Culture War

Conservative Twitter Pounces on Obama, Clinton for Expressing Sympathy for 'Easter Worshippers' Killed in Sri Lankan Attacks

Is referring to someone as an "Easter worshipper" really an attempt to minimize their Christian identity?

|

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka that have left some 290 dead (and many more injured), a number of prominent Democratic politicians and ex-politicians have taken to Twitter to express sympathy and solidarity with the victims—many of whom were Sri Lankan Christians attending Easter church services.

At first read, these statements come across as perhaps boilerplate, but nevertheless sincere expressions of grief following the horrible attacks that struck the island nation.

Not for many conservatives on Twitter however, who saw in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's use of the term "Easter worshippers" an attempt to minimize the Christian identity of many of the victims, and obfuscate the religious motivations of the recent attacks.

These barbs are little more than partisan point-scoring. The reference to "Easter worshippers," while perhaps clumsy phrasing, is hard to see as anything but an attempt to highlight the religious motivations of these attacks, and the fact that they struck at Christian churchgoers as they were peacefully observing a religious holiday. What else is an Easter worshipper but a Christian?

Indeed, President Donald Trump's failure to say the word "Christian" in his tweeted response to these attacks attracted notably less outrage.

Silly as this is, it is nevertheless an incredibly predictable response, whereby any tragedy around the globe is quickly filtered through the lens of U.S. domestic politics as a way of opportunistically attacking one's partisan opponents.

Often these attacks will seize on the most innocuous words or phrases in an effort to convert someone's expressions of sympathy or sadness into dog whistles to a much more nefarious agenda.

This is not an exclusively right-wing tactic. Take, for instance, the left-wing attacks on Ben Shapiro, who responded to the Notre Dame cathedral fire by bemoaning the loss of "a magnificent monument to Western civilization." This was reported as a covertly racist sentiment, meant to stir up violence against Muslims.

I can't help but think that bickering over the precise phrases we need to use in the aftermath of the terroristic violence in Sri Lanka, even if it's not being done for cynical or partisan reasons, is not the best way to express sympathy for the victims or their families.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

460 responses to “Conservative Twitter Pounces on Obama, Clinton for Expressing Sympathy for 'Easter Worshippers' Killed in Sri Lankan Attacks

  1. The article is a reasonable criticism. On the other hand, I will put my hand up as having never heard the phrase “Easter worshipper” used until this case. And for a completely new phrase, it seems suspiciously unified in it’s sudden use now.

    1. Used to hear it or similar sentiments all the time as a pejorative for those who only attended mass on Christmas and Easter (aka Christmas Christians/Catholics). I disliked them growing up so much because I had to get up even earlier for those Masses to get our seat in church.

      Not saying this was used that way in the tweets above.

      1. Yes, Christmas/Easter Christians.
        Totally different usage.
        At best, their usage of “Easter worshippers” was intended to cover up the religious motive and sectarian conflict as the fundamental factors in the attack.
        At worst, such usage was intended as a deliberate insult toward Christians and avoidance of naming them as victims, especially at the hands of Muslims, in an Orwellian strategy faithful to and promoting the tenets (and forced perspective) of intersectionality.

        1. Specifically mentioning the religious holiday is intended to cover up the religious motive?

          1. Yes.
            If you were trying your damndest to be a useful idiot, you could argue otherwise. Of course, we all know that would be disingenuous or exceptionally dimwitted.

            1. Funny how the same people using ‘Easter worshippers’ had no problem identifying the victims in New Zealand as Muslim.

              You’d think they were biased or something.

              1. And failing, in many cases, to identify the perpetrators as Muslim in this case. Seems odd. I’m not a Christian, not really sensitive to this sort of thing, but there does appear to be some behind the scenes cultural choreography.

            2. You are the person that doesn’t actually justify what you say, and other people are idiots?

          2. Yes, because many who celebrate Easter do so without invoking the religious nature. Easter bunnies and chicks rather than crosses and empty graves. Considering that churches were targeted to use the more ambiguous term Easter Worshippers does suggest at least some unease at identifying their religion.

            1. So you are assuming that those Easter worshippers are actually worshipping bunny rabbits?

              1. That seems to be their argument.

                1. Also, no one has even come close to making that argument. However, considering how often you have posted to repute multiple posters position and the fact that on only my third post you accused me of getting my panties in a bunch, one can only assume that your choice of undergarments are so knotted up as to cause chronic discomfort.

                  1. Twist. I said, “If you want to get your panties in a twist”. A twist is much different than a bunch. You should know that.

                    1. Oh, sorry, so you are the only one allowed to misrepresent what others say?

                    2. The difference being I made a mistake you are being deliberately obtuse.

              2. No, and that wasn’t even implied. That was a sorry attempt, as most yours are, at a gotcha. I was pointing out that many people celebrate Easter without any religious conation. Also, strictly speaking the Easter Egg and Easter Bunny have their roots in Pagan spring festivals, thus it wouldn’t be completely inaccurate to state that at least some who are worshipping on Easter are not celebrating the Resurrection. So if you want to try to be pendantic, at least be accurate.

                1. Thor Heyerdahl never foresaw that the Easter worshipers giant stone tiki heads would end up on a taliban hit list.

              3. No, the point is that not everybody who celebrates Easter is Christian–it’s both a religious and a secular holiday. If you want to highlight that people of a specific religion were attacked while celebrating one of their major holy days? You name both the religion and the holiday. “Christians celebrating Easter,” “Muslims celebrating Eid Al-Fitr,” “Pastafarians celebrating Friday,” and if you drop part of it you drop the ‘celebrating [major holiday]’ part, especially since most of us celebrate Friday.

                Or, y’know, you do what Trump did and just not mention it, because ‘Easter worshippers’ is not only clunky, it’s clunky in a way that draws attention and raises the question of why you didn’t just say ‘Christians’…or ‘people at church’ which will do the job just as well if you have some sort of strange compulsion against calling a religion by the name it uses for itself.

                Possibly more importantly, ‘people at church’ would serve the same purpose the article’s author is claiming was meant by ‘Easter worshippers’ while using fewer characters and without being offensively clunky.

              4. So you are assuming that those Easter worshippers are actually worshipping bunny rabbits?

                This is an astonishingly stupid interpretation, and it’s not a surprise that Forever Alone Mcgoo went along with it.

                1. You’re late. You just had to jump in to hump a nearly dead thread. Nice work.

                  1. It’s still lively enough for you to be bitching at him in it.

          3. Yeah I don’t get it, either. If anything it is adding more religious significance to the attack seeing that it was done on the Christian high holy day.

          4. What’s raised their ire is the coincidence of all three (probably more) using that phrase in the same way at the same time. It does smack very much of trying to avoid the word “Christian”, as if to avoid offending Muslims (or Hindus).

            Trump didn’t raise ire because he didn’t advertise his avoidance of the C-word. He just called the attacks terrorist and avoided the issue altogether, in a very natural way.

            This is how conspiracy theories are born. I believe there was a coordinated effort to say “Easter worshippers”; probably the first tweet was just clumsy virtue signalling and the remaining were shameless copycats, but it’s also easy enough to see that clumsiness for what it is, and imagine the extra conspiracy step of them discussing it beforehand.

            1. It’s especially easy to imagine the extra conspiracy step, since we know that sort of thing happens all the time.

              We’re never going to unlearn about Journolist, you know. There really ARE influential people getting together behind the scenes to coordinate this stuff.

          5. They could be druids.

            1. These are not the Druids you are looking for.

          6. Are you ignorant to the secular versions of Easter that involve colored eggs and bunnies?

        2. Well put! What else can it be except a desire to make 1984 a reality.
          The left is incredibly creative when bending the language to suit whatever they to silent the opposition

    2. The “suspiciously unified” aspect is indeed suspicious.

      Every syllable these reptiles utter is carefully parsed before hand for political effect. I sincerely doubt any of these people have empathy, or sympathy, for anybody but themselves.

      Attacking and murdering Christians at their place of worship on their most holy day is a pretty plain statement for all that have eyes to see.

      1. “Don’t believe your lying eyes. Progress uber alles.”

    3. This article was brought to you by Easter Worshipper Britschgi.

    4. I just did a quick experiment: I did a google search for “Easter worshiper”, and yes, it does appear that the phrase was practically unheard of prior to this week. At least as far as Google knows. Got used a few times in 2011, and that’s about it.

      I think it’s absurd the way some people are saying, “What, do they think there are people who worship Easter???” but the phrase does appear to have been systematically disseminated for use.

      Journolist strikes again. It’s pretty scary at times not just how fast, but how thoroughly, these sorts of talking points get distributed.

      1. There are plenty of children who worship the Easter Bunny – and they look forward to Easter Egg hunts and eating the chocolate that seems to magically appear each Easter.

      2. Great data.

        The point of “What else is an Easter worshipper but a Christian?” should be “Why not just call them Christian?”

        Because that doesn’t fit the narrative.

      3. Google Ngrams turns up nothing at all, whether it’s spelled worshiper or worshipper.

        1. Google Ngrams rounds to zero for things that occur rarely. That’s why I said “practically” unheard of.

          The point is just that it isn’t even remotely a common phrase.

      4. I don’t think there’s any need to posit that the phrase was “systematically disseminated”, it’s sufficient that it meets a need within certain tribes to minimise mentions of Christianity and was picked up immediately by members of that tribe who saw it being used. They don’t really need to discuss or conspire, they just need to see and pick up a useful tool.

        1. You know, I thought that way before Journolist was exposed. I figured that, when the media all adopted the same phrasing or take on an issue in the space of a few hours, it was just some sort of spontaneous flocking behavior, or petty minds thinking alike.

          And, I was wrong, it actually was being coordinated.

          Having learned that, yes, they really do things like that, I see no point in forgetting it. My default assumption now is that if every left wing media outlet adopts the same take or phrasing almost instantly, yeah, they talked it over ahead of time.

    5. soooo….would “somebody did something” would not pass muster?

    6. It would have been more clear if they’d said “Easter Bunny worshiper” – and the outrage would have been more appropriate.

    7. Nobody actually worships Easter.

    8. Yes, a reasonable criticism, but nowhere near as bad as the “Conservatives ponce” overused trope.

    9. “Easter worshiper” is just someone worshiping on Easter. You can use nouns as adjectives in English. Pretty neat.

  2. Is referring to someone as an “Easter worshipper” really an attempt to minimize their Christian identity?

    Yes. Next question?

    1. Jfc. Will you at least admit you are just as much of a snowflake as the SJWs you love to denigrate?

      Left – right = zero.

      1. Jfc. Will you at least admit that it being a deliberate tactic to minimize Christian identity doesn’t mean that he was all aflame in rage over it?

        You can recognize what someone is trying to do, call that someone out on what they’re trying to do, without being outraged or ‘victimized’ by it.

        1. It’s fairly plain that the term “snowflake” really stings the progs, given their often ludicrous efforts to turn it on others.

          1. Right, I am such a prog. The tribal mentality is unable to see past an us-them world view.

            1. You are.

              Revealed vs stated preferences.

          2. I occasionally use “snowflake,” but much prefer “slack-jawed, half-educated bigot” and “superstitious, downscale malcontent” when referring to right-wingers of the Trump variety.

            1. What a fine Christian you are, Reverend.

              Your life is obviously an expression of loving your neighbor.

            2. Go die in a fire, leftist idiot scum (but I repeat myself).

              1. No matter my fate, you will still spend the rest of your life complying with my preferences. There are consequences to getting your stale, intolerant, right-wing political positions stomped in the culture war, clinger.

                1. It’s like you’re so desperate to imagine any power or significance for yourself that you have to claim all social, political, cultural, or technological developments over the last century as the result of your will, so you’ve crafted this little static story of yours that doesn’t advance or change no matter the circumstances.
                  It’s such an obvious display of compensation through yeara of unaltered fantasy that it’s kinda sad.
                  Are you a quadriplegic or something?

                  1. I celebrate American progress. This seems to bother malcontents.

                    1. You are about as clever as a Chihuahua barking aggressively at a pit bull. And just as annoying.

                    2. The only progress I’m interested in from you is your progress down the woodchipper chute, idiot prog.

      2. “Jfc. Will you at least admit you are just as much of a snowflake as the SJWs you love to denigrate?”

        Pointing out hypocrisy isn’t being a snowflake. Noting “Hmm, odd that you have no problem mentioning what happened in Australia but in Sri Lanka, you seem to have problems” is just pointing out double standards.

    2. Easter worshiper? I thought she said Easter woodchipper.

    3. I would say it wasn’t so much about not acknowledging their identity as not truly acknowledging why they were killed, What bugs me is that smaller incidents of a similar nature happen frequently and you hardly hear about it. Plus it just sounds dumb, they weren’t worshiping Easter. Just call them people, victims, or worshipers if you don’t want to say Christian

      1. not truly acknowledging why they were killed

        YES! That’s the real problem. The first sentence of Hillary’s post makes that more clear than the “Easter worshiper” phrase: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence.” No, Hillary, this is not about “many faiths” or generic “hatred and violence”. It’s about Muslims killing Christians.

    4. I don’t see how it possibly could be. Easter is a major Christian holiday. Everyone knows that. “Easter worshipers” just means people who were at church on Easter. How people have managed to contort their minds into believing that this is some insult to Christians is beyond me.

  3. Which looks more coordinated? The widespread use of “Easter worshippers” on a platform whose character limits make precise language sometimes difficult, or the widespread offense taken due to it? You decide.

    1. ‘Christians’ – 10 letters. “Easter worshippers” – 18 letters.

      1. ‘Resurrectionists’ – 15 letters,
        ‘Transsubstantizombinists – 23 letters

        Did the White House beef up security for yesterday’s Resurrection Egg Rolling ?

        1. They seem to have had good reasons to

        2. Are you implying resurrected Christ was just a zombie? That’s offensive. There’s no such thing as zombies.

          1. Anyway, its obvious that Christ was a liche.

            1. Ooh, how funny. : )

              Now do Muslims!

              What’s that? You have to be going?

              1. Uhm, OK

                Mohammed was a lich.

                Is that better? I mean, we weren’t talking about Islam but about Easter and making jokes about Easter but, you know, if you *have to have* inject your Islamaphobia into every conversation . . .

          1. It is barbarous that vegan zombies and anthropophagophobes should view the eucharist as just another breakfast food.

      2. But why would saying “Christians” have been better? It was significant that the attack took place during Easter services. You people are ridiculous. It’s a perfectly reasonable and innocuous construction.

    2. Yeah, what a dumb phrase to use. They’re clearly trying to send some message by failing to call these people Christians.

      I’m not religious, but I do enjoy Cadbury Eggs and Peeps so maybe I am an “Easter candy worshipper.”

      1. To give the most generous explanation, they are all trying to be exceptionally anodyne and nonspecific as possible so as not to rile anybody up. It is an unimpressive display of yellow belly.

        1. Trump’s reference to victims of “terrorist attack on churches and hotels” is sufficiently bland without resorted to stilted phrases. OTOH, he said “churches”, with the implied Christianity that normally carries vs synagogues or mosques or the more ‘generic places of worship’. The blandness at least party reflects that some of those killed were at hotels…their religious background is not known or even necessary information. Meanwhile the bombings of churches on Easter is certainly an attack on Christians and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best, plain evil otherwise.

          1. [Barack Obama offered his condolences following shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on March 15. “Michelle and I send condolences and strength to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and with the Muslim community,” the former president wrote on Instagram. He shared his message alongside a 2015 photo of himself seated with a student wearing a hijab at a Dignity For Children Foundation classroom in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Obama added, “Every single one of us, every color, every creed, has a daily responsibility to rally against hate and bigotry in all their forms and to stand up for what is good, and decent, and true.”]

            1. [My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms.

              White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.

              — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 15, 2019]

      2. There are a lot of things you may be, but admitting you like those vile, disgusting chocolate-covered Satan’s diarrhea nuggets known as Cadbury eggs does not make you an “Easter candy” anything since they’re not technically even candy. They’re what the Easter Bunny’s evil twin leaves for sinful, wicked children who don’t deserve candy.

        1. They’re what the Easter Bunny’s evil twin leaves for sinful, wicked children who don’t deserve candy.

          I’m a naughty, naughty, boy Easter Bunny and I must be punished!

          1. I’m sure there’s a website somewhere that caters to your particular kink.

        2. Yeah, everybody knows that what a real Easter candy worshiper does is get a chocolate bunny and start by biting its ears off.

          1. Maybe we should “express our deep sympathy for our Muslim brother and sisters in Sri Lanka, faced with the terrible task of killing all the Bhuddists, Christians and Hindus they must live among.”

        3. The caramel eggs are something else, as are the solid chocolate bite size ones.

        4. Satan’s diarrhea nuggets known as Cadbury eggs

          I thought I told you to get off of my lawn.

      3. Who the fuck else is going to be an Easter worshiper other than Christians? Is anyone not clear on that? Who is it supposed to be confusing? “Easter worshiper” is more specific and makes the context more explicit. The attack taking place on Easter is significant and deliberate.

    3. The first one. Clearly.

  4. “Easter worshipper” is awkward and unusual phrasing. To have it pop up with that kind of frequency suggests coordination or PR flacks with the same strange mindset.

    1. On the one hand, it is somewhat semantically correct, people who are worshipping on Easter. On the other hand, this is highlighted because it is part of a long term pattern of minimalizing Christianity. The Karl Marx handbook indicates the state should replace the church, so…

      1. Actually, it makes it sound like they worship the day itself.

      2. Easter is the holiday, we Christians worship the resurrection. Resurrection Worshippers would have been more accurate. Contrary to popular belief (even among many Christians) Easter has always been the most holy day of the Christian calendar.

        1. Indeed. Easter is the completion of the prophecy of Jesus. Christmas is a lovely day…but Christianity is BASED on Easter. With no Easter, there is no Christianity.

  5. And you “Reason”? You just throw in the faces of the believers everyday. How dare you!

    1. What does that even mean other than that you are a colossal dipshit?

      1. No, I think you covered it with colossal dipshit John.

        1. Guys, didn’t you get the memo?

          Stop POUNCING.

          1. Dear Christian,

            Reason is not going to fulfill your dreams of stepping up into the ranks of ‘real’ journalism. Please stop making it obvious.

  6. Words have meanings and these particular speakers are well-known for shading the meanings – remember after Benghazi and both Obama and Hillary refused to use the term “terrorist attack” for some 3 weeks after the terrorist attack? And remember the Obama/Romney debate where Mitt criticized Obama for that refusal and Obama’s sidekick Candy Crowley, the debate moderator, jumped in to “fact-check” Romney and insist that Obama did refer to “terrorist attacks” immediately after the event – even though he was clearly referencing terrorist attacks in general and not Benghazi specifically? And remember how, after the State Department and Hillary Clinton issued a statement calling Benghazi a terrorist attack and Obama was specifically asked if he was now ready to admit Benghazi was a terrorist operation since his own SOS and State Department had admitted as much, he still demurred?

    Yeah, people who speak for a living issuing a prepared statement know goddamn well precisely what they’re saying. Trump’s an obnoxious loud-mouthed moron troll who has no filter between his brain and his mouth and he doesn’t get a pass on the shit he says, why should his moral and intellectual superiors on the left get a pass?

    1. Because reasons Jerry. Reasons

    2. I don’t have much of an opinion regarding the outrage– I think conservatives should let it go because there’s simply too much petty outrage these days.

      However, say what you will about Hillary and Obama, they’re not Elon Musk or Trump. They don’t tweet anything before it’s gone through a phalanx of deep-state advisers, image consultants and communications directors. I have little doubt the use of “Easter Worshippers” was carefully crafted as to “not stir up sectarian divisions”. I seriously doubt it was meant as a slight to Christians, but I can see how it comes off this way.

      It’s not a hard exercise to reverse the situation and wonder if they’d have referred to people killed in a Mosque as Eid Al-Fitr or Zakat worshippers. I’m confident they’d have called them “Muslim Worshippers” quick fast and in a hurry.

      1. Pretty easy to look up people’s statements in response to the Christchurch mosque shootings and compare them side by side.
        It’s… not a subtle difference

        1. Did the Christchurch shootings happen on the most important festival day of the year for Muslims? If it had, I would have expected that to feature prominently in comments.

          1. Yet the term “Mosque goers” wasn’t used, but “Muslim” was.
            Your determination to twist logic in knots so you can believe in the naive innocence of these people’s intentions is weird.

            1. I think it is suspect that we heard about nothing but the NZ shootings for a week, and relatively little about this much worse attack. People are spinning their own narratives. I just think that this particular outrage is totally silly.

      2. I don’t know. If an attack on Muslims happened on some important Muslim holiday, I think it would be perfectly reasonable and appropriate to say “Ramadan worshipers” or whatever.

  7. nobody says “Easter worshipper” that’s why it’s out of place and likely purposeful

  8. Silly as this is, it is nevertheless an incredibly predictable response… as a way of opportunistically attacking one’s partisan opponents.

    As predictable as this column?
    As predictable as my comment?
    Is there an echo in here?

  9. Gotta respect completely delusional belief. How dare you speak you the truth. It’s upside down world. Jesus fucking christ. The lunacy of this shit.

    1. It is not the truth. They are not Easter worshipers. They are not worshipping Easter. They are Christians. Would you call Muslims Ramadan worshipers? Jews Passover worshipers? No.

      1. It is not the truth. They are not Easter worshipers. They are not worshipping Easter.

        You’ve obviously never heard of an ‘easter egg’. They could just be people that are worshipping on Easter. English works that way too.

        1. English has idiomatic phrases like every language. Now go find me where this term has ever once been used before this. It is an invented term to allow the speaker to avoid the truth that Muslims murdered Christians.

          1. I agree that the purpose of the statement was to avoid using the word “christian”. However, the term “Easter worshippers” is still a valid expression and not really any different than e.g. Christmas Carolers.

            1. I’m a Christmas caroler… I’m not a christian.

            2. You could have a point if it wasn’t that the main target was Christian Churches. Kind of removes the secular part. Yes they also attacked hotels but the churches were the primary targets. I can grant that maybe some who attend Easter services do so out of a sense of tradition, but even that is recognizing the overall religious affiliation of the Holiday.

              1. Even Trump didn’t use the words ‘Christian’ or ‘Muslim’ in his tweet. He said “churches and hotels”. Probably because we all know about his love of hotels. If anything, “Easter worshipers” at least directly implies the targets were Christians. But if you insist on getting your panties in a twist over this, don’t let me stop you.

                1. Other than as pointed out earlier churches are generally used to refer to Christian places of worship as opposed to other religious places of worship. So his use of churches carries an implied Christianity. However, it isn’t much better. It isn’t getting my panties in a bunch, but rather pointing out the reality of the situation. It was deliberate and something that wouldn’t be tolerated if the victims had been any religion other than Christian. Possibly if it were neo-paganist celebrating Yule? Possibly Wiccans celebrating Samhain? But Jewish synagouges attacked on Passover or Islamic Mosques during Ramadan? Would they really use more ambiguous terms such as Passover Worshippers or Ramadan Worshippers? Additionally, it isn’t even grammatically correct, since it isn’t Easter that they (we) are worshipping but rather the Resurrection of Christ. This is the most Holy day, traditionally speaking, of the Christian Calendar (yes Christmas has replaced it for many Christians but historically Easter has been the most Holy Day).

                  1. So the word ‘church’ implies Christianity, but the term ‘ Easter worshippers’ does not? That’s a whole boatload of stupid. Who else worships on Easter?

                    1. Notice I said it wasn’t much better. And yes, there is a subtle difference. Worshipping Easter is not a thing. We celebrate Easter and Worship Christ and the Resurrection. This is a very distinct difference. I attend church. Muslims attend Mosques, Jews attend Synagouges. Again, very defined meanings.

                    2. Other than neo-paganist?

            3. Except that, so far as I can tell by looking up phrase frequencies, (Yes, there are utilities for doing this.) this phrase was basically unheard of prior to this week.

              You do have to suspect coordination when a previously never used phrase is suddenly used EVERYWHERE at the same time.

      2. I agree, John. People should be called by the names and labels they prefer. The Democrats should extend the same courtesy to Christian as you personally extend to transgendered people. Oh, wait.

        1. People should speak the truth. Christians are not asking you to lie. Just call them what they are. If you think “Easter Worshipers” is okay, then explain why you don’t call Jews and Muslims or any other religion the same.

          So, no the analogy doesn’t work.

          1. People should speak the truth.

            So they weren’t Easter worshippers?

            1. No they were not. They were not worshipping Easter. They are Christians.

              1. “Easter worshipper” does not mean they were worshipping Easter. If you say “Sunday worshipper,,” does that mean someone who is worshipping Sunday? Probably not. Probably the speaker meant someone who is worshipping ON Sunday. Does “Monday quarterback” mean someone who is quarterbacking a Monday?

                1. The phrase, as sportsball enthusiasts know, is ‘Monday morning quarterback’ and it is in wide usage to refer to those who second guess the actions of the sporting that took place on the weekend.

                  The term ‘Easter worshipper’, having no widespread connotation does not lend itself to any specific interpretation other than perhaps that someone did not want to name those who were celebrating Easter.

                  Because that’s the usual term-Easter celebrants.

                  But you go, prog, fight for your tribe. Fight hard.

                  1. “Easter celebrants”???? WTF are you smoking and why aren’t you sharing?

                    1. I’ll be generous, mcgoo, and ask if you really think “Easter celebrants” is any weirder than “Easter worshippers”?

                    2. We don’t use it as much anymore in newsmedia.

                      Because we are an ever-secularizing society.

                      But, when the faithful talk, a lot of them still say Easter celebrants.

                    3. I would say Easter Celebrants is exactly the same as ‘Easter worshippers’.

                    4. To Christians, we celebrate Easter, we worship Christ and the Resurrection. There is a huge difference. To worship Easter would be contrary to Christian teachings. It would make us no less of hypocrites then the priest and judges of Jesus’s time who worried more about following the laws of Moses than in worshipping God.

                    5. “I would say Easter Celebrants is exactly the same as ‘Easter worshippers’.”

                      And you mmight be forgiven if English was not your first language.

                      Celebrants are people celebrating Easter. Yeah, that works.

                      Worshipers are people worshiping… Easter? I think not.

                      Put you keep plucking that chicken.

                    6. Somehow, I feel fairly confident that even if they used “Easter Celebrants” or “People celebrating Easter” (which seems the most accurate) you would still be upset.

                    7. The difference is one is conjecture (fairly confident) whereas we are telling you directly that the two are not synonymous. That to a Christian there is a very meaningful difference. But rather than accept that you continue to argue otherwise. Since we cannot know the truth of your conjecture, we have no way of validating it. However, the difference between worship and celebrate is very important to the Christian belief system.

                    8. To eliminate your conjecture, what I’m saying is that during Easter, Christians are celebrating the resurrection of Christ and worshiping God through Christ’s teachings and examples. The term ‘Easter worshipers’ is not incorrect nor disrespectful. To me, ‘Easter celebrants’ sounds just as clumsy and awkward.

                    9. We’re smoking the stuff that isn’t laced with rat poison like what your dealer is selling you, Mcgoo95. Find yourself a better dealer, lazy scum.

                    10. Mcgoo95
                      April.22.2019 at 2:11 pm
                      I would say Easter Celebrants is exactly the same as ‘Easter worshippers’.
                      Mcgoo95
                      April.22.2019 at 1:30 pm
                      “Easter celebrants”???? WTF are you smoking and why aren’t you sharing?

                      Bit of an overreaction then, no?
                      Weird, that.
                      One wonders what you were going for with that earlier post

                  2. Also , “sportsball enthusiasts”? WTF is sportsball or a ‘sportsball enthusiast’? A quarterback is unique to the sport of Football (American Football to all you feriners)

                  3. “Somehow, I feel fairly confident that even if they used “Easter Celebrants” or “People celebrating Easter” (which seems the most accurate) you would still be upset.”

                    Perhaps. But we do not have to speculate in the matter of what was actually said.

                    1. “Perhaps. But we do not have to speculate in the matter of what was actually said.”

                      True. All you have to do is take a slightly ambiguous phrase and choose the most incorrect interpretation.

                    2. “All you have to do is take a slightly ambiguous phrase and choose the most incorrect interpretation.”

                      Yes, that is exactyl what is going on. Boy you sure are perceptive.

                      There being no possibility of comparing and contrasting the Hag’s words when other people were being senselessly slaughtered.

                      No, there was no recent event where she went out of her way to name the victim’s religious affiliation in no uncertain terms and characterize the politics of the perp in no uncertain terms.

                      No possible way to compare and contrast, right?

                      You must work in communications.

                    3. So you’re surprised (upset?) that the political ideology that venerates Muslims and brown people and loathes Christians and white males is not as emphatic in their support of murdered Christians as they are for murdered Muslims? Where have you been for the past decade?

                    4. “So you’re surprised….” Exactly what everyone was saying but you keep stating we overreacted but you admit it was an effort to diminish their Christianity (at least those who were killed in Church). So basically you have no real argument but continue to argue it nonetheless?

                    5. The only argument I was making is that the term “Easter Worshipers” is proper English and interpreted by people that understand the English language to mean People worshiping on Easter. It’s a stretch to think it means people worshiping bunnies and chocolate in the context it was used unless you are looking for an excuse to be outraged.

                    6. People who speak English could interpret it either way. And it is not grammatically or semantically correct. It is not a common phrase nor is it unambiguous.

                2. Generally, when Christian’s use the term Sunday Worshipper, it is with a derogatory infliction. We use it to decide those who attend church every Sunday but then do not live the teachings of Christ. However, I would argue that this practice is contrary to the teachings of Christ themselves as laid out in Matthew Chapter 7.

            2. Worship
              the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

              Is Easter a deity?

            3. The difference is between what you are doing and who you are.

              Christians (who they are) worshiping the resurrection of Christ on Easter (what they do).

              To say they worship Easter is also incorrect. They are celebrating the resurrection of Christ by going to Easter mass. They are not worshiping anyone on that day. You worship a deity.

              There are people who worship Ishtar. They are not Christians in a church.

    2. “Gotta respect completely delusional belief. How dare you speak you the truth. It’s upside down world. Jesus fucking christ. The lunacy of this shit.”

      Are you referring to the “Easter Worshippers” lunacy or the intentional misstatement of what Shapiro said lunacy? I mean, you strike me as another one of those “Other team bad, my team perfect!” hypocrites.

      1. They could have said, “peaceful Christians paying homage to God on Easter Sunday”. They would not have meant a word of it, but it would have been accurate. Every word they utter is carefully chosen to stake out their intersectionality.

      2. Hmm
        Seems beavis beat me to it

    3. “Gotta respect completely delusional belief. How dare you speak you the truth. It’s upside down world. Jesus fucking christ. The lunacy of this shit.”

      You’re of course referring to Islamists who murder scores of innocent people as a matter of course, and the progressive figures who dictate an awkward shibboleth to obscure these recent targets/victims… and not the co-religionists of those murdered and the people correctly pointing out the insult, no?

  10. Some places are passing laws about misidentifying.

    Should a Christian being misidentified as a Easter worshiper be any less or more of an issue that calling someone by the wrong gender prefix of their preference?

  11. You’re never going to solve terrorism committed by religious people if you can’t speak the truth. That’s the deeper problem with coddling lunacy. It ain’t a reluctance to say “Islamic terrorism”. You fuckers play with that fire and wonder why you’re being slaughtered by these lunatics.

    1. Exactly. Whatever the issue, lying doesn’t solve it and only makes it worse

  12. Oh, for fuck’s sake.

    They were–and are–avoiding saying that Muslims blew up Christians on Easter.

    Stop pretending that they’re doing anything else.

    And when they all do it, using the same awkward phrase, at the same time, then yes, they ARE colluding.

    Again, please stop pretending that they’re doing anything else.

    That column of bones going down your back–it’s called a spine. Try to remember how to use it.

    1. Has anyone ever used the term “Easter Worshipers “ before this? Not that I know of. But somehow we are supposed to believe they all spontaneously and independently started using it yesterday? Ah no

      1. A quick google search would prove to you that yes, people have used this phrase before. You have to get past the first three pages, which all refer to the present right-wing snowflake outrage to find it.

        Here is one. Surprise, motherfucker, it was used by a Christian reverend.

        1. In the context of a long newsletter from a Christian Church someone used the term. That is not the same. And even you are bright enough to know that. What the fuck is wrong with you other than being stupid and dishonest.

          Do you think they all read that newsletter?

          1. Keep moving that goal post, John.

            1. You pulled out a PDF of a May 2017 newsletter of a church from Manhattan, Kansas and pointed to paragraph 3 on page 2 to try to prove that “Easter worshipers” is normal phrasing. If you think that counts as scoring a goal than you must be functionally retarded.

              1. Clearly nothing would satisfy you anyway. Sorry, but that’s about as much effort as I am gonna put into this.

                1. After having his argument completely obliterated, CMW runs away as fast as possible.

                2. You’re putting in a shitload of effort into it, eunuch. It’s littered throughout the page.

                  I’m kinda amazed. I know you’re a servile dimwit desperate for progressive approval, but damn… you’re taking water-carrying to new lengths

                3. So you admit failure, then, fuckwit.

        2. Ah yes, the famous Reverend…. uh…. Reverend McConnell! In the famous, um, uh… Manhattan, New York… oh wait.. no its Manhattan, Kansas!

          I remember that famous instance when Reverend McConnell referred to Christians as “Easter worshipers” in paragraph 2 of his address on the 2nd page of… what was it again? Oh, First Presbyterian Church Headline News, May 2017 edition!! Oh wait, in paragraph 2 he actually said “christian worshipers”… oh, I see, it was in paragraph 3 that he said “Easter worshipers!” I remember that very clearly now, you all remember that, right? Right??

          See, the Democrats were clearly following the example set by Reverend McConnell on page 2, paragraph 3 of the Presbyterian Church Headline News, May 2017 edition. Totally makes sense.

          1. >>>Manhattan, Kansas!

            go Cats.

        3. Let’s have a look, shall we–

          But one of the truly most gratifying things to come from Easter Sunday is not only the festive spirit, beautiful music, colorful clothes and Easter lilies, and, most importantly the celebration of the Resurrection—it is the opportunity to reach at least one more person for Christ through what was sung or what was said, or the warm fellowship that an Easter worshipper felt when he or she was among the Easter crowd

          By gum, he found one. He found those two words together–and they even appear to be referring to someone worshipping AT Easter, rather than OF Easter.

          Good job, prog. Defend your tribe. Show us how you are all right. It took you twenty minutes to find that. Good digging–perhaps your masters will reward you.

          You got us. We’re not as good at thinking collectively as you are.*

          *note the irony of using ‘us’ and ‘we’ in that statement.

        4. Attempting to find individual anecdotes is not the proper way to conduct this analysis, CMW. If you want to trust Google as a source, use their n-gram trend analyzer.

          (Note that the data used by the ngram analyzer is lagged. Metrics from the current spike will not be visible on the tool for days-to-weeks.)

          1. Something seems to be happening yearly around March/April that causes the term “Easter Worshipper” to spike. Wonder what that could be?

            1. Actually the graph doesn’t show a yearly spike during early spring. It shows a few spikes but based on the scale, it is impossible to correlate that to a yearly spike. Gee, you don’t understand how to read a statistical graph, go figure. You want to be snarky, we can be snarky, only I do it better because I’m not a peurile troll.

              1. Also, the data is presneted on a year to year basis on January 1st of each year. So no, you can’t state that it spikes every March and April. Because the data doesn’t say one way or the other as presented.

              2. Hahahaha…you do it better *76 that’s for sure. I’ll add ‘reading a graph’ to your list of deficiencies.

                1. Really because I have looked at the graph multiple times and changed the time frame to both 90days and 12 months and all the spikes are from the third week in January, it would appear that you are the one deficient in reading graphs. Should we compare CVs? That would demonstrate who has a better grasp both scholastically and practically in reading graphs and interpreting data sets?

                  1. I stand corrected. It does appear that if you set the scale to past five years there is a spike as you described.

                    1. Though interestingly, when you change it from Worldwide to US it shows that almost all the spikes came from Virginia, Illinois and California (in that order) over the past five years. Draw your own conclusions from that data.

                    2. Actually, if you search for the specific term “Easter worshiper” with quotes (one or 2 p’s ) there are no results. Same for “Easter celebrant”. The spike you are seeing is for the term “Easter” combined with the word “worshiper” somewhere on the same page around Easter time.

                    3. So in other words, Easter Worshippers was not a thing until Clinton and Obama decided to make it a thing? So again what is your overall thesis? That this was an attempt not to use the word Christian but Christians shouldn’t be upset by that?

                    4. You might be surprised that there is no common term for things like people eating cake at a birthday party, people praying the rosary on Sunday and many other things that are not a ‘thing’. My overall thesis is that your panties are in a twist over nothing….and that you are incompetent at reading a graph.

                    5. No there is a common phrase for people praying the rosary.. it’s Catholic or Christian. Again, you resort juvenile attacks and sophomoric insults. I admitted that if you changed the axis scale you did have a spike, but alas, you even admitted that the data actually doesn’t support your original thesis either. That the spike is an artifact. So, if I suck at reading graphs, where does that place your ability at? Considering your entire position was bullshit from the start? And you keep avoiding the elephant in the room, you admit up thread that this was an attempt to avoid using the word Christian, sowhy shouldn’t Christians feel insulted? You have refused multiple times to explain this, instead you choose to launch imbecilic I know you are but what am I Pee Wee Hermanesque insults. It is telling that rather than respond in a meaningful manner you instead choose to resort to grade school level playground insults.

        5. If that tea was any weaker it’d be distilled water.

    2. Can’t think of a better way to put it; Thank You!

    3. Indeed. The obvious subtext is “we can’t hang this on Orange Man so the press should stop talking about it and go back to important stuff, like how horrible Orange Man is”.

    4. “Some people” did “something” to Easter Worshippers. I believe that was the prototype statement that all dem pr recieved. Let’s all get outraged over stupid bullshit like “some people” and “easter worshippers.” It’s a sign of the times. Pedantic bullshit is the flavor of the decade.

      1. Totally, bro.
        Like – who cares?
        I mean, what is language really anyway?
        Fuck language! That shit’s so random… it’s just like, sounds coming out of your mouth and shit.
        You really got em, bro; sick burn.

        1. NOT everything written by people on the opposite team is polemic innuendo. Sometimes words actually mean what they say. Of course, it helps to have a fundamental understanding of the English language.

          1. Which you seem not to have, since you try and make the word celebrate synonymous with worship.

            1. During Easter, Christians are both celebrating and worshiping. They’re also kneeling, standing, kneeling, singing, shaking hands with one another, pouring water on babies heads, eating transmogrified unleavened bread and wine, burning herbs, telling fantastic stories, and many other things.

              1. But you seem incapable of understanding the simple concept that to Christian’s the phrase Easter Worship is completely misrepresentative of what we are doing? And you continue to try and draw a false comparison between worshipping on Easter and worshipping Easter. Sorry, but the two are not and never will be synonymous. Period. Full stop. The phrase was inaccurate and rather purposely or not, was slightly insulting. If it wasn’t deliberate it reveals a poor understanding or empathy towards orthodox Christians. However, considering following the Christchurch massacre these same people made sure to name Islam by name rather than call them Ramadan Worhshippers, it doesn’t take a tinfoil hat wearer to draw some less then flattering conclusions about their motives in not calling those killed in the churches Christians.

                1. Maybe it was completely innocent, but that really doesn’t speak much better of their tone deafness.

                  1. So your feelings were hurt?

                    1. You admit above that it was deliberate to avoid using the word Christian, yet also imply Christian’s shouldn’t be insulted? Non-sequitor? Because at this point it seems you can’t seem to make a consistent argument. If it was innocent but tone deaf or if it was deliberate why shouldn’t Christians point out that it was insulting? No one is calling for violence but they are pointing out that it was insensitive and insulting. Can you explain why they shouldn’t?

                    2. And notice I didn’t say upset I said it is insulting. I made a statement about the nature. I didn’t imply I was upset. But I suppose your sophomoric response pretty much sums up your intellectual honesty.

                    3. So you get insulted by things that people don’t say? Then allow me to emphatically say

                    4. You keep using the word upset, which I never did. I stated multiple times that I am pointing out that it is insulting and insensitive. Now I am not fully convinced it was not deliberate or “things people didn’t say”. You seem more than willing to not extend to me the same benefit of the doubt you have given Obama and Clinton. Furthermore, you have repeatedly misrepresented my words and have implied, improperly, my response to their phrasing. Being upset implies I was personally hurt. This isn’t the case. I am pointing out that if it was not deliberate it was tone deaf and that in itself can be insulting. If it was unintentional, than I would accept it as such, especially if they choose to apologize and or not use it in the future. That doesn’t imply I am upset. If someone tells me that a phrase I used unintentionally is insulting, I don’t assume they are upset, I apologise and thank them for informing me. It is called decency. I may not agree and I may explain that I didn’t mean to insult them. However, I don’t outright discount their opinion. Or dismiss it as “being upset”. If someone tells you something you said was insulting, do you insist on continuing to use it or do you try and consider it from their view?

                    5. Also, how did they referential the victims of the Christchurch shooting? Why was it different? Above you implied that it is because they are more empathetic towards Muslims than Christians, so you haven’t yet explained why Christians shouldn’t feel insulted by their inability to use the term Christian. Please address this rather than your sad attempts at snarkiness. Why shouldn’t Christians “be upset” as you contend? Why shouldn’t they/us feel slighted and disrespected? And why shouldn’t we respond (though I personally am not upset but rather pointing out that it is evidence, at best, of tone deafness and insensitivity towards the dangers many Christians face outside the west).

                    6. No. YOU keep using the word upset. I used it maybe once or twice upthread. My guess is that you are neither upset, insulted, nor had your feelings hurt by anything Hillary Clinton or Bronco Bama said. If you did, then you are just as thin-skinned as the snowflakes on the left that clutch their pearls everytime someone they disagree with says something they dislike (or doesn’t say). It’s fake bullshit all the way around and annoying as fuck. Even more annoying coming from people that are ideologically similar.

                    7. *supposedly

                    8. You also made a snide remark about my feelings being hurt which equates to upset. You still have avoided answering my question as to why Christians shouldn’t feel insulted?

                    9. Because nobody insulted them. Also, I never said you were upset or had your feelings hurt. I did say your panties are in a twist. I believe if you check them, you’ll find they are, indeed, twisted.

                    10. ‘So your feelings were hurt?’
                      ‘True. All you have to do is take a slightly ambiguous phrase and choose the most incorrect interpretation’

                      Somehow, I feel fairly confident that even if they used “Easter Celebrants” or “People celebrating Easter” (which seems the most accurate) you would still be upset.’
                      ‘But if you insist on getting your panties in a twist over this, don’t let me stop you.’
                      panties in a twist: To become overly upset or emotional over something, especially that which is trivial or unimportant.
                      So, you did state upset and you also implied it multiple times.

                    11. ‘I agree that the purpose of the statement was to avoid using the word “christian”. However, the term “Easter worshippers” is still a valid expression and not really any different than e.g. Christmas Carolers’
                      ‘So you’re surprised (upset?) that the political ideology that venerates Muslims and brown people’
                      and loathes Christians and white males is not as emphatic in their support of murdered Christians as they are for murdered Muslims? Where have you been for the past decade?’
                      So you admitted mutliple times this was to diminish the victims and to avoid using the term Christian. That this is a long term pattern. And that the term Easter Worshippers is not common.
                      ‘Actually, if you search for the specific term “Easter worshiper” with quotes (one or 2 p’s ) there are no results. Same for “Easter celebrant”. The spike you are seeing is for the term “Easter” combined with the word “worshiper” somewhere on the same page around Easter time.’
                      Yet you can’t explain why Christians shouldn’t feel insulted. So you admit it is based on some anti-Chridtian bias and they used a obscure (possibly made up term) which doesn’t accurately reflect Christian beliefs or celebrations. In fact is heretical to Christian dogma. Yet you insists it is benign? Acceptable? Not a big deal? Really, that is the best you can come up with?

                    12. If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were upset.

                      So you admitted mutliple times this was to diminish the victims and to avoid using the term Christian.

                      I admit no such thing. I said it appears they purposefully may have avoided using the word ‘Christians’ and instead chose ‘Easter worshipers’ which is actually more descriptive but still sounds somewhat foolish. You are the one with your panties is twist by thinking the term ‘diminishes’ the victims.

                      That this is a long term pattern. And that the term Easter Worshippers is not common.

                      I never made any claim about the importance of the previous use of the term ‘Easter worshiper’. The term is comprehensible to anybody that understands English and context. It was John et.al. that are butthurt that this ‘new’ term has suddenly sprung into the lexicon.

                      Yet you can’t explain why Christians shouldn’t feel insulted. So you admit it is based on some anti-Chridtian bias and they used a obscure (possibly made up term) which doesn’t accurately reflect Christian beliefs or celebrations.

                      There is no reason to suppose it is based on ant-christian bias. I believe they, themselves, claim to be Christian (don’t really know or care). The term is not obscure, you just don’t like it. It does accurately describe what they were doing when they were attacked…by muslim terrorists.

                      In fact is heretical to Christian dogma. Yet you insists it is benign?
                      Worshiping god on Easter is not heretical. No go untwist yer panties, put on yer big boy pants and face the day! I’m done.

      2. Look at the silly prog, thinking that if it’s nice to Muslims, the Muslims won’t kill it. FAIL.

        1. Look at the silly dipshit, thinking it made a point.

          1. The only point you know is the one on top of your head, retarded scrotum-sucker.

    5. Basically. The interns got together and worked out how to implement the directive they were given – how to refer to these people without mentioning they were Christians but not *look like* you’re avoiding mentioning Christianity.

      Hence ‘Easter Worshippers’.

      Because what could ‘Easter worshipper be but Christians’?

      Certainly not some flavor of Pagan.
      Certainly not Muslims at services.
      Certainly not Buddhists.

      1. >>>Certainly not some flavor of Pagan.

        Eostre worshippers.

      2. To be fair, if it were simply reporters rather than Obama and Hillary using the term “Easter worshippers”, I’d be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and simply assume that all they knew is that they were people at a religious service of some sort and it was Easter Sunday and those two facts taken together provides no clue to the average dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers reporter as to which particular religion these people might be. They really seriously might not know that Easter is a celebration of the Risen Christ and people who worship Christ are called Christians, that that’s where the word comes from.

  13. These religious conservative people bent out of shape over some bullshit word and you wonder why these Muslims are so butthurt. There it is. Supposedly people who fall for religion have brain damage making it hard for them to accept information that contradicts their preconceptions. Studying the brains of these people is a good place to start.

    1. Yeah those people who got murdered were asking for it and got what they deserved. Thanks for at least being honest about what immoral idiot you are.

    2. OP just defines his own stupidity.

      1. OP is now competing with Tony.

        1. And that’s a damn high bar of obliviousness

          1. Mcgoo seems to want in on that race to the intellectual bottom as well.

            1. You’re just hoping for some company, I suppose.

              1. Oh how droll!!

    3. Well, they have plenty of brains splattered around various Christian churches to study. They should get right on it.

    4. So far I don’t see anyone rallying in the streets setting fires, throwing rocks, and murdering reporters and artists who have offended their Christian values. That seems to happen quite a bit when someone offends Muslims.

      1. It has been pointed out that it is safe and easy to attack Christians, because we tend not to resort to violence in the modern era when we are ridiculed. It is being edgy while not really worrying about repercussions.

        1. It seems that Christians should start resorting to violence so that Christianity will be an alpha male religion again.

          1. I mean, that really would be the lesson of Islamist terrorism – it works.
            The establishment West has been bending over backwards to accommodate and praise Muslims since 9/11.
            So…

  14. Is referring to someone as an “Easter worshipper” really an attempt to minimize their Christian identity?

    Yes. Yes it is. And I say that as an atheist.

    That *Clinton* of all people would not understand the difference between ‘easter worshipper’ and ‘christian’ is . . . its ridiculous.

    However, its pretty obvious that that is just a poor way of saying ‘those attending Easter services’. Its like the young people writing those tweets for them don’t actually pay any attention to the quality of their work. But I guess they don’t have to because the people they work for don’t call them on it.

    OTOH: You have a whole newsroom at the NYT that doesn’t know that Jesus doesn’t ascend into heaven until 40 days after Easter – that Easter is the day of resurrection and the ascension happens later. You’d think those people have editors.

    And what is up with everyone using the same phrasing?

    1. The Times also has a reporter who thought the Priest who went into the Notre Dame to get the consecrated host was rescuing a statue, body of Christ you know. These people are poorly educated, easily lead and profoundly ignorant

      1. The poorly educated part is what gets me. Someone spent 4+ years in college and doesn’t know how to use Google Translate? They just asked some of their peers ‘hey, what does ‘saints-sacrament’ mean?

        1. She spoke French. It is worse than that. She thought body of Christ meant a statue.

    2. Agreed (speaking as non-religious, non-Trump-voting, small-l libertarian — hey can we have our own intersectionality?)

      Instapundit linked to this. I think the difference is quite telling between Clinton’s fierce, specific condemnation of ‘white supremecist terrorists’, sympathy for Muslims, and worry about Islamophobia as compared to her bland, anodyne, generic message about the Easter Islamist terrorist attacks against Christians (carefully using none of the words ‘Islamist’, ‘terrorism’, or ‘Christian’). And the obviously coordinated (focus group tested?) use of ‘Easter worshippers’ borders on the Orwellian. Oh, and when did Reason start up with the ‘Republicans pounce’ gambit?

      1. The lack of anything substantive in the Mueller Report has driven them insane. As things stand, the absolute best case scenario for the TDS brigade is that the Russians completely gaslit the entire US intelligence community into thinking that Trump was working for them during the election.

        1. And they have a deep-seated fear that the worst case scenario is actually true. Namely, that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the Obama administration conspired together to spy on the enemy camp using the state apparatus and then used that same apparatus in an attempt to delegitimize the incoming administration.

          I have noticed that several prominent talking heads have begun asking a question I posed immediately after the no collusion announcement. To wit, what did Mueller know and when did he know it. From all outward appearances it would seem that they had every bit of evidence about Russian collusion at least a year ago and probably more like 18 months ago. So why continue the investigation? Why continue pushing process crimes? Why not make that announcement over a year ago before the midterm elections?

          Other questions that are beginning to be asked AR questions about the origins of the investigation. For the first time questions are going beyond whether the use of the Steele dossier to obtain a fisa warrant was proper. Now the questions are starting to become about whether or not there was ever a suspicion of Russian infiltration of the Trump campaign. The questions are about who actually sent the Russian attorney to dangle nonexistent dirt in front of the Trump campaign. Now people are starting to question exactly why you would spy on the campaign in order to combat infiltration by the Russians instead of picking up the phone and working with the campaign. It certainly would seem a lot easier just to call up Trump and say hey, the Russians are trying to get in your campaign. Can we work together to make sure that doesn’t happen?

          So we went through over two years where no one dared ask those questions. But now that everything Trump said has been vindicated, people are feeling emboldened to ask those questions.

          1. “The questions are about who actually sent the Russian attorney to dangle nonexistent dirt in front of the Trump campaign.”

            The Russian attorney was a former client of Fusion GPS, and met with the founder of Fusion GPS both the day before, and the day after the meeting. And I believe she’s testified she got her talking points for the meeting from Fusion GPS.

      2. The whole ‘Republicans pounce’ bullshit is a lame attempt at virtue-signaling to the MSM.

    3. OK if Jesus died Friday at dusk and rose Sunday before dawn that’s a day and a half. Please explain the 3 day thing.

      1. Its like ‘hotel days’. All or part of a day costs the same.

      2. The phrase is not “after three days”, which would indeed denote 72 hours. It’s “on the third day,”, which just means there was an intervening whole day.

        1. Also, it is symbolic. Easter is not seen as the actual day of Resurrection since Easter isn’t a set date, but the day we choose to celebrate the Resurrection on.

          1. Likewise with Christmas, only more so.

            1. And in both cases the Eastern Orthodox religions choose to worship on different days them the western churches. Because no matter how much most Protestants deny it, we are all derived (in the western Church) from Roman Catholicism. I’m Lutheran, and we acknowledge our Catholic roots well emphasizing our differences.

      3. I know of at least one church that thinks the Crucifixion happened on a Wednesday, and that the Thursday immediately afterwards was a yearly Sabbath. The herbs that they were going to put on His body when they discovered the tomb was empty were prepared on Friday. Under this theory: buried at sundown Wednesday means: Wed night, Thu, Thu night, Fri, Fri night, Saturday: there’s your three days and three nights. Resurrection happens Saturday sundown, and the angel rolls away the stone early Sunday am in time for the empty tomb to be discovered.

        It’s an interesting theory, but I’m having trouble finding justification for the yearly Sabbath on Thursday concept.

        1. Wasn’t the last supper a passover dinner?

  15. I’m not particularly outraged by the use of the clumsy euphemism “Easter worshiper”, but I think its use is telling of the attitude of many on the Left toward Christians.

    It kinda reminds me of their habit of referring to gun owners as “gun nuts”. I’m not much insulted by it since I’ve been hearing it for over 30 years and it’s lame besides. But when I hear it used I can guess that the user has little regard for gun owners, and when Leftists claim to only want “a few reasonable gun laws” but call gun owners “gun nuts” I can be sure they’re bullshitting me about the “few reasonable laws” part.

    1. Because there is the occasional hate crime against Muslims in Western (largely Christian) nations, and some people say mean things about them there, they get bent out of shape when anybody points the absolute fact that Christians are the most oppressed and attacked religious minority in the world, almost all of which is happening in Muslim majority nations and by Muslims (and the communists in China). Yes I am aware Sri Lanka is not majority Muslim, but it appears the attacks were carried out by Muslims. Jews are still more persecuted as a group, and there are other small religious sects who are more persecuted, but there aren’t that many of them anymore outside Israel and US/Europe because they have all fled the rest of the world. (Egypt has fewer than a dozen Jews left in the entire country.) By total numbers Christians are the most persecuted religious group worldwide, but Christians in developed nations sometimes say mean words about Muslims so lefties tell us that is the far larger problem.

      1. Also, it is fairly safe to criticize Christians because we tend not to declare fatwas and decide to blow up or shoot up the NYT for running editorials critical of our beliefs (I chose the NYT randomly, for no real reason other then It’s well known leftist bias).

        1. Maybe that is what Christians should do.

  16. what else is an Easter worshipper but a Christian?

    Christians don’t worship Easter dude. In fact, that’s a pretty insulting way to phrase it. Punch up dude, punch up.

    1. Oh, and why do you think its ok to minimize this mis-identification?

      If I called Caitlyn Jenner a man would that be ok? No, no it would not. That would be a hate crime.

      Personal nouns are important!

  17. Oh good we get to watch the toughie conservatives on team R who spend all of their time bashing the lefty pussies and their twitter outrage mob, do exactly that while letting their victim flag fly.

    Everyone is an offended victim nowadays

    1. Being offended is the new crossfit.

    2. There’s a difference between playing a victim and criticizing the word choice of several politicians following a tragedy that created REAL victims and/or expressing bafflement at the word choice.

      I think its some stupid fainting-couch BS when people react to word choice as if its making them a victim of violence — that’s some dumb shit. But critiquing the extremely awkward phrasing and the seemingly well-coordinated use of that poor phrasing…. that’s not the same thing as playing victim. Its called criticism. Learn to tell the difference.

      1. Bingo. Calling someone out for using a stupid term is not playing “victim”.

      2. There’s also a difference between
        – constantly finding new terms, that have been common usage (rather inoffensively) for decades or centuries, to be offended by and trying to forbid their utterance forevermore
        and
        – pointing out the awkward creation of a term to become shibboleth in obvious furtherance of Orwellian political ends and as a deliberate slight to the specifically targeted group.

        Theres also a difference between anger and bemusement. Haven’t seen much anger from those criticizing the term “Easter worshippers” here. I see people calling a spade a spade and rationally discussing the decision to collectively use such and term and motive for doing so.
        There seems to be quite a bit of anger, some of it veiled as “sarcasm”, from those objecting to the criticism and/or defending use of the new term.

        1. “There seems to be quite a bit of anger, some of it veiled as “sarcasm”, from those objecting to the criticism and/or defending use of the new term.”

          This article being a prime example. “Free minds” indeed.

    3. Everyone is an offended victim nowadays

      Both sides, eh? If Donald Trump couldn’t pull it off when one person died, you really think *you* can when nearly 300 do?

      I won’t lie. I hadn’t considered the possibility that the Clintons, Obamas, etc. could’ve found someone even more mindlessly retarded to tweet on their behalf.

    4. Thank you, ShotgunJimbo. My point exactly. At least I am entertained. Too bad it’s in response to a horrible tragedy.

    5. I’m not a conservative or outraged or a practicing Christian (or a twitter user). But I think all the generic ‘Easter worshipper’ comments about the attack from those on the left are revealing. Anything that they can portray as ‘white-supremicist violence’ really gets their juices flowing — but multiple attacks by Islamist terrorists on churches and Christians on Easter effing Sunday? Meh. Issue a bland tweet condemning hatred and move on — nothing to really see here.

      It’s another instance of what Scott Alexander described in I can tolerate anything but the outgroup:

      You can talk all you want about Islamophobia, but my friend’s “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful people” – her name for the Blue Tribe – can’t get together enough energy to really hate Osama, let alone Muslims in general. We understand that what he did was bad, but it didn’t anger us personally. When he died, we were able to very rationally apply our better nature and our Far Mode beliefs about how it’s never right to be happy about anyone else’s death.

      On the other hand, that same group absolutely loathed Thatcher. Most of us…can agree, if the question is posed explicitly, that Osama was a worse person than Thatcher. But in terms of actual gut feeling? Osama provokes a snap judgment of “flawed human being”, Thatcher a snap judgment of “scum”.

      The attack in Christchurch made lefties deeply, profoundly, viscerally angry. The attacks in Sri Lanka made them feel, well, not much of anything but the usual brief bit of vague sadness about regrettable deaths in far-off places.

      1. Words are the real victim here. And Tucker Carlson. And you.

        1. Tony,

          You need to stop watching so much Tucker Carlson. He seems to shape at least half or more of your thinking.

          1. He’s a stand-in for all the toxic rightwing crap people like you take as gospel truth. I worry for actual physical brain damage it might be causing you.

            1. You’re the best, Tony.

            2. You’ve watched far more Tucker Carlson than I have, and you’re far more retarded and brain-damaged. This is not a coincidence.

    6. I’m not flying my ‘victim flag.’ If you step on your dick, and I point out that you are stepping on your dick I have incurred no harm.

      But thanks for trying.

  18. . . . .terroristic violence

    Seriously?

    Its ‘terrorist violence’. Or is that too problematicist?

  19. A demon like Clinton denying Christianity? I’m not reaching for my shocked face on this one.

  20. What else is an Easter worshipper but a Christian?

    An Easter worshipper is an adherent of Easter, also called Eostre, Ostara, and, initially, Ishtar.

    Worship of her was once very widespread, so widespread, in fact, that the Christians subsumed her celebration, including the way the date for it is calculated, into their Feast of the Resurrection.

    There are Easter worshipers still, and none of them would be anywhere near a church.

    1. Ironically, there are no worshippers of the movie Ishtar. Yikes.

    2. I heard she was a big fan of Sportsball.

  21. I’m not surprised to see this article from Reason. What I don’t understand is why Reason feels the need to be progressive in a market saturated by plenty of left-wing progressive media (many of which are going through layoffs). Reason would be smarter to differentiate their product by producing more libertarian-leaning articles.

    1. Because all the older writers have retired or made enough bones to move to more profitable gigs (there are only a couple of the previous generation still contributing to Reason for old-times-sake) and this is what you get when you hire a mass of fresh-out-of-college writers.

      This is what these people have been steeped in for most of their adult lives. Look at Soave – outside of the rape-hoax reporting, look at how his writing has matured between when he started and now. Give ’em time – these are people who still think ‘left-libertarianism’ is a real thing.

      1. You think Soave is a good writer now?

        1. I think he’s a decent writer but more importantly, I think he’s very much improved over the last couple of years.

          1. He still cannot bring himself to say that the heckler’s veto is unequivocally wrong.

            1. You can unequivocally see the improvement. His writing has become more compact and the ‘to be sure” flourish is almost completely absent.

  22. If I hadn’t been subject to the browbeating on behalf of the administration’s minions that ‘radical Islam’ doesn’t exist, I might believe this wasn’t some manner of PC newspeak.

  23. Often these attacks will seize on the most innocuous words or phrases in an effort to convert someone’s expressions of sympathy or sadness into dog whistles to a much more nefarious agenda.

    Hey everyone, I have an idea. How about we all just stop giving a fuck about what everyone on Twitter is crying about today? Or to take it a step further, stop giving a fuck about what anyone is saying on Twitter ever?

    1. Or to take it a step further, stop giving a fuck about what anyone is saying on Twitter ever?

      Am I still allowed to loathe Hillary Clinton as sub-human?

  24. Is referring to someone as an “Easter worshipper” really an attempt to minimize their Christian identity?

    Regardless of how Christian Britschgi identifies, we still love him.

  25. >>>many conservatives on Twitter

    thought those peeps got banned

    1. They’re working on it.

    2. Who would ban peeps they’re delicious?

      1. Only the OG ones. They’ve got more flavors this year than just ‘old sugar’ and I was . . . less than whelmed by them.

  26. Does Easter Worshipper means anyone who worships on Easter or someone who worships something/someone named Easter, or someone who worships the holiday Easter as if it were an entity? The first includes Christians but isn’t limited to them, the rest don’t. Such a pathetic display of self-loathing. Would they call me a Passover Worshipper? Were these terrorists Ramadan worshippers?

  27. Are Clinton and Obama learning to play the conservative Twitterverse the same way Trump plays the prog Twitterverse?

  28. Technically speaking the term “Easter worshiper” (small w) is someone who worships on Easter. An “Easter Worshiper” (big W) would be a person who worships Easter.

    But yeah, it seems odd to use the phrase when Christian would suffice.

  29. For a man named “Christian…”

    1. It might be fun to see how he responds to being called Easter Worshiper Britschgi.

  30. I’m very interested in this new religion of worshipping the deity Easter. Mainly because I hear it involves consuming mass quantities of chocolate.

  31. Were all the dead Christian? Maybe some of the Easter service participants were not Christians?

    1. I left Christianity so I could spend my Sundays and holidays without having to go to some boring church service… why would non-Christians go to Easter service?

      1. Muslims, for example, still have their normal daily services.

        Pagans may actually be out worshipping Easter.

        1. It does coincide with Beltane.

      2. Because it is traditional. There are some atheist and agnostics who do attend church on holidays for the pure cultural symbology of it. This is actually common in Europe.

    2. Were all the dead Christian? Maybe some of the Easter service participants were not Christians?

      This was actually my irritation at the awkwardness of the phrase. A hotel was bombed and presumably there were all kinds of people of no particular denomination. So, the ‘many religions’ and ‘Easter worshippers’ is selectively incorrect. I could get noting the ‘Easter holiday’ and saying something like ‘churchgoers as well as other victims’. But the phrasing chosen is just all around stupid.

    3. Were all the dead Christian? Maybe some of the Easter service participants were not Christians?

      No. They were not all Christian, nor were they all at Easter services.

      That’s why they only one who got it right, who covered all bases properly was Trump.

      AGAIN.

  32. They obviously don’t even care about the people who just happened to be staying in a hotel.

    1. People staying in hotels are murdering the planet with tiny shampoo bottles and got what they deserved.

      /prog

    2. They obviously don’t even care about the people who just happened to be staying in a hotel.

      Look, either criticize the people on Twitter for what they said or criticize the people who pay attention to Twitter, not both.

  33. In itself and on its own, the Clinton tweet would not be objectionable. If something similar had been said by Clinton in the case of the New Zealand mosque shooting, then saying the same this time would be fine.

    But compare what Clinton’s tweet would have been if it were a simple re-run of her New Zealand mosque shooting tweet with the identifying nouns and adjectives changed to match the new incident:

    My heart breaks for Sri Lanka & the global Christian community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Christianphobia and racism in all its forms.

    Islamist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.

    Yeah. With that comparison, the “holy weekend for many faiths” and “Easter worshipers” are very obviously efforts to minimize the targeting of Christians for being Christians.

    1. I’m sure that a politician who’s not running for office again really wants to get one last jab at the poor put-upon Christians and to exploit a terrorist attack to do it. Makes sense.

      1. Those damned Christians and their complaining about being murdered.

        1. Hillary Clinton tweeting what divisive religious fascists want her to tweet won’t bring any of them back.

          1. So was she a divisive fascist in her Christchurch attack condemnation?

            The difference seems to be a fear of feeding “Islamophobia” while not having a similar fear of encouraging anti-Christian sentiment.

            1. Muslims in America are under far greater threat than Christians. Also, poor people are more at risk than rich people. I realize Republicans have these all switched around in their rhetoric, but we don’t have to believe things just because Republicans say them. We should probably just err on the side of ignoring them.

              1. And what does “in America” have to do with a couple of overseas terrorist attacks?

                1. It’s the place where the Obamas and Clintons live.

              2. Shorter version of Tony “Yes, I have a double standard.”

              3. Muslims in America are under far greater threat than Christians.

                Really!? Religiously motivated attacks against Muslims in the U.S. and by Muslims in the U.S. are both extremely rare, but the latter do seem more prevalent and deadly (even excluding 911). On the one hand we have, for example, the Pulse nightclub massacre and on the other hand we have that time that a Christian fanatic murdered 50 and injured another 50 Muslims in Cincinnati, was it? Or maybe Topeka. I can’t remember Tony, where was that big, religiously motivated mass-murder of American Muslims? I’m drawing a blank — help me out here.

                1. Hate crimes against Muslims in the US remain 5 times the rate they were in 2000, due obviously to linking Islam itself with terrorism, which is exactly what’s going on here–the demonization of all Muslims for the acts of a few, something we don’t do with Christians. You are supposed to be the “treat people as individuals, not groups” guys, so I don’t know why you struggle so much with this.

                  The point is that nobody needs to be reminded about Muslim fanatic terrorism. We’re all aware it happens. Some of us feel the need not to needlessly inflame anti-Muslim bigotry just so our dicks feel bigger, however, and suspect that contributing to an atmosphere of peace might actually prevent more violence on all sides.

                  1. Nobody’s demonizing anybody — just challenging the idea that Muslims in the U.S. are particularly under threat (and no, I don’t accept dubious hate crime stats). There are just too many hoaxes. Like this one in my home town, for example:

                    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/21/ann-arbor-hijab/95706392/

                    Murder stats I do trust because actual bodies are hard to hide. Murder is the one crime that’s seldom under-reported. So show me the actual religiously-motivated mass murders (or even non-mass murders) of Muslims in the U.S. Where are those if Islamophobia is running rampant?

                  2. Seriously? Islamophobia needs to be called out because it’s so common, but Islamic terrorism doesn’t need to be called out because it’s so common?

                    1. If it made sense, Tony wouldn’t be saying it.

                  3. The point is that nobody needs to be reminded about Muslim fanatic terrorism. We’re all aware it happens. Some of us feel the need not to needlessly inflame anti-Muslim bigotry

                    There IS no ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’, you imbecile.

                    What you’re calling ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ is people reacting negatively to Muslims killing infidels wherever they can.

                    What are people supposed to do, Tony? Rejoice?

                    Or, as you would have it, shut up and let them do what they want.

              4. How many Muslims have been ordered to bake a cake in violation of their beliefs, or been told that they can’t run adoption services, like what just happened in Philadelphia?

                Can you get any more stupid or wrong, Tony?

  34. I must say, I do like the headline writer who came up with the “Republicans pounce” phrase that doesn’t actually use those exact words but clearly references them, tongue firmly in cheek I trust. Certainly Britschgi didn’t write an entire article about “Republicans pounce” and then write his own headline without knowing the phrase is the punchline to a sad and unfunny joke. Unless maybe he’s trolling us.

    But what difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. tongue firmly in cheek I trust

      I hope so, but I’m really not sure given the rest of the article.

  35. I don’t think pointing out hypocrisy is partisan point scoring. Also – Easter is a specific Germanic/Norse goddess – so saying it that way is also just incorrect.

  36. Meanwhile USA Today and other outlets were very slow to even mention the possibility of Islamic terrorism WRT Sri Lanka, even after the government claimed it was National Thowfeek Jamaath, which is an Islamist group. Instead they just called it “domestic militants” or at best gave the name without any explanation of the group.

    “At least 290 people, including “several” Americans, were killed in a string of suicide bombings carried out by a domestic militant group at churches and luxury hotels on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, government officials said Monday.” USA Today

    “The attacks were carried out by seven suicide bombers from a domestic militant group named National Thowfeek Jamaath, a government official said Monday.”

    Compare the coverage of this, which killed almost 300 people and injured hundreds more in a coordinated series of suicide bombings to the 50 killed by one madman in New Zealand with some guns.

  37. I mean, we all remember when that eco-fascist white-supremacist killed those Ramadan worshipers and the workplace violence on the military bases.

    Pro tip: Words matter.

  38. Please. Everyone knows that Clinton and Obama caused the Sri Lanka killings by attacking Islamophobia. Just like Chelsea Clinton caused the New Zealand killings by attacking anti-Semitism.

    /sarc

  39. God loves the butt-hurt most.

    1. Not according to the Westboro crowd…

      1. ICWYDT

    2. is this from personal experience? I mean since you take it up the ass during most of these exchanges…

      1. If it’s painful, you’re doing it wrong.

    3. God
      Daddy Gov
      Whichever faith you choose

  40. Over at USAToday.com, where they wouldn’t even use the term “Islamic” when describing the terrorists “The attacks were carried out by seven suicide bombers from a domestic militant group named National Thowfeek Jamaath, a government official said Monday.”

    A new headline has dumped the Sri Lanka bombings from the front page…”Why more Americans are leaving the Catholic Church after abuse scandal”

    The Sri Lanka bombings are an also-ran single-line clickable topic further down the front page of the site. Not even a photo lead.

  41. After the NZ attack, Hillary Clinton expressed sympathy for the “global Muslim community” and wished for an end to “white supremacy,” & “Islamophobia.” She expressed no specific sympathy for the global Christian community, nor an end to “Muslim supremacy,” nor an end to the ongoing war on Western civilization.

    Sorry, but YOU’RE way off base on this one.

    Hillary Clintin DIDN’T treat the two incidents the SAME, although given the magnitudes of the two events (29 dead in NZ & over 200 dead in Sri Lanka), she probably should’ve been more excised over the Sri Lanka incident, BUT she was clearly more excised over the New Zealand incident because it fit the vile Anglo-American Globalist/One Worlder agenda our political-media class supports.

  42. Trump started using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorist,’ yet they persist in terrorizing. How can this be? He used the words!!

    Anyway, “Easter worshippers” is actually more specific than “Christian,” and if you don’t know that the rightwing reaction to these completely 100% innocuous tweets is to exploit mass murder to continue their ridiculous pants-wetting dick measuring contest with Muslims in order to make Muslims even more hated than they are–and for no other purpose–you are a disgrace to the concept of thought.

    1. And Tony knows being a disgrace to the concept of thought, inside and out.

  43. I did the journalistic legwork the so-called mainstream media neglects to do.

    I ran the term “Easter worshipper” through Google Books and found no use of the specific term, though there were plenty of uses of “Easter,” separate uses of “worshipper,” etc.

    1. Funny because when I search for the phrase I get the tweets and then a bunch of links from Breitbart, infowars, Washington Examiner, and, of course RT.

      1. Pssst! Tony, I think he’s talkin’ about BEFORE the tweets, y’know?

        I know you try real hard to never let your status as Reason Idiot slip, but this was a bit too egregious, even for you.

        You’re aiming for something like a jester, a fool, not the blithering moron babbling in the corner eating his own feces, like Artie, so wipe your chin, brush your teeth and wash your hands and start using that one diseased brain cell that keeps you okay to have around.

        1. At least I’m not fucking myself with the pineapple that is bigoted rightwing faux outrage specifically to achieve the sweet, sweet butthurt that means I’m the real victim of terrorist attacks on the other side of the world.

          1. You could just have said ‘no thanks’ and gone back to your ‘meal’, Tony.

            Well, at least now you and Artie can get married (he’s got at least one and a half Y chromosomes, so he’s technically in your ballpark) and keep it to yourselves.

        2. Azathoth,

          Tony is not making the point he thinks. If all he can find are the rightwingers complaining about the tweets, then it shows that those tweeting are using a phrase not used, or not commonly used. Which is some people’s point on this thread.

          1. An uncommonly used phrase! Has there ever been a more horrific shitshow? Christians are practically already extinct.

            1. 60-80% of the US population is practically extinct? You’re inability to debate is the horrendous shitshow. It is quickly devolving into incoherent blathering. You do realize you are just becoming a caricature of a unhinged leftist don’t you?

      2. Well, Tony, when, as I mentioned, I searched Google *Books,* I didn’t find Breitbart or any Tweets.

          1. But did you find evidence of a conspiracy among Democrats to exploit a terrorist attack to hurt Christian feelings for no reason other than malice?

            Cui bono. Faux rightwing outrage is easy to spot.

            1. You didn’t even notice the word “books” – perhaps the real thing is so intimidating to you that you just glossed over the word?

              1. Or he’s just that fucking stupid.

  44. Northeaster worshipers in foul weather gear parade on New England TV news every time we get a gale.

  45. Speaking of terrorism at a church on Easter, either this woman was being sarcastic, or she thought it was Take Your Daughter to Work Day. Earlier this month, I griped to a friend about terrorists who celebrate Take Your Daughter to Work Day.

  46. Has anyone considered that the entire point of the purposeful phrasing was for clicks? The whole idea is to drum up a culture war so journos (both sides) have something to do today? So we have something to outrage about today?

    Notice the amount of comments on this article. An article about tweets from people who aren’t even in office.

    Bust through the bubble people

    1. I agree . . .

    2. Good point.

      Still… it’s a fun discussion

      1. Also valid. If it furthers discussion and people learn something about religion, could be a good thing. The pessimistic side of me thinks the manufactured outrage vastly outweighs the pursuit of knowledge

    3. Even if that’s the point, it just confirms that they’re still coordinating things behind the scenes.

      1. Or they both use the same social media team/ coordinators/ researchers. If you’re mad that these two past politicians are disingenuous then I have some bad news about the rest of them

        1. I think Hillary is still hoping that the 2020 Democratic field will be such a disaster that they’ll call on her to save the Party.

          I didn’t say it made sense.

      2. Or they follow each others’ lead. There are many possible explanations.

  47. Here’s Hillary’s tweet from a few short weeks ago:

    “My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms.

    White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”

    Here’s Obama’s:

    “Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms.”

    Now, try to imagine:

    “My heart breaks for Sri Lanka & the global Christian community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Christophobia and jihadism in all its forms.

    Islamist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”

    I agree with the article that this is all somewhat trivial, partisan, and insignificant. What’s noteworthy is that the phrasing is very obviously crafted very intentionally and workshopped collaboratively. Others of the cohort parrot the exact same phrases on both occasions. In the broader context, this is just more illustration of the mindsets and agendas at work.

    1. The mindset being that public Christians named Obama and Clinton secretly hate Christians?

      1. No, it’s that their Christianity is either of the lefty kind, or else it’s too private and personal for them to impose it on themselves.

        1. Well Obama is actually an atheist, but I see no benefit from insulting Christians as is implied by the butthurt.

          Sometimes you can’t predict the Breitfuck reaction from a simple seemingly anodyne tweet. That’s why they’re so much fun.

          1. I think Obama is to lazy to be an atheist. He has never struck me as a very deep thinker (I know this must mean I’m a racist right?). He is not very intellectual, I know he has a great resume (though it really isn’t impressive in that he has never created any original scholarly work or worked on any major case). In fact other than two books, widely believed to be ghost written, what did he ever do before getting elected president?

            1. While we are discussing achievements, congratulations on your personal contribution to America’s record of failing to win a war in more than 70 years.

            2. He’s held two of the most prestigious presidentiships on planet Earth: Harvard Law Review and the United States.

              What a thin resume!

      2. Obama and Clinton are also big believers in free markets, lovers of liberty, and proud Americans. They said so!

  48. Trump should have said Christians too because the fact is they are targeted by Muslims and it’s about time someone acknowledge that majority status is irrelevant. Anyone can be persecuted and sadly, many people of faith are.

    1. Christians are a small minority in Sri Lanka.

      1. That doesn’t matter to Western SJWs. They’re the majority here, so they can’t possibly be a minority anywhere else even though they’re globally outnumbered.

        Even if Christians were a majority in Sri Lanka, they could still be persecuted. People need to focus less on the demographics and more on whether or not there’s organized and deliberate sectarian violence.

  49. Reason is trying so hard to run interference for Democrats these days.

    1. Libertarians objecting to Republicans’ authoritarianism, bigotry, and belligerent backwardness?

  50. I’m surprised all the comments have focused on the phrase “Easter worshipers”, skipping over Hillary’s first sentence: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence.” In other words, this was an attack on Generic People of Faith by the Generic Forces of Hatred and Violence. Not an attack by Muslim terrorists against Christians. Using the silly and awkward term “Easter worshipers” just added emphasis to Hillary’s refusal to acknowledge the reality of what happened.

    1. She’s also trying to be so PC that she doesn’t ruffle the “I’m celebrating Passover this weekend” crowd. Personally, I’ve never met a Jew who had an issue with being told “Happy Easter.” I say happy holidays because it would be awkward if I said “Chag Sameach” in a <2% Jewish country, but whatever.

  51. My only problem with “Easter worshipers” is that one doesn’t need to be worshiping to be in attendance at an Easter service.

  52. My guess is Trump’s tweet gets a pass because he didn’t make any reference to the religion of the victims, one way or the other.

    My further assumption is that the use of “Easter worshipers” is an attempt to be more inclusive and avoid assuming all those worshiping on Easter are Christians, but given that Easter is literally the defining holy day of the Christian faith I find it hard to imagine celebrating it in a religious context and not being Christian (and particularly while worshiping in a Christian church)

    1. Since “Easter worshipers” implies “Christians” with absolutely no ambiguity, it seems pretty clear that the butthurt is manufactured, as it always is.

      Their aim is not to encourage the precise use of language. It’s to say Christian dicks are bigger than Muslim ones. You know that.

      1. Christian dicks are bigger than Muslim ones

        And the Jewish dicks are even bigger. Hence the reason Muslims are so pissed off at Christians and Jews. You nailed it right on the flaccid, impotent tip with that one, T.

        1. This is a stereotype but does not conform to my experience at all.

          Just more evidence that the Jews are all liars.

          1. Scratch a prog, reveal an anti-Semite.

      2. “”Since “Easter worshipers” implies “Christians” with absolutely no ambiguity,”‘

        Easter worshipers could be pagans.
        Christians do not worship Easter.

        If ambiguity didn’t apply, you would not need the word “implies”.

        1. Fair enough. The Clintons and Obamas should have been clearer and said, “Fuck Christians and their false god. We’re glad they’re dead, praise Allah.”

          1. You’ll have to go to the college campuses to hear that degree of candor.

          2. I was referring to you, not the Clintons.

            1. I’m way more of a heathen and sexual deviant than the Clintons.

        2. Pagans would have celebrated the vernal equinox a month ago. Also they wouldn’t call it “Easter”

  53. Complaining about using the words “Easter worshipers” rather than “Christians” is a snowflake response.

    1. Maybe, but at least they are not trying to pass laws to punish you for using the wrong word.

    2. It’s not a complaint so much as an observation. Complaints are made with the intention of creating a positive response.

      Flaming hypocrites don’t give a shit and we know it. Pointing it out is not ‘snowflake.’

      Whinging about the hypocrisy getting called out is snowflake.

      1. “Whinging” is a British word, and as we all know the British are all homosexual atheists.

        1. Except for the ‘oriental’ British.

          Don’t call them homos Tony, they might just saw your head off in the street.

  54. It’s weird that multiple well-known personalities are using the same clunky phrasing, but does “Easter worshippers” really mean anything more than “people who were at church worshipping on Easter?”

    1. No, it’s not “weird”; it’s an obvious example of them coordinating their messaging. “People who were at church worshipping on Easter” are commonly known as “Christians”. The awkwardness of “Easter worshipers” makes clear they were deliberately avoiding saying Christian.

  55. Petty sniping on Twitter? Another “dog bites man” piece from Reason — but maybe that dictum about news doesn’t apply to commentary?

    Mark Steyn has a good take on the media’s demure reaction to the event.
    https://www.steynonline.com/9317/taqiyya-for-easter

  56. I’d have more confidence in the Sri Lankan govt if it weren’t trying to close down social media in order to get its spin out, but *if* the Sri Lankans are right and these were Muslim extremist terrorists attacking Christians and other supposed sites of Western influence, then the tragedy should certainly be discussed through that lens, not generic “extremists attacking a holy day for many faiths,” etc.

  57. Hitlery and Obozo are never wrong as an proggie will tell you.
    So, for those of you ignorant clods out there, Oboza and Hitlery have worshiped in the House of Rabbit for many years. They are a splinter group of religious dissenters called the “Easter Worshiper.” They believe the Easter Bunny is the savior of mankind, died for our sins of wearing rabbit fur and will rise again once the their holy grail, called, “Jack Rabbit Rising,” is known to all people. Their services are done once a week, and they give thanks and sacrifices to the Easter Bunny if forms of carrots, Bugs Bunny cartoons and pamphlets to rabbits on how to outrun a dog or any other predator.
    Then they all pray and worship the Bunny God while wearing long ears, cotton tails and furry clothes.
    They end their service with hymns to Saint Peter Rabbit before they all hop home happy.
    Any questions?

  58. “Is referring to someone as an “Easter worshipper” really an attempt to minimize their Christian identity?”

    Yes. Next question.

    Seriously, we worship the Risen Christ (hence, Christian), and the resurrection is the epochal moment in his Earthly ministry. But we don’t worship the resurrection, the Crucifixion, his birth. We worship him.

    Easter Worshipers is precisely no-one (*okay* *fine*, preteen chocoholics may care more about the day than the reason for the chocolate).

    1. “People worshipping on Easter” might make you less confused, but this is twitter we’re talking about. It’s rather famous for its standards of brevity.

      1. Because “Christians” isn’t shorter. We all know you’re stupid, Tony, but at least in the past you’ve been able to count to 20.

    2. How many Corinthians do your heroes like, Kristian H.?

  59. I’m surprised it took this long for Reason to pounce on all the pouncing going on.

  60. It should be disturbing that the heretofore unheard-of label “Easter worshipers” was used by so many prominent Democrats, all tweeting in lockstep. That can’t be coincidence.

    1. Probably isn’t. At worst it’s an attempt at inclusive language (not all the dead, or even the Easter celebrators, were likely Christians), but it’s doubtful that it’s a dog whistle to Satanists and the Muslim Brotherhood.

      We will be sure to let you know if Americans start forgetting that radical Muslims sometimes do terrorist attacks.

      1. I doubt they care what Satanists think, but they clearly were dog whistling to Muslims.

  61. […] it. They could have omitted Easter entirely and just said “people” or “victims.” Which, per Reason, at least one other notable politician […]

  62. […] omitted Easter entirely and just said “people” or “victims.” Which, per Reason, at least one other notable politician […]

  63. […] omitted Easter entirely and just said “people” or “victims.” Which, per Reason, at least one other notable politician […]

  64. The Chilean Navy is rushing to protect the Easter worshipers and their giant stone tikis from Islamic iconoclasts

  65. And I bet this will be the only article Reason writes on the religion of peace killing Christians.

    1. Local news story, not really of any larger concern.

    2. We’re not allowed to talk about the fact that genocidal lunatic Muslisms are at war with the entire non-Muslim world and have been for pretty much their entire existence, and that the core central tenet of Islam is that the “infidels” are to subjugated and/or cleansed from the face of the earth by any means necessary.

      1. Kenya’s guest worker policy is clearly of greater concern.

  66. […] omitted Easter entirely and just said “people” or “victims.” Which, per Reason, at least one other notable politician […]

  67. This is such a nothingburger.

    Who cares what happens to Hillary Clinton now?

    1. She needs to be denounced and opposed until her ashes are cold.

      1. Is it the unsecured communications or the corrupt charity that bother you? The sexual perversion, perhaps?

        Because it would be terrible to have such things in the White House.

      2. Losing the culture war — and seeing your bigoted, superstitious, downscale preferences rendered irrelevant as America progresses against your deplorable wishes — seems to have made you cranky, Vernon.

        I hear a handful of street pills is a good salve for that, and easy to find among the depleted human residue left in our left-behind backwaters.

        1. Handfuls of street pills is the most plausible explanation for your shitposts, fuckwit.

          1. Why not learn to welcome decades of liberal-libertarian progress rather than to be a cranky loser?

            1. There is very little libertarian about the “progress” you celebrate. It is authoritarian, and you have made it perfectly clear multiple times that you support the state punishing people for wrong-think. Please stop using the term libertarian to describe your ideology.

  68. Also, why is Reason assuming these people are conservative? Are all Christians suddenly conservative? I know more than a handful of Christians that vote straight line Democrat every single election. Most of them happen to be black – a demographic group that has some of the highest rates of Christianity, weekly church attendance and votes for the Democrat party.

    Fuck you, Reason. What a lazy article. You all should be ashamed that this is the article you decided to feature.

  69. Uh,,,wouldn’t it have been more “efficient” to say Christians as opposed to Easter worshipers?
    No. It’s not benign.

  70. Yes, referring to someone as an “Easter Worshipper” is an attempt to minimize Christians on the most holy of holidays.

  71. […] omitted Easter entirely & just said “people” or “victims.” Which, per Reason, at least one oar notable politician […]

  72. […] it. They could have omitted Easter entirely and just said “people” or “victims.” Which, per Reason, at least one other notable politician […]

  73. The democratic party has an anti Christian bias that is obvious to anyone paying attention. Probably because a solid majority of church going Christians ( at least white ones ) vote Republican. But it also could be the soft bigotry of low expectations from other religions ( i.e they minimize Muslim violence because they hold Muslims to a lower standard ).

  74. I am an atheist. I don’t have a stake in any particular religious worldview nor do I hate anyone who follows a religion. It is, nevertheless, obvious that there is an anti-Christian bias in the media and on the political left in the US and Europe. Were the tables reversed and this was an attack on Muslims over Ramadan, there would be no shortage of clear identification of the Muslims and Islam as victims and clear condemnation of the terrorists as Christians. Instead, we’re treated to “Easter worshippers” – not Christians and with lame excuses for the phraseology – and mostly a complete absence of identification of the attackers as the Islamic terrorists they most certainly are motivated by religious hatred. The hypocrisy is thick and most foul.

    1. Couldn’t agree more.

      They don’t even see their own hypocrisy anymore.

  75. The ridiculous lengths Reason goes to to cover for leftist bullshit knows no bounds!

    Anybody who can’t see this for what it is, which is the left intentionally avoiding generating sympathy for Christians and naming Muslims and their aggression as the reason for this attack, is an idiot. The modern western left is suuuper anti Christian. This is obvious.

    You have to look at these things in context. If some right wing Hindu said it I might chalk it up to poor phrasing… From left wing Americans it is trying to avoid mentioning Christians. The writers are Reason are either intentionally shilling… Or you’re just fucking idiots. Which one is it guys?

    1. Someone will be by shortly to explain how that interpretation of observed events is very un-Easter Worshiper of you.

      1. Mayor Buttgag would not approve.

      2. Probably! But I’ve never claimed to be an Easter Worshiper anyway! Or a Christian for that matter. I just can’t stand how Reason will bend over backwards to make excuses for left wing shit heels, and then crawl up every conservatives ass with a microscope looking to FIND things to bitch about.

        It was different saaay 30 years ago where one could make a reasonable argument line towing Rs and Ds were perhaps comparably bad, just on different issues. But Rs nowadays get about a 60-70% score on the Libertarian score card, and the average D is probably a 10-20%… So why is it that the Ds get a free pass and Rs get endlessly hounded? Most commenters and Libertarian bloggers etc seem to realize the above, but not Reason or most other large libertarian organizations.

        Leftist infiltration I say!

  76. Coming from those two nitwits? Wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

    They were CHRISTIANS.

    I never heard the term ‘Easter worshippers’ in my life. It’s sound made up only a progressive would come up with it.

    1. Why is it so important to you?

      Is it not that you want to make sure you get the point across that Christians are better than Muslims? Is that not the only reason this is causing anyone butthurt?

      1. Compare their reaction to Sri Lanka versus New Zealand.

        1. Most normal people I know were horrified by both.

          1. Tony, it’s because people reveal their true beliefs in the subtleties of their behavior, statements, etc. This is simply example 3,438,612 that the left goes out of their way to protect the religion that is batshit crazy insane and murderous in the world today, AKA Islam, and shit all over a far less crazy and more peaceful one, AKA Christianity.

            That’s not to say they’ve ALWAYS been this way, but it is true for now. Muslims were mostly sane in the middle ages, and Christians have been dicks… But not now. So one has to wonder why they’re shilling for the shitheads instead of the decent people.

      2. Yes, that’s totes what I’m saying.

        I am soooo sick and tired of your deliberate disingenuous retardation, Tony.

        And fuck you. It does matter.

        1. Ack. Drop the ‘fuck you’. You don’t deserve it.

  77. “These barbs are little more than partisan point-scoring. The reference to “Easter worshippers,” while perhaps clumsy phrasing, is hard to see as anything but an attempt to highlight the religious motivations of these attacks, and the fact that they struck at Christian churchgoers as they were peacefully observing a religious holiday. What else is an Easter worshipper but a Christian?”

    Er, no. I hardly doubt those victims didn’t consider themselves Christians. I’m hardly religious but the criticism is deserved and I do find it offensive particularly because it’s obvious there’s a wicked anti-Christian streak among elites in the West. It’s all rage at the cool cocktail parties I guess.

    What’s next? ‘Christmas observers’ were killed?

    And this isn’t about Trump. He didn’t invent a stupid phrase that was bound to be insulting.

    Christians were specifically targeted and murdered. CHRISTIANS.

    Not about scoring points but pointing the height of faux-intellectual nitpicking and hypocrisy.

    Do you recall when Barry said re NZ: ‘We grieve with you and the MUSLIM community.

    Why couldn’t this disrespectful punk say the same thing for Christians?

    Then they wonder why Western nationalism is on the rise.

    Turns out, people really don’t like this. And I’m increasingly falling into that category.

    1. Most people REALLY aren’t into hating their own culture, their traditions, beliefs, etc and constantly having to self flagellate… Which is what the western elites are pushing, and is indeed why nationalism is rising.

      If I wasn’t told I should hate everything about myself quite so much I’d probably be a lot more laid back about things… But since one of the cornerstones of modern leftist globalism is that I personally am the worst possible thing on earth, a white, heterosexual, capitalist, freedom loving, gun owning, American male… Well I kind of HAVE to go against everything they stand for out of self preservation if nothing else. Not to mention the fact that the above described type of person is actually the most awesome type of person, who has done the most to push society forward for the last half millennia… So they can fuck off.

  78. What the hell is going on here? Has everyone lost their minds?
    Referring to “easter worshipers” makes it abundantly clear that they are Christians and also adds the context that it did happen on Easter and that many of the victims were, in fact, worshiping on Easter at the time.

    1. Are you that naive?

      Explain the lockstep use of weird phrasing, and why they never use such phrasing when describing saaay Muslims, Hindus, etc.

      This was bullshit commie talking points from the word Go, that was intentionally chosen to avoid using the word Christian. I’m not even a bible thumper, but I can see this nonsense for what it is. Don’t be an idiot.

      1. Maybe because they are themselves Christians (or at least pretend to be) and know the significance of Easter? There’s one possibility.
        They didn’t need to mention Easter at all. If they wanted to hide the religion angle, why even mention it?

        1. Sooo you’re naive then.

          You’re giving them way more benefit of the doubt than is warranted. Consider current and past behavior, the current “line” to be towed on the American left, how odd the phrasing is, that everybody used the same phrase etc… And the only intelligent conclusion is they used that phrase on purpose to avoid saying Christian.

          Imagine a scenario. You have a child rapist. You could call them a child rapist… OR if you had reasons to want to avoid that exact phrase you could simply say rapist… Or child molester. Or molester. Or sexual harasser. Probably some others too.

          All could arguably be semi accurate, but if one avoids using the most obvious term, child rapist, for a political reason, it is perfectly reasonable to call them out on it. Such is the case here.

    2. Identification — being a fundamental rule of journalism — confuses and dismays hopelessly addled partisan Bible-thumpers and Trump-suckers who are, of course, victims in a vast left-wing conspiracy to remove a fucking moron from office.

  79. I might believe Britschgi’s position were it not for two points: 1) That three prominent (if one considers Castro as prominent) hadn’t used the term, which makes it likely it is DNC talking point, and 2) If they had expressed the same condolences to the entire Christian community as they always do when other groups have been killed in a terrorist attack.

    As to Trump, he might easily have been referring to all the victims–those at the churches and the hotels.

  80. They’re called Christians. This signaling is not complicated.

  81. Look. This is easy. The critics of the phrase are either imbeciles or right-wing grifters milking every opportunity to stir outrage among their marks.

    1. You should apply for a Reason internship.

    2. The people defending this phrase are either imbeciles who can’t see political talking points coming from on high being used to avoid using a word (Christian) the DNC doesn’t like generating sympathy for, or left-wing grifters trying to cover for their sides ham fisted attempt at steering the narrative.

  82. You would think that someone who writes for a living would be more cognizant and sensitive to how important and revealing word choice is. Obama and Clinton obviously were seeking to downplay the Christian identity of most of the Sri Lanka attack victims by using the generic phrase “Easter worshippers.” They are both very bright people, who weigh their words and message with great consideration. Moreover, they both sought to generalize the attacks by divorcing them from their religious motivations, Obama calling them an “attack on humanity,” Clinton reminding us that Easter is a “holy weekend for many faiths.” Nowhere in their respective tweets do we find the kind of specificity that we heard from them in the wake of the Christchurch attack: Muslim community, Islamaphobia, white nationalist. Kinda says it all, no?

    1. Agreed. I wonder who did the choreography.

  83. Christians — America’s persecuted minority.

  84. Well the attacks happened at churches. Who is in churches but worshipers and tourists? And it happened on Easter. So Easter worshipers and tourists. No need to mention Christianity for Obama, etc. Technically correct phrasing but rather neglectful of Christians. But it seems that Democrats have less and less of a need to appeal to Christian voters. Muslim voters, on the other hand, are definitely one of their target groups.

    1. There are an awful lot of black and Latino Christians. I wonder how long the Democrats will be able to take them for granted if they continue this way?

  85. Unpersuasive and poorly argued. “The reference to “Easter worshippers,” while perhaps clumsy phrasing, is hard to see as anything but an attempt to highlight the religious motivations of these attacks, and the fact that they struck at Christian churchgoers as they were peacefully observing a religious holiday. What else is an Easter worshipper but a Christian?”

    Why would all 3 people all of a sudden chose the ungainly term “Easter worshipper”. What a coincidence. It was quite obviously done to avoid saying “Christian” and thus to avoid highlighting the religious identity of the attackers.

Please to post comments