In the first link, the article is about removing the “Ten Commandments” from a historical documents display. Christians believe that the “Ten Commandments” are historical documents that have to do with America, while the ACLU disagrees. In the second link, the article is about a teacher who displays “In God we trust” in his classroom. A 9th Circuit judge overruled an earlier court’s decision that the display was protected by the first amendment, yet ruled that an employer has the right to limit free speech in the workplace. Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center disagrees with the ruling, pointing to the other classrooms where Malcolm X, Dalai Lama and Tibetan prayer flag posters are hung and how unfair it is that the teacher must remove his “In God We Trust” poster. Both articles reflect religious discrimination, insinuate persecution, and point out their rights to free speech.

The “Ten Commandments” cannot be proven to be a historical document and is not an American historical document by any stretch of one’s imagination. There is no indisputable proof that god issued these “commandments”, all the while the existence of Moses is highly questionable and certainly unproven. The inclusion in the display as a historical document is incorrect, especially in light of the Treaty of 1797 with Tripoli that clearly states America was not founded as a Christian nation. The misinformation its inclusion represents is misleading as well, for it is out of place in the display. While the “Ten Commandments” are an amusing collection of obvious laws, if one continues reading there are actually more than just ten. Also, if one were to argue as devil’s advocate, why isn’t the entire bible added to the document display as that is a “holy”, “historical” document according to Christianity.

“In God we trust” was not the national motto at the time the United States was formed. Most of the founders of the US were anti-deist, none would have agreed on this motto for the nation. In the 1800’s it was added to some coins, a time well after the founders have passed on. The phrase, no matter how one paints it, is in fact religious and promotes the religious nature of the US. I am most certain, should I have been the principal of that school, I would oppose any religious icon or trapping to be hung in any classroom. While some would like to point out that Malcolm X might be a religious figure, he was in all due consideration a civil rights activist in the same light as Martin Luther King, Jr. The religious items could be considered art, such as the prayer flag, but certainly the religious connotations it represents remains inappropriate for the classroom in any respect that may be due. The separation of church, or shall we define it deeper as religion, and state must be maintained.

The objective of both articles is to portray the victim of this sinister censoring is Christianity. For generations, the Christian church has “lain faint on its Victorian bed”, the very epitome of persecuted, sighing the pitiful sigh of a perpetual victim. Apostles and Christ have positioned Christians for their victimization. Paul was clear, if one was persecuted for belief in Christ, that person would be exalted in the heavens. The indecorous behavior of Christian conservatives constantly the “victim” is distasteful, as they use this tactic to unseat critics, dissenters and others they oppress. They are “wronged” by being called bigots when the prejudice fostered is manifest toward “enemies of god” usually misinterpreted for progressive people. They are quickly faint when conservative evangelicals are not invited to public gatherings with multiple denominations represented, in circumstances where didactic oration is inserted when unwelcome, and when criticism is presented. This cultural reaction is on par with the mislabeling of murderers as martyrs, it serves a purpose to elevate superiority when inferiority is present.

Another disturbing manifestation of victim behavior are those conservatives who call 9/11 “Patriot’s Day”, where they congregate to pray for their version of peace and thump their chests weeping and mourning for America. I am most certain that a small percentage of them actually lost family members in the tragedy, but the majority of them did not. They are quick to claim the role as victim, role playing it out for their genuflection. They emerge as superior, for the proudest people loyal to country and faith are rewarded with societal importance. The true mourners of the terrorist attacks are conservatives, who lay in anxious wait for yet another attack to be the victim of. Not only is this sickeningly repugnant, it is ire flaring behavior for those who have lost that day. It flies in the face of true mourners, who deserve our support and understanding, which this ilk of behavior eschews. It lacks respect and common decency for the real victims and places the “Pity Yolk” around those who manufacture their victimization. Instead of taking positive action, they engage in the complacent reaction of prayer and have memorial church sermons. Instead of actively contributing to society, they harbor prejudice against Islam and its supplicants. They fail to reach across their preconceived notions and embrace truth in favor of remaining a victim of “Muslim hate”, which for the most part is manufactured propaganda used to perpetuate prejudice and fear. Most neglect the fact that Muslims were also killed during the attack and its terrible result because of this propaganda created solely for their own nefarious purposes.

Always playing the victim at the hands of the terribly cruel, secular world around them; conservatives guarantee their own self importance among each other; portraying themselves to those of us with a logical definition of reality that manipulation of the victim role affords them an excuse to be outlandishly ignorant. They use the victim role as a means to drudge support from their own peers, birthing thousands of petitions, prayer circles, and protests for whichever cause they champion. In the articles linked above, victimization is insinuated in order for the conservative unthinking masses to react with outrage, while only reporting the sensational bits to inflate vigorous protest and indignation. The persecution of both parties in both articles are victims of secularization, a fearful societal culture to them as it directly challenges the once excused behavior of Christian conservatives on the basis of religion. Both articles bellow flammable subjects for the reaction they desire from their audience of victims.