- Aug 8, 2012
- 6,291
- 7,430
- 75
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Christian Privilege
CF posters regularly complain that Christianity is oppressed in Western democratic society. Looked at realistically the opposite is true. Far from being oppressed, Christians have a significant degree of behavioural leeway in ignoring the rules and standards imposed on the rest of society. Christianity holds a privileged position to the point where it is given, or expects, or demands, a latitude which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation.
Consider the right to ignore rules about gender discrimination. Most mainstream Churches restrict their leadership positions (deacon, minister, priest, bishop, cardinal etc.) to men. Within one Church this is further restricted to celibate, unmarried men. In the Protestant stream, Christian leadership is usually patriarchal. In the limited cases where there is female leadership, this change is contested and has often become the catalyst for division. The problem is that male leadership is so entrenched in the Christian psyche that it isn’t recognised for what it is – blatant gender discrimination which would be totally unacceptable in a secular organisation.
Some Christian institutions (charities, caring, schools etc.) are allowed to restrict their staff to people who follow their particular form of Christianity. This is in spite of the fact that the work these people do doesn’t require a particular religious orientation. Some Church organisations will not accept employees with a same-sex orientation even if they are denominationally correct. A secular organisation openly practising discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation would be publicly castigated and possibly subject to legal sanction. Christianity gets a pass.
There are Christians who believe it is their right to refuse services to homosexuals. Examples include the infamous cake baker and a religiously based foster care placement service. There are other Christians who have indicated that they would also refuse service. This attitude has been publicly supported by some Christian Churches. Again, this type of discrimination, based on sexual orientation, would be unacceptable from a secular entity.
If a First Nations group demanded that its Creation Story be taught as a scientific alternative to Evolution it would not get a hearing. On the other hand, some Christian Churches believe it is their right to have an ancient Hebrew Creation Myth included, as science, in school curriculums, and will use political capital to achieve this aim. There is no legal or factual basis for this demand. There is an assumption by these Christians, and others, that their opinion should be accommodated because they are Christian.
As a general moral and legal principle, we are all expected to report crime if we are aware of it. In the case of child sexual abuse this principle is paramount. At the very least it’s a moral imperative and yet, some Churches have specific legal permission to sit above the law where the crime is revealed in the confessional. Not only is there legal permission but many adherents consider this non-reporting to be an inviolable, moral right. Once again, a secular organisation with a similar attitude would be intensely criticised.
In some Christian churches the idea that women are subservient to the authority of men is openly promoted based on interpretations of the Bible. Within secular society an organisation promoting this opinion would be called out and exposed as misogynistic.
Homosexuals have been publicly described as sinners, disordered, needing fixing, going to hell, unnatural, perverted, an ‘abomination’ – the list goes on. Some of the less egregious terms have been articulated by Christian leaders. Whatever the specific terminology, there are two common factors; the terminology is insulting and; the source (in Christian countries) is usually Christian. Whether it’s the Pope or some evangelical rugby player, it seems Christianity has given itself permission to poke the finger of righteousness at those it disapproves of even where the ‘sin’ has no victim. Some Churches will not allow practising homosexuals to worship in their congregation. In the secular world this sort of behaviour is called discrimination and vilification - and we’re called out if we do it.
There are other things I could list, like tax exemptions, banning homosexual students, insulting other religions, denying science and considering itself above the law, where Christianity gets let off lightly.
The point I’m making is that no secular organisation could come close to getting away with the sort of behaviour we accept, and even expect, from Christianity and Christians. First World Christians aren’t persecuted – they’re privileged with permission to behave badly.
In time, I hope to see these privileges withdrawn to the point where Christianity will be required to comply with the same moral standards we demand of other parts of society.
OB
CF posters regularly complain that Christianity is oppressed in Western democratic society. Looked at realistically the opposite is true. Far from being oppressed, Christians have a significant degree of behavioural leeway in ignoring the rules and standards imposed on the rest of society. Christianity holds a privileged position to the point where it is given, or expects, or demands, a latitude which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation.
Consider the right to ignore rules about gender discrimination. Most mainstream Churches restrict their leadership positions (deacon, minister, priest, bishop, cardinal etc.) to men. Within one Church this is further restricted to celibate, unmarried men. In the Protestant stream, Christian leadership is usually patriarchal. In the limited cases where there is female leadership, this change is contested and has often become the catalyst for division. The problem is that male leadership is so entrenched in the Christian psyche that it isn’t recognised for what it is – blatant gender discrimination which would be totally unacceptable in a secular organisation.
Some Christian institutions (charities, caring, schools etc.) are allowed to restrict their staff to people who follow their particular form of Christianity. This is in spite of the fact that the work these people do doesn’t require a particular religious orientation. Some Church organisations will not accept employees with a same-sex orientation even if they are denominationally correct. A secular organisation openly practising discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation would be publicly castigated and possibly subject to legal sanction. Christianity gets a pass.
There are Christians who believe it is their right to refuse services to homosexuals. Examples include the infamous cake baker and a religiously based foster care placement service. There are other Christians who have indicated that they would also refuse service. This attitude has been publicly supported by some Christian Churches. Again, this type of discrimination, based on sexual orientation, would be unacceptable from a secular entity.
If a First Nations group demanded that its Creation Story be taught as a scientific alternative to Evolution it would not get a hearing. On the other hand, some Christian Churches believe it is their right to have an ancient Hebrew Creation Myth included, as science, in school curriculums, and will use political capital to achieve this aim. There is no legal or factual basis for this demand. There is an assumption by these Christians, and others, that their opinion should be accommodated because they are Christian.
As a general moral and legal principle, we are all expected to report crime if we are aware of it. In the case of child sexual abuse this principle is paramount. At the very least it’s a moral imperative and yet, some Churches have specific legal permission to sit above the law where the crime is revealed in the confessional. Not only is there legal permission but many adherents consider this non-reporting to be an inviolable, moral right. Once again, a secular organisation with a similar attitude would be intensely criticised.
In some Christian churches the idea that women are subservient to the authority of men is openly promoted based on interpretations of the Bible. Within secular society an organisation promoting this opinion would be called out and exposed as misogynistic.
Homosexuals have been publicly described as sinners, disordered, needing fixing, going to hell, unnatural, perverted, an ‘abomination’ – the list goes on. Some of the less egregious terms have been articulated by Christian leaders. Whatever the specific terminology, there are two common factors; the terminology is insulting and; the source (in Christian countries) is usually Christian. Whether it’s the Pope or some evangelical rugby player, it seems Christianity has given itself permission to poke the finger of righteousness at those it disapproves of even where the ‘sin’ has no victim. Some Churches will not allow practising homosexuals to worship in their congregation. In the secular world this sort of behaviour is called discrimination and vilification - and we’re called out if we do it.
There are other things I could list, like tax exemptions, banning homosexual students, insulting other religions, denying science and considering itself above the law, where Christianity gets let off lightly.
The point I’m making is that no secular organisation could come close to getting away with the sort of behaviour we accept, and even expect, from Christianity and Christians. First World Christians aren’t persecuted – they’re privileged with permission to behave badly.
In time, I hope to see these privileges withdrawn to the point where Christianity will be required to comply with the same moral standards we demand of other parts of society.
OB