Is Christianity dying in the Middle East? New York Times.

The headquarters of a Christian group fighting ISIS in Iraq. New York Times.

\

I'm going to skip the normal format for this post because the New York Times article is far too long to summarize like I usually do. It is a (mostly) excellent article though that poses the question that so many in the west have done so much to avoid asking. Is there any future for Christianity in the Middle East? 

I recommend reading the entire article if you have the time. It's heartbreaking to hear how much ISIS, al-Nusra and the various other Islamic groups have destroyed the culture and people of Iraq and Syria. It goes through the history of the people in the region and what ISIS has done to them. And it shows what the future of Christianity in the Middle East may be. 

What are my thoughts on Christianity in the Middle East? I think it is, for all intents and purposes, over. Almost everyone has fled from Iraq and Syria, with only a few die hard holdouts hanging on. There are refugee camps in countries like Jordan and Lebanon, but I think they will eventually flee from there. After all, would you feel comfortable living in the region when something like ISIS is attacking throughout the countryside? The only reasonable thing for Christians to do in the region is flee or take up arms. 

ISIS attacks against Christians in the Middle East is one of their largest crimes, and nobody in the west seems to care. The government never talks about the Christians in the Middle East, and pretty much ignores what happens to them. And the media isn't much better. I've done my best to post as much as I can about the fate of Christian communities in the Middle East, but even I have only a few posts about the issue.

The thing I don't understand is why? People were very upset when ISIS was killing the Yezidi and there was plenty of outrage whenever ISIS releases an execution video. But the deaths and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Christians? Shrugs at best. 

The New York Times article, though a fairly good piece, tried to go partisan for why the issue was avoided in America. Though disappointing in an otherwise impressive article, it really wasn't unexpected. They blamed it on, who else, social conservatives, who like Israel, not getting along with Eastern Chrisitans, who do not. There may be some minor truth it but they make it sound like that's a major factor. 

I don't buy that. For one, the government and the media are certainly not social conservatives. If anything being critical of Israel would make the left in this country fawn over the Middle East Christians. Because there is little the left hates more then Israel. 

If the New York Times wants to be partisan with the issue then I can be too. I'm going to blame progressives, and more specifically the theory of "privilege". Progressive doctrine, at least in its current, pop culture form, is mostly about who is perceived to be in a better position in society. The position any group has in progressive ideology has very little to do with how well off they are but what "tribe" they are. If they are a member of the "Blue" tribe, ie progressives, democrats, liberals, or a member of a group that generally supports they left, like woman or minorities, they are considered to lack privilege. Those who are members of the "Red" tribe, your republicans/conservatives/right libertarians, straight white males, and, critically, Christians of all stripes, always have privilege, no matter how bad their position is.

   

You would think that the Christians of the Middle East would be less privileged then many leftist groups in America, but because of the tribal war between Red and Blue, the Christians get left out in the cold.You see, to progressives, all Christians are automatically privileged compared to other groups. To admit that in the Middle East, Christians have much less power then Muslims, which is the opposite of the case in the United States, would be damaging to progressive doctrine. After all if there are cases where Christians are getting the short end of the stick, then the idea that Christians are part of the power structure globally is wrong. And it might change the narrative in the United States where Christians are the patriarchal racists holding down the left from creating a multicultural utopia. 

Since progressives can't really admit to themselves that yes, Christians get screwed over sometimes as well, they lump in the Middle East Christians with the obvious Red tribe ones. Which makes it ok to not care about what happens in the Middle East. Privilege theory is pretty much ingroup and outgroup dynamics. To a progressive, Christians will almost always be part of the outgroup, even if we are talking about ones that have been targeted for genocide by ISIS. 

So was that political rant unfair? Not really. The New York Times did the same thing with their idea that the Right doesn't care about Middle East Christians because of Israel. And they made the same argument I did. They said that people that don't support Israel are the outgroup for conservatives, the same way any Christians are the outgroup for progressives...