This is the cult of the New Independent Fundamental Baptist movement.
I hadn't heard of this group at all before this thread. Notice how even you are calling it a cult. Maybe this thread would be better titled 'Cult privilege', then, not for the sake of invoking the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy (unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your view, Christianity is not a gate-keeping religion beyond some basics as in the Nicene Creed, which functions as the statement of faith of this very omni-confessional website; and even then, that's a
theological standard, not a
behavioral standard), but in recognition of the fact that we're actually talking about a tiny minority of fringe fundamentalist nutjobs.
Somehow, I just don't see a Muslim organization declaring a 'make America Muslim again,' if Christian privilege was nonexistent.
(A) That statement doesn't make sense, as America could never plausibly be argued to have ever been Muslim in the first place, so it can't be called to be Muslim again. NB: I happen to be one of those people who does not believe America to have ever been an explicitly/officially 'Christian nation', as I've read the constitution that forbids the governmental establishment of religion, but certainly there is an argument to be made that by self-identification, America has historically been and largely still is at least a
Christian-majority nation. Therefore, if a comparison must be made that brings Islam into the picture, I'd say we're more like the UAE of Christian nations than Saudi Arabia, with the notable difference that UAE still has Islam as its official religion (with all that this entails, Shari'a-wise, e.g., the law forbids proselyzation of religions other than Islam, apostasy of Muslims, marriage of non-Muslim men to Muslim women, etc.),
its percentage of Muslims (72%) is roughly comparable to our number of Christians in the USA (71.9%, and
that's counting only Protestants and Roman Catholics, leaving out all Orthodox who add maybe as many as a few million to the total if you lump Eastern and Oriental Orthodox together for statistical purposes, and leaving out groups which claim to be Christian but are mostly rejected by the Protestant and Catholic mainstream, like the Mormons, who would add another 1.8% of they are considered Christians), and it is a multi-religious and multi-ethnic country, which each religion and group allowed to do their thing,
so long as it doesn't bother the Muslim majority or violate the Shari'a.
The italicized part is obviously not like the USA, where non-Christians are allowed to do basically anything they want that isn't violent even if it bothers the Christian majority or violates that majority's religious code/convictions.
(B) This set of clauses are logically disconnected from one another. How does whether or not a Muslim group would declare their desire to have America become (again?) a Muslim nation have anything to do with whether or not Christian privilege exists? Are you trying to say that Muslim groups don't or can't declare that because they're not allowed, due to 'Christian privilege' somehow? Because there certainly are groups in the USA who do say that. Siraj Wahhaj, the mentor of the leftist-feminist-Islamist darling Linda Sarsour, is infamous for claiming that Shari'a will rule America and other crazy nonsense (and he's a US-born black Muslim convert). In fact, if you put "Siraj Wahhaj Shari'a in America" into Google right now, one of the results you should get is a video on YouTube posted by a channel called "Islam on Demand" that is titled "Islam: The Solution to America's Social Problems". I didn't click it, but it's a ~90 minute video, freely posted and freely accessible to anyone.
So I don't know what your point is with this. Having Christians saying crazy stuff about wanting to make the ten commandments the law of the land or whatever this independent Baptist cult you're harping on does nothing to stop or impede Muslims from saying the same thing with regard to wanting their own laws to rule over all of society, with roughly the same logic at work in both cases (and Wahhaj is not some nobody on the fringe of Islam; he's the former president of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim organization in the country).
It's almost like 'Christian privilege' isn't a thing!
As FireDragon76 has pointed out, they were refused that protection, so this kinda works against your argument.
And other groups can hold other events, and/or protest this one. I can't speak for the OP's country, but that's how America's
supposed to work, not evidence of any kind of Christian privilege at work, since anyone of any background can do anything like this or against this if they choose, so long as they have permits (if they're staging some kind of rally or whatever) and don't get violent.
Really, this whole thread reads like a bunch of smug atheists getting mad at Christians for using their freedoms 'wrongly' (not in accordance with the atheists' secular values, which they take to be the values that society should have), and therefore deciding that we should have them taken away, because we're 'privileged' by virtue of using them, even as my Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Atheist, etc. neighbors have the same rights as I do, not less, so they could also use their freedom to do things that the atheists might not like.
Boo freaking hoo. That's how this country is set up, and it generally works because fringe elements either stay fringe or eventually are told to go sit in the corner until they can learn to play nice with the rest of society. And all of society is a part of this process, so there is a kind of ebb and flow to things as the 'cultural theology' of society is in constant flux, and there certainly are 'fashions of thought' particular to certain eras (e.g., the Moral Majority, big in the 1980s, is basically a non-entity today; the LGBTQAWHATEVER movement, big now, was very much not the focus of society's attention until pretty recently). As the OP wisely pointed out in one of his responses to me, society changes. This is one of the reasons why we have protections for religions, so that they don't
have to 'change with the times', and can instead teach
enduring values, even if the atheist would classify those values as 'discrimination', 'hate', 'ignorance' or whatever else, as is their right if that's how they feel. We still have the right to teach and preach, again thanks to the establishment clause; if you don't like it,
you are the problem, since you're against the establishment clause, which is what both guarantees that America cannot descend into theocracy (sorry, GOP), and cannot interfere with the individual (person or congregation) in their running of their own spiritual lives and communities.
Secularist Shari'a (a.k.a. "I'm a secular atheist and this offends me and is against my values, so I want to make it illegal and punishable as a crime") is not a suitable alternative to frankly incredibly overblown fears of a "Christian Taliban", and what we have works just fine 99.999% of the time, or at the very least much better than any other society which does not have something equivalent to the establishment clause in its founding documents.
