But you've heard of Westboro Baptist.
Yes, and...?
And, AFAIK, all of these hate preachers were brought up in traditional Baptist churches.
I don't know what this has to do with anything. Should this thread be re-titled "Baptist Privilege", then, since those are all the examples you are relying upon? I don't really know much about Baptists, beyond the fact that I was forced by my dying mother to continue going to their church in my early teens and I didn't like it at all. Their 'youth leader', a man in his 40s named Bob (keep in mind, I was 13), called me -- in front of the entire youth group and everyone else from the congregation within ear shot in the church parking lot -- the "poster boy for abortion" because I had dyed my hair bright red because I was getting into the punk rock subculture at the time and that's a 'punk rock' thing to do when you're 13. Between my mother dying, having to go to this church that was full of idiots like Bob (nothing like the mostly very nice Presbyterian church I was raised in up until the age of 12 or so, though it did come out later that the doorman turned out to be a pedo; he was sent to jail for life with no possibility for parole, cos y'know, 'Christian privilege'), and being openly insulted for the tiniest bit of teenage pseudo-rebellion, I absolutely hated everything in life at the time and was eventually sat down with the leaders of that particular church and told that I was not welcome there anymore because of my 'negative attitude'. Yes, I had a negative attitude towards being insulted by the adult 'leaders' of this congregation who were put in charge of children, and were completely unresponsive to the circumstances of a child whose mother (the only parent I really knew that the time; dad left the picture when I was three due to heroin addiction and the other pitfalls of the rock'n'roll business) was dying of cancer, and how he might need some extra care and sympathy rather than ostracization and ridicule.
So believe me, what little experience I have with Baptists (my mom only lived until I was 14, so this was maybe a year at most) was very negative, and I was glad to be finally kicked out of their church, and of course when my mother died I stopped going entirely and spent the next decade or so essentially living as an atheist/agnostic/person who didn't see the point in having a religion in the first place. My mother loved God with all of her being and still died a wretched, extremely painful death at 49, leaving behind two kids in their teens to be raised by a drug-addicted, philandering father (he
did love us and help us a lot, and I do love him and I'm glad he's clean now, but I'm just saying it was bad). Maybe if I had had a better experience with the last church I went to before my life completely fell apart, I wouldn't have renounced religion altogether for basically all my teens and into my early 20s. I don't know.
My point in sharing all this is that I think there is this idea in the minds of some atheists that all Christians see things as "Christians are my tribe, and so I must defend everything my tribe does, no matter how stupid, harmful, dangerous, hateful, etc. it is." No. At least I don't think that way, and I don't know anyone who does. These people at this particular Baptist church hurt me very deeply, and its effects were long-lasting. It wasn't until many years later, after I had matured some, that I began to be able to see things from their perspective: we have a child who is clearly in a dark place, and he brings this darkness to what we want to be happy, cheery meetings (they were very much "happy, clappy, tambourine-shaking"-type Baptists; I know others are more "fire and brimstone", but that's not something I remember from this particular group), and he asks questions from a place of anger at God that upset everyone, and challenges the authority of the people we've put in leadership positions (i.e., Bob). We can't have someone like that here.
And you know what? As much as it personally scarred me, according to the US constitution, they were completely within their rights to tell me that I was not welcome there anymore. As much as I think they messed up, as much as it is painful to relive, and all that, what they did wasn't illegal and shouldn't be made illegal. It is not illegal to be horrible, so long as you are not physically hurting someone, and they never did that. They just emotionally hurt me, to the point of turning me off of religion and/or God for a long time.
So I'm not writing from a place of of "No, CHRISTIANS must be defended at all times, no matter what." Some Christians are absolute morons and do some things that I don't think are worth defending, just like some people of all groups are absolute morons of whom the same could be said. Just because you adopt some label (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) doesn't make you above criticism, and while I have forgiven the specific people involved in this situation a long time ago, I still re-tell it this way now to emphasize that, yes, these people
are Christians, and
they have the right to run their church however they want to (including kicking me out of it at a time when I could've really used some love and bonding and all that good stuff), but I don't support what they did. I think they acted wrongly. I believe I now understand
why they did so, but I still think it was wrong, and always will.
It is like the famous quote (
variously attributed) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Because of the establishment clause, in the United States that may be extended to "I disapprove of what you do, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it." For example, I hate Islam (a position which any Coptic Orthodox person who is historically-informed is likely to hold to on some level), but I will defend Muslims' right to preach and practice their religion
peacefully -- even the parts of it which call for the death of Christians and other non-Muslims. (i.e., they can preach from their Qur'an, ahadith, etc. that we and the Jews are inferior beings to Muslims in the eyes of Allah, and "the sons of apes and pigs" and all this, but the second they put their hands on one of these lesser beings with religious justification for doing so, they have crossed the 'no violence' line and will be treated accordingly as criminals, just as any person of any background would be.)
This shouldn't be so hard to understand, and should be rightly seen as the expression of pluralism
within a secular framework, which does allow for what can be called 'hate speech' (that guy over there can hate me because his religion says so, but he can't enact his religious law upon me, because we're not run as a government and as a society according to his religion's law, thankfully), but the alternative is so much more unpalatable, it makes putting up with hate speech (which is defended by very liberal organizations like the ACLU; are they pushing 'Christian privilege', and if so, why do they
also champion such causes as abortion rights, which are anathema to the majority of
practicing Christians of all stripes?) an acceptable, if unfortunately necessary, compromise.
We can all hate each other with words, we can all determine who is and isn't acceptable in our religious organizations, etc., because one person's 'hate speech' is another person's PC language and thought that
obviously everyone should endorse (even if they must be
forced to do so/punished for non-compliance; sounds a lot like how atheists paint religion...), or "word of God", or whatever. So in order to even
have pluralism
and secularism, this has to be the deal across society.
And the United States is at least
moderately religiously diverse (NB: the methodology pf the Pew study on global religious diversity at the link included putting the "unaffiliated" as their own religious group), and also officially permanently secular. There is also, as you can read at the link, only a moderate level of religiously-based hostility, akin to that of several European countries with a similar societal makeup. We pulled this off by maintaining this bargain between the right to religious practice and the right to public safety, with all the tensions that come with it. The OP's idea would certainly eliminate at least some of those tensions, but at great cost to how the society is run and the freedoms of the people within it. And the USA is kinda big on freedom. I'd say it, and not Christianity, is the closest thing we have to a national religion.
Yep, seems to be a loose collection of rouge Baptist themed congregations. If you disagree with their doctrine, they're quick to excommunicate you. Cult-like, IMO
Yep. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. (See my ramble above about my year in a Baptist church.)
If you're ok with classifying Christianity as a cult, then sure.
Latin does. To this day, the language used in granting mixed-religion marriages in the Roman Catholic Church is, I believe (RC people, please correct me if I'm wrong; I never got married in the RCC, despite being a member of it for my prime marrying years), a permission granted for "disparity of cult". And we also may talk about the "cult" of the saints, and so on. The word "cult" did not take on a pejorative meaning until rather recently in its very long life. So yeah, I'm fine with that.
(Sorry. In my off-board life, I'm a linguist. I like words.)
Fact is though, they call themselves Christian, and it's because of this privileged culture, they're able to preach hate, and in fact, the police don't even feel the need to provide protection because this type of hate speech is so common, the majority of the people are not offended, and quite possibly secretly harbor the same sentiment.
Here's the thing: because of the establishment clause, they'd be able to do the same thing if they called themselves anything else. Scientologists protesting psychology is the same phenomenon, since they're legally recognized as a religion (for now). Does this country exhibit 'Scientology privilege', and if so, how did Leah Remini, a famous defector, get a show exposing all their weird, abusive practices aired on a huge, corporate, commercial TV channel (A&E, if I remember; it was quite well done, from what I've seen of it)? Obviously there is not 'Scientology privilege', and since we're talking about the exercise of rights which are available for all, there really is no Christian privilege. There is, at the very most, a Christian majority in the United States. That may not always be so (I'm no Nostradamus, but I don't think it will hold in the long run). but hopefully the establishment clause will stay in place, since it protects
all the groups' free exercise, no matter what they call themselves, or even if they believe themselves to be a 'religion' in the first place. So, atheists included.
But rather than being happy about how well the establishment clause has worked out so far (not perfectly, of course, as nothing's ever perfect, but pretty well for a society of this size and moderate level of religious diversity), you are complaining about something that doesn't exist, that is demonstrably false...that is specifically barred by the establishment clause itself!
It's kinda unbelievable, when you think about how many people around the world would benefit (or would have benefited) from a similar setup, but are/were denied it due to how their governments deal with their different religious groups (Christians and Hindus and atheists in Pakistan and Bengladesh; Muslims in Myanmar; the practitioners of traditional religion in Nuristan/formerly Kafiristan in Afghanistan who were forcibly converted to Islam in the late 19th/early 20th century; the Armenians, Syriacs, and Greeks in the dying Ottoman empire with its millat system; etc.).
But go ahead and whine about nothing while having
all the freedom in the world to do so due to the very setup that you'd apparently like to get rid of in favor of government-enforced secularism.
I don't want any part of that, and I don't believe anyone who does actually values or believes in secularism, liberty, or any of that good stuff. Go play Stalin in your room, and keep it there.
You're preaching to the choir, here. Another poster in this thread has already accused me of not knowing what a "True Christian" really is.
Yeah, they'll do that...I'm going to guess that a "true Christian" is whatever they are? That's very common, but not how things worked historically, again outside of very basic statements of faith that are by now uncontroversial to all but those who are essentially flirting with leaving Christianity and/or don't understand how creeds work, and usually don't want to learn. Oh well. I just ignore that.
My litmus test is simple... if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and calls themselves ducks, then duck.
Amen?
Well, if the OT didn't prescribe death for homosexuals, unruly children, slaves, adulterers, rape victims, et. al., then you might have a point. As it stands, they seem to be more devoted to their bible than your watered-down version of Christianity.
Lord have mercy on the ignorance displayed here. Go learn something about the Coptic Orthodox Church to which I belong and then come back and say that. If you still do, you'll be lying through your 'teeth'.
Here, I'll start you off with the apparently "watered down" funeral prayers for the martyrs of the New Year's bombing of the Church of the Saints at Alexandria, which killed 23 people:
(The people's chant at the beginning while carrying the coffins:
"With our souls and our blood, we will defend the cross.")
If it helps you understand my point any better, feel free to change it to "make America Muslim."
I believe I've understood it just fine. Your point is wrong.
My point was simple; Christian privilege in American culture fosters and allows hate speech, all under the guise of "free speech."
Again, your point is wrong: there is no 'Christian privilege'. There are Christians in a Christian-majority society using
the same rights that the non-Christian has (voting, protesting, being offensive, blahblahblah),
which is how it should be in a secular society. Don't like Christians? Raise up non-Christian politicians and so on, and then vote for them/contribute to their campaigns/sign their petitions for laws that agree with your viewpoint. I think we'll have a lot more of that in the very near future, with the millennial generation being famously non-religious/non-affiliated.
Right, because religious Christian hate speech is acceptable, to the extent police don't even perceive any credible threats.
Mhm. Isn't that a
good thing? Do you
want there to be a reason for police to have to be there?
So you're ok with hate groups spewing violence, just as long as they don't become violent.
That is literally the standard that we have always had. You've surely heard of the limits to free speech being "No shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater". Yes, I'm fine with that. I
have to be because that's how pluralistic, secular societies work. You get to say your peace even if I hate every single word of it, and I get to say mine, and the people can evaluate both of our positions, use their brains and their own freedoms to decide which they prefer, if either.
If you don't see this way as being worth defending for the good of all involved (
not the privilege of this group over that), then
you're the one who doesn't belong in a pluralistic, secular society --
not the Christians you apparently think are such a threat to it.
Things like the OP and some of what you have written sound like a complete nightmare to people of all backgrounds (including all the atheists and agnostics I actually know in real life, who are the majority of my friends and family) who value freedom and the free exchange of ideas, with appropriate protections for physical safety.
Without being smug, are you willing to tell us if you think the US government should execute; homosexuals, adulterers, unruly children, slaves, et. al.?
(I consider this to be rhetorical, as I don't expect you'll honestly respond.)d
Well I'll respond anyway, since the response is so easy:
NO TO ALL OF THAT.
Correct. Secular societies are significantly better, regardless of the metric used.
Yes.
