Is anyone else getting the feeling

[Melichoir]

No. Dismissing someone's concerns is not persecuting them, especially when those concerns are unfounded. Of course, you have the right to complain. I never said that. You just don't have the right to be taken seriously when your complaint is silly. For example, I'm not persecuting my kid when she complains that I won't let her eat Doritos for dinner. She has the right to whine and cry about it all she wants, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take her seriously. In the real-life example that I gave earlier, all the stores were flooded with wreaths, Christmas trees, Santas, and religious music. How is that a war on Christmas? How is that persecution? The cashier saying, "Happy Holidays," is not an attack on Christianity. After all, Christmas is a holiday too.

Well this one has a lot of nuance that needs to be addressed. In regards to your child, it's not persecution to deny your child (someone you have ward over) because they want to eat doritos and you say no. Youre not saying no becuase of some characteristic they have, but that you feel eating doritos isnt healthy and she is (at her age) not responsible enough to mind her own personal health and understand that. Itd be persecution if the only reason you denied her doritos was if you did something akin to "No, Doritos are only for boys. Females are all horrible witches and Im gonna be mean as hell to you because youre a girl." Thatd obviously fall under sexism, but the point is youre going after a specific factor and collectivizing.

As for Xmas, yeah the War on Christmas is silly, but the concerns didnt pop out of the Aether either. For Christmas, a holiday that is very big for Christians and has religious significance for them particularly, being told from outside organizations that saying Merry Christmas is exclusive and hurtful and people should say "Happy Holidays" does come across as a ding. The reason? There would be no Xmas holiday if not for the religion itself, and saying Merry Christmas is a part of that religious practice on a cultural level. This gets more worrisome for same said crowd because Christmas has become more and more coopted as a public holiday that is disconnected from its religious roots. It's become more corporatized and some people within the faith are not happy about it. It's a bastardization of their religious beliefs and the religious significance of the holiday. Think of it htis way, if we corporatized Yom Kippur or Ramadan in the same fashion as Christmas, do you feel that those groups would not be thrilled by it?

Nuance is key to discussing issues. There's more on top of this too, as people have a hard time adapting to change, or the different outlooks between sects of Christianity regarding the subject, or whether it matters due to some of the paganistic roots that Christmas comes from. Etc.

No, it's not. As I said earlier, you have the right to complain. You don't have the right to be taken seriously. If you're going to complain that you're a Christian being discriminated against in a room full of Christians on the basis of your religion, then you'd better bring pretty compelling evidence because I'm going to find it unlikely, especially when all the visible evidence suggests otherwise. "Cannot be persecuted" is not the same statement as "not being persecuted." You're jumping to a completely different conclusion from what I stated.

My point was simply more along the lines of whether or not the dismissal of said complaint is at the individual level (i.e. you personally reject the personal assertions of the other person for specific flaws in that person's position) or if its collect (i.e you reject their complaints because of their group affiliation and use an overly broad brush). As a side point, you really dont know much about faiths in general it seems. A 'room full of christians' wont persecute christians? Certain sects of Christianity absolutely hate other sects. There is a real hate for Catholics in some circles from other Christians (Some parts of 7th day adventists come to mind; theyre not fond of the catholic church and actively view its leadership as the antichrist.) If you want to lookoutside Christianity as an example, much of the conflict in places like the middle east are between Sunni and Shia Muslims, two factions of Islam. They are not fond of one another typically. This is what I mean by "Overly broad brush."

This doesnt even address a key aspect - Just because you belong to a majority does not mean people cannot persecute you.

This is a straw man argument. It's one thing to say that racism against white can't exist. It's another to say that racism against whites does exist. I'm certain that racism against whites exists in some neighborhoods and among various cultural groups. Does it exist on a systemic basis in the United States? Absolutely not. It's less likely to exist when whites are a majority. When most of the people in charge are white, they are unlikely to discriminate against their own.

It's not a strawman. Im giving you an example of the concept that being a part of a majority group does not mean you cant receive hate. Racism is just a readily digestible example. I never argued systematic either. I argued that it can occur. Maybe I wasnt articulating it , but my point was that collectivism sucks, and that issues should be addressed at the individual level.

Also, you really dont know your history to well either. Whites have been a majority and in power in the US for a while, but they certainly did discriminate against other whites at times. People tend to forget Irish and Italians were both actively discriminated against. Borderline systemic at some points. This goes beyond that though - groups can find ways to discriminate against people who would otherwise be a part of that same group for all sorts of reasons. It's not a unique phenomenon.

What does this even have to do with what I was saying? The only point I was trying to make was that many, but not most, Christians in the United States claim that they're being persecuted despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

Much like racism can occur at the individual level, so can persecution. That was the equivilance I was attempting to illustrate. There being a majority or minority or whatever is a moot point. Beyond that, the point ultimately should be if you think someone isnt benig persecuted, you address them at the individual level. "Youre not being persecuted because of x, y, and z." is far different from "Youre not being persecuted cause your part of the Majority." My criticism is simply that what you mentioned appeared to follow the latter train of logic.

[NessaWyvern]

My point was simply more along the lines of whether or not the dismissal of said complaint is at the individual level (i.e. you personally reject the personal assertions of the other person for specific flaws in that person's position) or if its collect (i.e you reject their complaints because of their group affiliation and use an overly broad brush). As a side point, you really dont know much about faiths in general it seems. A 'room full of christians' wont persecute christians? Certain sects of Christianity absolutely hate other sects. There is a real hate for Catholics in some circles from other Christians (Some parts of 7th day adventists come to mind; theyre not fond of the catholic church and actively view its leadership as the antichrist.)

This doesnt even address a key aspect - Just because you belong to a majority does not mean people cannot persecute you.
Also, you really dont know your history to well either. Whites have been a majority and in power in the US for a while, but they certainly did discriminate against other whites at times. People tend to forget Irish and Italians were both actively discriminated against. Borderline systemic at some points. This goes beyond that though - groups can find ways to discriminate against people who would otherwise be a part of that same group for all sorts of reasons. It's not a unique phenomenon.

Aye, I agree completely, I know a little bit about this as I am descended from Roman Catholic Irish who had to leave Ireland due to the great famine and oppression.
They were being oppressed like you wouldn't believe.
Persecution is still occurring towards them in different forms. Despite being agnostic/athiest, I was appalled to hear from my mother that she didn't like Catholics and thought the Irish Roman Catholics deserved to die in the great famine (do to them being catholic), I asked why, and she said in along the lines of, that it was partly due to her being Anglican, and partly due to how catholics are portrayed in the media, even though my dad was sitting right next to her and he was raised catholic (which is where my Roman Catholic Irish heritage comes from).

[Edax]

For Christmas, a holiday that is very big for Christians and has religious significance for them particularly

And what of the Christians who banned Christmas for having no Scriptural justification and for being associated with Paganism? The Puritans who founded America believed quite strongly that Christmas was sinful. And if you celebrate Thanksgiving, you celebrate the very Christians who banned Christmas. And yet, in modern times, Christians engage in a war for a holiday they themselves have banned. There's a reason outsiders are plain sick of the persecution complex. You can't reason with a religion engaged in doublethink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...an_New_England