I think that faced with certain demographics in distress there's a knee-jerk "yeah but..." reaction. So in this thread we get a whole lot of scrutiny about who the MOST persecuted are, and a whole lot of other rubbish. and not much in the way of recognising that it's important to not overlook the ones who attract the stereotype of those that "have it good".
I don't believe that anyone has overlooked the suffering of any group that is being persecuted at all, however given the topic of the thread the don't come close to the meeting that criteria. That was the point I was making, not that we should overlook the suffering of any group.
I know the son of a murdered Zimbabwean farmer, and have heard a "boots on the ground" perspective. I think that if you think there is no significant racial motivation in the situation that your attitude falls in the "yeah but..." category. If it's ultimately a government thing, that still very much does not preclude the situation from featuring widespread, severe, and deadly racism.
My wife has family in Zimbabwe and I work with a girl whose family ran a farm in Zimbabwe, so yes I am aware of the situation 'on the ground', however none of that changes the situation that the land grabs were not solely a racial motivation or a religious one (sectarian or otherwise). I would not even put white farmers as the most persecuted group in Zimbabwe, that position would belong to opponents of the government, which while it does include many white farmers is a much larger group than them alone.
Can I see the Mohammad doll figure please. The one that looks like the man.
Which you know full well will not exist, however that was not the claim you were making. No chance of a Ramadan Vader was the claim you made I believe (not even close was the qualifier added), which reads to me a lot like a claim that Islamic religious holidays don't attract 'novelty' goods and can't be used as a way of adding a 'tacky' promotion on the back of a religious holiday (you know the way Easter eggs do).
The problem is that claim doesn't pass muster, given that novelty goods exist for both Ramadan....
http://www.zaufishan.co.uk/2011/08/get-fantastic-eco-ramadan-gifts-from.html
....and Eid....
http://www.thecakestore.co.uk/eid-mubarak-celebration-cake/#.VS19pfnF-So
...they are not exactly hard to find, and as I say the Middle East and North Africa have a ton of them before, during and after the festivals.
Now would you be so kind as to actually answer the questions I asked and address the valid point I raised (or do you need further examples of the fact that commercialization of Islamic holidays and Islam itself exists? As quite honestly as far as the category of 'religious based tat' goes the doorbell I would have hoped to be illustrative enough:
Is the church seriously claiming that it being persecuted because supermarkets make a choice of what product they sell based upon what the public will buy?
Now aside from the fact that decorated eggs as a symbol is not even Christian in origin what are you actually suggesting? That supermarkets be forced to stock this egg?
And yet plenty of evidence seems to show that's not the case or that Christianity still has a privileged position in the west, or am I imagining those 26 seats in the Lords?
Have you watched any of the Fox news pieces on the War on Christianity or the War on Christmas? That's rabid defense.
What about Fox news coverage of Islam? Did you forget that this is the station that had a regular guest state that Birmingham (the entire city - the UK's second largest) was totally off limits to non-Muslims?
You have just posted a piece in which businesses taking perfectly reasonable and legal choices about what they stock is presented as persecution and don't see that as odd? Swap that for a symbol of Muslim or Jewish celebration and a demand that shops stock it and I think you would hold a very different view.