Matt Walsh says it better than I did, of course.
Barack Obama said "...Easter worshippers..."
Hillary Clinton seemed to be working literally from the same script: "...Easter worshippers..."
Several other Democrats latched onto this same phrase — "Easter worshippers." If just one of them had gone this route, perhaps I could be convinced that it might be clumsy wording and nothing more. But it is simply impossible to believe that several significant Democrats would all independently and innocently think to refer to Christian victims in such a roundabout and obscure way.
I have been a Christian all my life and if I've ever heard the term "Easter worshipper," or something like it, it would have been in reference to Christians who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. Generally we call those types "Christmas and Easter Christians" or "CEOs" (Christmas and Easter Only). But the general mass of people who show up to worship on Easter have always, in my experience, just been called Christians.
It would be technically accurate to use a label like "Passover observers" in the place of "Jews" and "Ramadan commemorators" for "Muslims," but I can't imagine why anyone would be so unnecessarily vague and wordy. Unless, of course, there is some reason why they don't want to explicitly acknowledge the group in question. And that appears to be the case here.
No rational person could fail to notice a stark contrast between these statements [tweets about New Zealand] and the ones issued in response to nearly 300 butchered Christians on Easter Sunday. They both make sure to use the word "Muslim." Clinton goes further and ropes in "Islamophobia" and "[w]hite supremacist terrorists." Not only does she omit "Christian" from her comments on Sri Lanka, but she certainly says nothing about "Christophobia" and "Islamic terrorists."
This fact [Christians are among the most persecuted groups on the planet.]— that Christians are not only a victim group, but are one of the most victimized groups — is extraordinarily inconvenient for Democrats, who have structured their whole agenda around their victimhood narrative. By their telling, racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and Muslims are The Victims while white men and Christians are The Bad Guys. This dichotomy would be thrown wildly out of balance and sent into disarray if Christians were admitted into the victim column — especially because they are so often victimized by Muslim extremists.
No, the Democrats can't have that. So they usually ignore the genocide of Christians, and often enact policies that make it worse. And when they are forced, on the rare occasion, to acknowledge an attack of this sort, they will do it without saying anything that might give ignorant Americans the impression that there is a real systematic problem of Christians being constantly blown up and murdered by Muslim extremists. But the systematic problem is real, even if these conniving cowards won't admit it.
And to the poster who asked, does it matter if not all the victims were Christians? Christians were the target. You can not honestly deny that. Muslim extremist terrorists have never cared about collateral damage. It doesn't change their target if some others are killed.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson
War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
