticism. Its an opinion that sounds founded in a personal issue.

You want to do criticisms, then its things like "While most priests in the Catholic Church are not pedophiles and openly denounce the abuse of children, the fact the Arch Dioceses keep protecting the fraction of priests who are is not acceptable. The Vatican should openly and unappologetically out said priests as they are not acting even remotely in accordance with the doctrines the church is founded on."

If you have valid criticisms, then maybe you should consider how you phrase things, because from my perspective, your framing and dialogue isnt coming across as criticism but as vitriol and scorn. Particularly when you rely on the "Theyre powerful and do terrible things, therefore its super okay to dismiss the individuals concern or perspective on something." as justification.