The more the articles the more I read an agenda.

Nothing wrong with using the word Christian. A hell of a lot wrong in what the message is.

They are only Christian in that in many countries through past colonialism, Christians form sizable but minority communities hence when small communities are used as scapegoats, statistically speaking, Christian communities bear the brunt.

The fact that they happen to believe in a book called the Bible is utterly beside the point. It is purely their being there that is someone's issue. In many cases, it is a different form of Muslim, Hindu versus Sikh, Buddhist versus state, whatever.

The articles Keith refers to make the mental leap that being Christian has something to do with it. Pure bollocks. If you want a persecution complex, waffle on about someone dying for your sins or that you are all sinners or whatever mind control freakery your superstition afford you.

But to confuse minority scapegoat tactics with hatred of your particular delusion versus someone else's is an unwanted distraction to the issue of persecution and pogroms in general.

Here you go.   Not a single Christian is persecuted anywhere for any reason. People are persecuted for the convenience of being different and not enough of them to fight back.

So, what is so fascinating with the word Christian in all of this?