Christian Privilege

dzheremi · Jun 14, 2019

HitchSlap said:
Disclaimer: I sincerely appreciate your response and I've read the entire post thoroughly. However, because of time constraints I may not reply to all the points you've made, so please don't take this as a slight.

Of course not. We've all got work to do.

Baptists are a subset of Christianity, and IMO one example is all I need to prove my point. And based on the responses elicited, it seems to have struck a nerve. Methinks they protesteth too much.

If I also treated all subsets of Christianity as the same, I would probably think that, too...but I don't.

I was raised Southern Baptist.

I see. I hope it wasn't too difficult on you, and am glad to see you at least thinking for yourself, even if we come to wildly different conclusions.

I am truly sorry for your experience. A young person should never have had to experience what you did at the hands of adults that should have known better and should have been looking out for your best interests.

Eh...like I said, as I look at it now as an adult, I can just imagine what a handful I must've been, and how much I obviously didn't fit in with the other kids/with what the adults wanted in their youth group. I try to be sensitive to the fact that not everyone knows what to do in every situation, so they were just bumbling through it, not really any differently than I was. Sure, as a kid (even a young teen, usually), it's normal to think that adults must have a lot of things figured out, or at lot of experiences from which to draw from to help you, but it's not always so. And it's not like I was the only kid there...there were 20-something other kids there at any given time, each of which also had their own stories. Maybe other people's were just easier to deal with? I don't know. Anyway, I don't hold grudges, but I do recognize how that period affected me, in good ways (recognizing that I don't need to be around these specific people, because what should be a helpful experience is actually an emotionally trying one at a time when I don't need any more of that) and bad (the obvious stuff: the insults, the insinuations that I was a 'bad kid' that the others should stay away from, the eventual kicking me out of the church altogether, etc.)

I don't expect anyone to be blindly defended, however, at the same time, I haven't seen too many churches/Christians calling these people out for their behavior.

There are plenty of such examples, but at least in my corner of the ecclesiastical world (Middle East/North African 'diaspora'), they're not really related to the sorts of things the OP is talking about, so I don't bring them up.

How about speech that encourages the act of hurting someone? In this case, they're using "free speech" to advocate the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, unruly children, et. al.?

I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand such speech can be taken as a threat of violence, and hence fall under the provisions that prevent incitements to physical harm or the immediate danger of it. I think this is one of those areas where the relevant rulings seem to purposely leave a lot of grey area as to how they would be applied in any given case that may be relevant to them, which is probably smart given the variety of individual instances that may potentially meet the standard where free speech may be curtailed. See, for reference, wiki's summary of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and the associated rulings and impact. I would assume that the "imminent lawless action" test would be a good yardstick -- i.e., "homosexuality, adultery, disobeying your parents, etc. are all sinful, and God will punish those who commit these acts unrepentantly" is probably fine (that's espousing some kind of theology, anthropology, and eschatology, but nothing more; there's no "call to immediate action" there), but "Let's go round up all the homosexuals, adulterers, and disobedient children we can find, cos God says those people are bad!" is not (that's telling people to go out and potentially harm others for violating religious laws that they are in no way bound to in the context of a secular society).

So I think there is solid reasons for curtailing such speech even (or perhaps especially) in a secular society, yes.

Would you still feel this way if this particular Baptist church advocated your execution because you fit the description of unruly child?

I don't really understand the point of this question. Like I wrote, I recognize their right to run their church any way they want to. I am not their church. I am an individual who went to their church (not entirely voluntarily, either). They don't have any right to lay their hands on me or make any declarations about my physical person for any reason. I don't know if you caught it in my other post, but the doorman at the Presbyterian church I had actually grown up in had been found to be a pedophile (sometime later, after our family had left when the original pastor there retired in the 1980s, and was replaced with a new style 'pop evangelical' shyster...a real slick car salesman type that made my mother and a lot of the more conservative people there uncomfortable), and was sent to jail forever for his crimes against young boys, including sexual slavery. He was not shown mercy by the court, and nor should he have been, because your religion (I don't care what it is) is never an excuse or justification to physically harm people.

So, again, if the Baptist church I went to had advocated for my execution for being an unruly child (I don't know why they'd do that, but if...), I'd say no, that's not acceptable. That is a direct conflict between the personal safety and integrity of the individual (which is paramount, as per the case referenced above) and the right to 'inflammatory speech', which is usually not punishable or censorable...except in cases where exactly such a conflict arises.

This is where we part ways, my friend. I consider hate speech to be harmful and should not be tolerated in a free secular government.

I respect that this is your way of looking at it, but I don't think you can hold this opinion and also be for secular government -- at least not of the type which is fostered in the United States.

Do you think Hitler would have been able to accomplish what he did if his hate speech directed towards the Jews had been nipped in the bud? Would you consider this his right to free speech as well? Somehow defending Hitler's right to advocate execution for Jews because 'free speech,' seems reprehensible to me.

This is a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of my viewpoint. My view is that free speech is to be defended within the limits already prescribed to curtail it within the law. (In other words, I'm for those limits; I think they strike the right balance already between concerns about free speech and concerns about the effects of speech in inciting violence.) Clearly Hitler's speech was more than "Jews are bad and dirty; don't do business with them or be nice to them, because that hurts Germany" or whatever. If he had phrased things like that, he would've been virtually indistinguishable from any of the many anti-semites his time. But no, he proposed a final solution. He wrote about it and gave speeches about it well in advance of actually doing it. And then he did it, and made sure he had an entire state built up around his sick ideology to at least attempt to advance it throughout the world. So he made himself a military threat to the rest of the world. Contrast this with an equally genocidal but much more localized campaign, say, the genocides in 1990s Rwanda, and we had a conflict fueled by ethnic/tribal hatred, spurred on by hate speech broadcast from radio, etc. Kinda Hitler-y, to a point, and yet the world did not do anything about it, because it was not a legitimate threat to the outside world. UN peacekeeepers went in (eventually), but without an adequate mission statement that would actually stop the violence (I was only in my early teens I think when this happened, so I could be remembering incorrectly, but if I recall they weren't allowed to intervene, only patrol and report). Could it all have been prevented by stopping the hate speech there against the Tutsis? Yes, or at least significantly lessened. This is a good example of why limits on free speech must exist, and yet without the kind of legal framework we enjoy in the West, what could anyone really do to stop a Ugandan radio station from broadcasting what would definitely qualify as a threat of "imminent lawless action"? We were woefully ineffective and ineffectual when it came to calling what was going on what it was, at the time.

So, again, I'm not arguing for unfettered free speech all over the place. There are definitely times and places in the pretty recent past when the curtailing of speech was (or would have been, had it happened) justified out of concern for public safety. There's no reason to assume we won't face such threats again in the future, so I'm glad we have the balance that we have, and I hope to see it outlast our modern political circus.

So, if a Muslim Iman began advocating for the execution of Christians and Jews, because it's what his holy book requires, you're happy to defend his free speech?

If the imam's speech did not call for imminent violent action against whichever people (i.e., if he was just reading it in the sense of "and this is what Allah said about this group and that group", rather than "Let's go round up these people and kill them!"), then I believe I'd have to. But there's nothing that says I'd have to be happy to do so, just like I'm sure the ACLU lawyers working on behalf of the neo-Nazis' right to march through Skolkie, IL back in the 1970s probably weren't joyfully filing their briefs or whatever. Sometimes the first amendment puts us in situations we'd rather not be in, but if we believe in it, then we have to trudge on.

Besides, I would want as many people to hear the imam's speech as possible, so as to disabuse themselves of the notion that all such passages are made up or taken out of context or mistranslated or whatever by 'Islamophobes' or whatever. I'm lucky in that I can get the truth from actual native Arabic speakers so I already know that's not the case, but for others they probably wouldn't believe it if it didn't come from the mouth of an imam himself. So yeah, I would defend his right to say horrible things from his book, in accordance with his faith. He has that right just as anyone of any religion does.

dzheremi · Jun 14, 2019

Sorry, but this seems a bit incoherent to me. I'm concerned with those who would pass laws restricting autonomous freedoms based on a bad interpretation of a religious text, and you've wound it down to whining? I'm sure you'd feel the same way if Homosexuals were advocating for the execution of Christians?

I don't see religiously-driven execution squads on every corner, so I don't feel any which way (let alone gay death squads; all the gay people I know are nice...most are my friends). This isn't Lebanon c. 1982 (yet), and Lebanon only got that way to begin with because the various factions stopped being able to share the country peacefully. That's precisely the thing that I worry about when atheists (or anyone for that matter) start telling others how they must believe and behave. That dog won't hunt.

All I can surmise is you're confused as to what secular humanists (of which I am one) actually believe. I can only assume your Stalin reference was for comedy relief purposes only, and not some deep seeded paranoia?

Hahaha. I don't have Russian font support on my laptop yet (just got it last week), but, nu, hotitye kak hotitye, tovarisch' (however you'd like it, comrade). Stalin forced the closure and demolition of churches and used the few allowed to remain open as places from which to disseminate the Soviet ideology and the face of the Soviet Union that he wanted others to see. When I read about atheists telling Christian churches how they must behave, I can't help but think of how strongmen of the past such as Stalin did the same. In his case, it was for the good of Communism, but in your case it can be for humanism. To me it is all the same. Secular Humanism was advocated as the outlook for good Soviet citizens, too, though they might have defined it differently than you would.

"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

Mhm, that is the good side/face of it. It is like the author Salman Rushdie once said regarding the effect of religion (Salman Rushdie being famously atheistic, of course), in an interview with Bill Moyers for Moyers' PBS series On Faith and Reason (from memory, because I can't find my DVD of the interview): "Religion at its best builds beautiful cathedrals and inspires man to the heartfelt contemplation of life's deepest mysteries...and at its worst, it kills people." I tend to think that some variation of that can be said about almost any philosophy, outlook, or way of life.

I think you missed my point entirely. These NIFB's are advocating execution to homosexuals, unruly children, adulterers, slaves, and et.al., with respect to their interpretation of the OT, not in spite of it. And I agree with you, it's an ignorant point of view.

I don't care about some cult you found. I care about the fact that you are speaking from ignorance out of what appears to be a desire to make the most vile group you can find out to be those who are 'really following the Bible' or whatever, while the faith of my own Church is 'watered down' by comparison. That is entirely inaccurate and stupid, unless you are purposely wanting all churches to agree with this cult you found so that it reduces the cognitive load on your brain where you might otherwise have to make distinctions between how different churches interpret the Bible or more broadly live the faith. Well, I don't like such intellectual laziness, especially when it slanders people who do nothing against anyone and still get martyred just for being, all because some unrelated group on the other side of the world that you happen to want to present as the Christians par exellence (because it makes your argument easier) advocates for this or that. Nope. I'm not allowing that proceed unopposed. If you're going to talk about my "watered down faith" relative to some wacky new cult movement that for all I know just started +/- 30 years ago (if that), then the least you can do is at least look at my faith before you make such a rash judgment.

As it is, it reads like a cheap and ignorant smear against a Church that actually is persecuted (not in the West, though some of the interactions we've had with Muslims might make you wonder what country we're in, here in the USA), and not for advocating any of the insanity you find in this cult you talk about, since we don't advocate the death of homosexuals, the stoning of disobedient children, or anything like that. Just because all you've got is a hammer doesn't mean that every particular Church is a nail.

At issue is hate speech, not free speech, as the two are not synonymous, as you would like me to believe.

The two are more often connected than either of us are comfortable with. Some people would even go so far as to say that hate speech tests our commitment to free speech, which I can see being the case with regard to, e.g., the freedom of the KKK or the neo-Nazis to put their messages out there in the public square. I don't like it, I don't want to hear it or see it, but again, that's a different standard than whether or not they are legally allowed to say it. This is a recognition that my morality (which for me, I recognize as being shaped by my Christianity) shouldn't be forced on everyone else, which is the very basis of secularism. You do not seem to be willing to say the same when it comes to speech you deem as 'hateful'. Why is that? Law for thee, but not for me? Isn't that the definition of 'privilege'?

You've created a straw man here, and I understand why.

The "crowded theater" standard with which Americans are probably most familiar (I assume you are in the US; if not, I apologize) is hardly a strawman. It is a way of determining, at least in the abstract, when the line is crossed between free speech and speech that poses an immediate threat to public safety.

For reasons that yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is illegal, would be the same reasons advocating for the execution of people you don't like, would be. If you fail to see the difference, then it's obvious to me how you're incapable of recognizing Christian privilege in the US.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. The crowded theater standard is the same as the standard by which you can't advocate that people you don't like be killed, yes (again, depending on the specifics, it can be argued to pose an immediate threat to public safety), but what does this have to do with recognizing Christian privilege? This isn't a standard from which Christians are exempt; see, for instance, groups like the Phineas Priesthood and other "Christian Identity" losers. They encourage/plan/commit acts of violence, they go to jail and/or are killed by the authorities, the same as other religious groups of all kinds who have turned to violence are dealt with (the Rajneesh cult back in the 1980s, the various Islamic groups popping up over the last few decades in the West, Jeffrey Lundgren's RLDS offshoot cult, etc).

I appreciate the exchange. Take care!

Same. Take care.

Phil W · Jun 14, 2019

HitchSlap said:
No sweat though, as long I John 3:16 before I die, ripples be darned.

If John 3:16 is your back-up plan, you better know how to get "in Him".

Phil W · Jun 14, 2019

HitchSlap said:
Like what for example? Do you have a source where homosexuals are advocating a death penalty for Christians?

If I didn't know better, I would say you are advocating it.
But then again, you are the fringe group of that society, so I will ignore it as you should ignore the thirty some groups you so fear.

No, they are not privileged. In fact, historically in the US, homosexuals have been the recipients of violence, hate speech, discrimination and called reprobate degenerates. Mostly by Christians.

As your definition of privileged seems to include the power to speak out against any perceived enemy, the homo-sexuals have proven over and over they are indeed "privileged".

You're really having trouble identifying free speech v. hate speech, aren't you?

They are the same, when taken to extremes.
Why do you put so much stock in the NFIBs of the world?

lol... advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, unruly children, slaves and rape victims has got you in a tail spin, doesn't it?

Not really.
If some group wants to revert to the OT ways of Jewery, they will be short-lived.
Why not expend your energies fighting against something really dangerous?
Like GMO foods?

Resha Caner · Jun 14, 2019

Occams Barber said:
Your article talks about oppression in Third World countries with a Christian minority.

I'm aware of that, and noted in my post that the U.S. is not currently like. So now you'll explain to me why trends in other places could never happen here.

Occams Barber said:
This is the second last sentence of the OP:
First World Christians aren’t persecuted – they’re privileged with permission to behave badly.
I don't think I could have made it much clearer.

I couldn't have been clearer either. You also said this:
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.

An unfounded statement, but indicative of your desire not to raise others up, but rather bring Christians down. So, as I noted: "I do recall a social study on oppression that indicated groups that feel oppressed, when they finally are freed from that oppression, tend to become just as bad toward their former oppressors."

But again, you'll explain to me how that won't happen because you're immune from the normal course of human events.

Occams Barber · Jun 14, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I'm aware of that. And now you'll explain to me why trends in other places could never happen here.

I'd never say never Resha, That would be stupid. But we are talking about a very different situation. For a start a Christian minority in a country with a majority of another faith. It would take much time and an unaccountable demographic shift to match that. Then we have education, culture, economics, income distribution etc. etc.
In any case Resha my OP was talking about what is, not what you think might be.

Resha Caner said:
I couldn't have been clearer either. You also said this:
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.

An unfounded statement, but indicative of your desire not to raise others up, but bring Christians down. So, as I noted: "I do recall a social study on oppression that indicated groups that feel oppressed, when they finally are freed from that oppression, tend to become just as bad toward their former oppressors."

But again, you'll explain to me how that won't happen because you're immune from the normal course of human events.

Do you see the word "same" highlighted in the quote Resha? That means I'm looking for Christianity to be treated equally.
Atheists aren't oppressed in my country because few people are particularly religious. When you consider a combination of Christian self identification and church attendance we rate as one of the least religious Western countries. Our biggest denomination is "no religion".
OB

HitchSlap · Jun 15, 2019

Phil W said:
If I didn't know better, I would say you are advocating it.
But then again, you are the fringe group of that society, so I will ignore it as you should ignore the thirty some groups you so fear.

As your definition of privileged seems to include the power to speak out against any perceived enemy, the homo-sexuals have proven over and over they are indeed "privileged".

They are the same, when taken to extremes.
Why do you put so much stock in the NFIBs of the world?

Not really.
If some group wants to revert to the OT ways of Jewery, they will be short-lived.
Why not expend your energies fighting against something really dangerous?
Like GMO foods?

You stopped making sense about three pages ago.

You take care now.

Resha Caner · Jun 15, 2019

Occams Barber said:
It would take much time and an unaccountable demographic shift to match that. ... In any case Resha my OP was talking about what is, not what you think might be.

That demographic shift is already well underway in the West, as several on this forum have gleefully told me. And with it, the conditions mentioned in the report.

It's not something restricted to Christians. It's simply the typical result that minorities - those who are different - are oppressed. In the U.S. that has meant African, Asian, and Native Americans.

It has also meant religious oppression. Maybe you're not aware of it, but Catholics and Lutherans were targeted at one time, the KKK being one of the organizations that did so.

Occams Barber said:
Do you see the word "same" highlighted in the quote Resha? That means I'm looking for Christianity to be treated equally.

Uh huh. You also spoke of taking things away from Christians. That's not the path to treating people the same - targeting them as a group to remove what they have that you don't think they should have.

Honestly, you just sound bitter and jealous, and you're looking for a scapegoat. I don't know what your country is, since you won't state it. All I know is that in the U.S. (which is part of the "West"), there are no laws that specifically privilege Christians. My governor and representative are not believers. My boss is Hindu. In that case I don't see how being Christian privileges me - (though I've not felt oppressed by them either).

Therefore, to execute this plan of yours to take away my supposed privilege, you will have to try to pass laws restricting Christians somehow (maybe a jizya), pursue me in court, or join the KKK. What is your plan?

FireDragon76 · Jun 15, 2019

dzheremi said:
Mhm, that is the good side/face of it. It is like the author Salman Rushdie once said regarding the effect of religion (Salman Rushdie being famously atheistic, of course), in an interview with Bill Moyers for Moyers' PBS series On Faith and Reason (from memory, because I can't find my DVD of the interview): "Religion at its best builds beautiful cathedrals and inspires man to the heartfelt contemplation of life's deepest mysteries...and at its worst, it kills people." I tend to think that some variation of that can be said about almost any philosophy, outlook, or way of life.

Rushdie is of course correct- religion is morally ambiguous and complicated.

Thinking about the world in stark ideological terms is a good sign a person is either not as smart as they think they are or that they have a limited set of life experiences.

dzheremi · Jun 15, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I don't know what your country is, since you won't state it.

It's in the info box to the left of all the posts (Australia).

Resha Caner · Jun 15, 2019

dzheremi said:
It's in the info box to the left of all the posts (Australia).

Odd. It doesn't show up for me. It says, "in the middle on the right".

dzheremi · Jun 15, 2019

Oh. Strange. Maybe it is different if you are on mobile? I am on PC, and only use mobile if I absolutely have to, because my eyesight is very bad already. But on PC it is available in everyone's userbox info, if they have filled it in (and the OP has).

Tinker Grey · Jun 15, 2019

dzheremi said:
Oh. Strange. Maybe it is different if you are on mobile? I am on PC, and only use mobile if I absolutely have to, because my eyesight is very bad already. But on PC it is available in everyone's userbox info, if they have filled it in (and the OP has).

If I put the phone in landscape mode, I get more info than otherwise.

Occams Barber · Jun 15, 2019

Resha Caner said:
All I know is that in the U.S. (which is part of the "West"), there are no laws that specifically privilege Christians

I have never talked about laws privileging Christians, I talked about Christians getting away with behaviour which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation. This may or may not include laws - please read the OP for examples

However, if you want to see examples of Christian legal privilege specific to the US, with tragic consequences and absolutely unacceptable behaviour, then use this link:

Religious day cares get freedom from oversight, with tragic results

This is a small quote from the article

Religious day cares get freedoms that are unthinkable at their secular counterparts. At some, workers don’t have to know CPR or have any child safety training. At others, they can whip and spank children. Still others, like Carlos’ day care, do not require workers to be able to see and hear the children they are paid to watch.

These are examples from the article:

· Babies at religious day cares in Indiana languished in dirty diapers for so long that their bottoms became blistered and bloodied, and children wandered alone onto busy highways. Parents detailed these and other problems in 1,800 complaints filed with the state between 2007 and 2014. But in one-third of these cases, child care regulators informed parents that their concerns fell outside the state’s legal purview. “Supervision,” they wrote again and again, “is not required in a ministry.”

· Investigations from Missouri’s child care licensing division show children there were put in dangerous situations dozens of times from 2010 to 2014. Understaffing was a common theme. At one religious day care, a pair of 3-year-olds escaped from the day care and later were found in the rain by police; at another, workers said toddlers were drugged with Benadryl to knock them out for naps and keep them quiet. One 5-year-old boy was forgotten in a van, where he could have suffocated, and told investigators: “No windows open. No air. I got sweaty.” Records show that many of these dangers sparked little more than a slap on the wrist from the state, such as a requirement that the facilities update their parent handbook.

· Children in Alabama faith-based day cares were so poorly supervised that one disabled girl was left to soak in her own vomit until her mother arrived and another 6-year-old was trampled so hard by an older classmate that he developed a brain injury and had three teeth knocked loose, according to parent complaints filed with the state’s two largest counties since 2010. The Alabama Department of Human Resources, the agency that licenses secular day cares, had no power to investigate, let alone shut down any of these religious day cares for shoddy care. Local law enforcement agencies and health departments can investigate problems, but many of the issues parents complained about broke no rules.

OB (Thanks @loveofourlord )

Resha Caner · Jun 15, 2019

Occams Barber said:
I have never talked about laws privileging Christians, I talked about Christians getting away with behaviour which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation. This may or may not include laws - please read the OP for examples

However, if you want to see examples of Christian legal privilege specific to the US, with tragic consequences and absolutely unacceptable behaviour, then use this link: Religious Day Care

I don't live in one of the states listed. My church has a day care, and I know it's regulated by the state. For example, if I go into the kitchen on a Sunday, there are locked cabinets with signage indicating "for day care use only", etc. That's a good thing, but trust me, state regulation ain't no guarantee of perfection.

But even in the states that allow that exemption, it does not pertain specifically to Christians. Any group with a religious exemption (Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise) would be allowed the same exemption. Therefore, all religions are being treated the same. You do realize their are legal forms of discrimination? Small children are not given the same privileges as adults. Property owners have privileges on their property that people who don't own that property do not, etc. At my work place Muslim women are given a Wudu room. I don't get a special room.

It seems to me you're not familiar with the historical state/church entanglements and their consequences. What happened at those day cares is tragic. What would happen if the state became too involved in regulating churches would also be tragic. It's a difficult line to walk, and communities are not making choices between obvious good and obvious bad as you would suppose, but complex issues with muddy complications.

Something I've found amusing is the church sex scandal hubbub - not those who suffered those tragic circumstances, but all the talking heads who know exactly what the problem is. At first the scandal focused on the Catholic Church, and the common line was that the abuse happened because the celibate lifestyle of close male communion appealed to homosexuals. Oh, no! We can't imply homosexuals are more prone to sexual abuse. No, that's not it. Rather, it's the sexual oppression of celibacy that causes the abuse. Then recently the scandal widened and discovered sexual abuse among Protestant clergy. The story changes again - it's not the oppression of celibacy, it's Christians in general that are prone to sexual abuse.

Hmm. Could there be another explanation? Could it be that people regardless of religious orientation commit sexual abuse? Could it be that people regardless of religious orientation, sometimes operate atrociously bad day care? Could it be??? What insanity!!!!!

In other words, dig around a little. Tragically, you'll find plenty of sensational stories about bad day care that isn't affiliated with a church.

Occams Barber · Jun 15, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I don't live in one of the states listed. My church has a day care, and I know it's regulated by the state. For example, if I go into the kitchen on a Sunday, there are locked cabinets with signage indicating "for day care use only", etc. That's a good thing, but trust me, state regulation ain't no guarantee of perfection.

But even in the states that allow that exemption, it does not pertain specifically to Christians. Any group with a religious exemption (Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise) would be allowed the same exemption. Therefore, all religions are being treated the same. You do realize their are legal forms of discrimination. Small children are not given the same privileges as adults. Property owners have privileges on their property that people who don't own that property do not, etc. At my work place Muslim women are given a Wudu room. I don't get a special room.

It seems to me you're not familiar with the historical state/church entanglements and their consequences. What happened at those day cares is tragic. What would happen if the state became too involved in regulating churches would also be tragic. It's a difficult line to walk, and communities are not making choices between obvious good and obvious bad as you would suppose, but complex issues with muddy complications.

Something I've found amusing is the church sex scandal hub bub - not those who suffered those tragic circumstances, but all the talking heads who know exactly what the problem is. At first the scandal focused on the Catholic Church, and the common line was that the abuse happened because the celibate lifestyle of close male communion appealed to homosexuals. Oh, no! We can't imply homosexuals are more prone to sexual abuse. No, that's not it. Rather, it's the sexual oppression of celibacy that causes the abuse. Then recently the scandal widened and discovered sexual abuse among Protestant clergy. The story changes again - it's not the oppression of celibacy, it's Christians in general that are prone to sexual abuse.

Hmm. Could there be another explanation? Could it be that people regardless of religious orientation commit sexual abuse? Could it be that people regardless of religious orientation, sometimes operate atrociously bad day care? Could it be??? What insanity!!!!!

In other words, dig around a little. You'll find plenty of sensational stories about bad day care that isn't affiliated with a church.

The point has flown so far above your head it's practically in orbit - or is this just denial and deflection?

Many Christian day care centres are not subjected to licensing rules, inspections and sanctions because they are Christian. There may well be not-Christian day care centres behaving equally badly but they are subject to licensing rules, inspections and sanctions.

Read the article I gave you.
OB

Resha Caner · Jun 15, 2019

Occams Barber said:
The point has flown so far above your head it's practically in orbit - or is this just denial and deflection?

As also for you.

Occams Barber said:
Many Christian day care centres are not subjected to licensing rules, inspections and sanctions because they are Christian.

Not because they are Christian. Because they have a religious exemption. Do you get the difference? Do you get it that a Muslim mosque could claim the same exemption from inspection for their day care?

dzheremi · Jun 15, 2019

The religious daycare example is a matter of public safety (babies/toddlers are people, and especially vulnerable ones at that) and so should be treated as such. That those in charge are not punished according to the law is incredibly shocking, awful, and wrong, but also says nothing of the supposed 'Christianity' of the organizations responsible. I could start a 'Christian bakery' or whatever tomorrow, and if I happened to poison people or something, the health department would shut me down, I would face fines, possible jail time, etc.

What the cases reveal is gaps in Indiana's child care laws, as well as in the other places where these things happen, whereby people who are not licensed to deal with children are nevertheless allowed to do so. So my question would be: is incompetent oversight or inadequate legal protection in itself 'Christian privilege'? Because such things happen at similarly unaccredited secular institutions as well, as at T.M. Landry College Prep, a high school in Louisiana, where according to students its founder choked and beat some children. It's still very much open for business, despite allegations of blatant abuse and fraud, some of which the founder pleaded guilty to.

Just in case it's not clear, this is one of the situations in which I agree with OB, in that the fact that these daycares are 'religious' shouldn't matter, but the fact that they are unaccredited, not equipped to actually deal with kids, and given no effective oversight due to claims that their religiousity makes them untouchable (due to gaps in the law) definitely should matter, and does, because once again, this is a public safety matter.

At the same time, without excusing the horrible crimes committed by what are essentially illegal daycares (and running an unlicensed daycare is definitely illegal in the US), it doesn't take much to find comparable abuse or worse happening in other religious communities in Western countries which largely (not totally) go uninvestigated by the authorities due to the sensitivity of dealing with those communities. Like how apparently in OB's country, the Royal Commission has not investigated institutional child abuse in Muslim communities, despite clear evidence of practices that would not be allowed in society in general which directly endanger children (forced marriages, FGM, etc.) being practiced in those communities.

p.s. - Christian daycares do get shut down for being an immediate threat to public health and safety...and that example is in Texas, for God's sake! Texas is stereotyped within the USA itself as being extremely religious (as most of the South is), and yet as you can see at the link, when the proper connection is made that this is a public safety issue, not a religious one, actions are taken.

So I really do question (though I definitely get it and agree with regard to the cases profiled in the OP's link) how to properly look at this one...it is clear that those specific daycares are given a kind of 'religious exemption', with horrific results, and yet we also have examples of highly religious areas of the country where it doesn't matter that the daycare is religious -- it matters that it's dangerous! And all places should be that way.

So again, is this 'Christian privilege' or is this 'Indiana having bad child protection laws', or a mix of both...? If Texas can do it, so can Indiana, and I ultimately do not think it is a matter of 'Christian privilege' that Indiana is not doing it (as Texas is much more religious than Indiana is).

TL; DR: Indiana needs to fix gaps in its child protection laws; even far more religious states than Indiana have managed to take down illegal Christian daycares which endangered children. This may be a legitimate example of 'Christian privilege' insofar as being religious is apparently what keeps them from having state oversight, but as it's a matter of public safety and not religious practice it doesn't really do anything to the establishment clause to forcibly close such places.

Final analysis:

Atheists: 1; Christians: however many you think we deserve after reading those godawful stories about the church-affiliated daycares in places like Indiana. I'm going to say -1,000,000,000 at least, because they make me so nauseous, but I think they prove the need for effective oversight of that particular 'industry' rather than a pervasive climate in which Christians are given more rights across the board in society by virtue of their being Christians (also, NB: it's not a 'right' to abuse children in the first place). And to all of us, Christian and atheist, I would ask: If a Christian bakery can get shut down for not baking a gay wedding cake but illegal Christian day care centers can harm or kill children and remain open, then what does that say about our priorities? Do we value gay people and/or their wedding cakes more than the safety of children?

I'd like to hope this is an issue on which atheists and Christians can come together in recognition of the common value that it is wrong to endanger children in daycare centers, even if we disagree on literally everything else. If I lived in Indiana, I certainly wouldn't send my kid to an illegal church-run daycare (I might trust them to people I personally know from church who I know to be responsible and able to handle them, but not to a facility with no accountability, because such places shouldn't be allowed to exist to begin with).

Running an illegal daycare is a big time crime in the USA, though the process getting licensed varies from state to state, so what may be legal in one state may not be another. Every daycare should be licensed and subject to monitoring...religiously-based definitely included. This isn't a religious issue to me, but I can definitely see the point our atheist friends are making here, and it is the correct one, even if I am not entirely sure that 'Christian privilege' is the best way to describe it (since again, abuse of children also happens in secular settings without oversight, so it could also be argued to be a more basic issue of oversight vs. no oversight). But that's all secondary to the fact that kid's lives are at risk in some of these places.

Resha Caner · Jun 15, 2019

dzheremi said:
What the cases reveal is gaps in Indiana's child care laws, as well as in the other places where these things happen, whereby people who are not licensed to deal with children are nevertheless allowed to do so. So my question would be: is incompetent oversight or inadequate legal protection in itself 'Christian privilege'? Because such things happen at similarly unaccredited secular institutions as well, as at T.M. Landry College Prep, a high school in Louisiana, where according to students its founder choked and beat some children. It's still very much open for business, despite allegations of blatant abuse and fraud, some of which the founder pleaded guilty to.

Exactly my (first) point. Maybe you said it better than I. We'll see if @Occams Barber gets the point from you.

dzheremi said:
I'd like to hope this is an issue on which atheists and Christians can come together in recognition of the common value that it is wrong to endanger children in daycare centers, even if we disagree on literally everything else.

I would hope so as well. But before a serious discussion can ever start my second point - the issue of state oversight of religious institutions - must be acknowledged. I realize atheists don't have a personal interest in such things, but dismissing it for that reason is naïve and will sink the ship before it leaves port. It must be acknowledged if you want to have the discussion.

If it is, I, for one, am open to changes to address those day care facilities.

Occams Barber · Jun 15, 2019

dzheremi said:
The religious daycare example is a matter of public safety (babies/toddlers are people, and especially vulnerable ones at that) and so should be treated as such. That those in charge are not punished according to the law is incredibly shocking, awful, and wrong, but also says nothing of the supposed 'Christianity' of the organizations responsible. I could start a 'Christian bakery' or whatever tomorrow, and if I happened to poison people or something, the health department would shut me down, I would face fines, possible jail time, etc.

What the cases reveal is gaps in Indiana's child care laws, as well as in the other places where these things happen, whereby people who are not licensed to deal with children are nevertheless allowed to do so. So my question would be: is incompetent oversight or inadequate legal protection in itself 'Christian privilege'? Because such things happen at similarly unaccredited secular institutions as well, as at T.M. Landry College Prep, a high school in Louisiana, where according to students its founder choked and beat some children. It's still very much open for business, despite allegations of blatant abuse and fraud, some of which the founder pleaded guilty to.

Just in case it's not clear, this is one of the situations in which I agree with OB, in that the fact that these daycares are 'religious' shouldn't matter, but the fact that they are unaccredited, not equipped to actually deal with kids, and given no effective oversight due to claims that their religiousity makes them untouchable (due to gaps in the law) definitely should matter, and does, because once again, this is a public safety matter.

At the same time, without excusing the horrible crimes committed by what are essentially illegal daycares (and running an unlicensed daycare is definitely illegal in the US), it doesn't take much to find comparable abuse or worse happening in other religious communities in Western countries which largely (not totally) go uninvestigated by the authorities due to the sensitivity of dealing with those communities. Like how apparently in OB's country, the Royal Commission has not investigated institutional child abuse in Muslim communities, despite clear evidence of practices that would not be allowed in society in general which directly endanger children (forced marriages, FGM, etc.) being practiced in those communities.

p.s. - Christian daycares do get shut down for being an immediate threat to public health and safety...and that example is in Texas, for God's sake! Texas is stereotyped within the USA itself as being extremely religious (as most of the South is), and yet as you can see at the link, when the proper connection is made that this is a public safety issue, not a religious one, actions are taken.

So I really do question (though I definitely get it and agree with regard to the cases profiled in the OP's link) how to properly look at this one...it is clear that those specific daycares are given a kind of 'religious exemption', with horrific results, and yet we also have examples of highly religious areas of the country where it doesn't matter that the daycare is religious -- it matters that it's dangerous! And all places should be that way.

So again, is this 'Christian privilege' or is this 'Indiana having bad child protection laws', or a mix of both...? If Texas can do it, so can Indiana, and I ultimately do not think it is a matter of 'Christian privilege' that Indiana is not doing it (as Texas is much more religious than Indiana is).

TL; DR: Indiana needs to fix gaps in its child protection laws; even far more religious states than Indiana have managed to take down illegal Christian daycares which endangered children. This may be a legitimate example of 'Christian privilege' insofar as being religious is apparently what keeps them from having state oversight, but as it's a matter of public safety and not religious practice it doesn't really do anything to the establishment clause to forcibly close such places.

Final analysis:

Atheists: 1; Christians: however many you think we deserve after reading those godawful stories about the church-affiliated daycares in places like Indiana. I'm going to say -1,000,000,000 at least, because they make me so nauseous, but I think they prove the need for effective oversight of that particular 'industry' rather than a pervasive climate in which Christians are given more rights across the board in society by virtue of their being Christians (also, NB: it's not a 'right' to abuse children in the first place). And to all of us, Christian and atheist, I would ask: If a Christian bakery can get shut down for not baking a gay wedding cake but illegal Christian day care centers can harm or kill children and remain open, then what does that say about our priorities? Do we value gay people and/or their wedding cakes more than the safety of children?

I'd like to hope this is an issue on which atheists and Christians can come together in recognition of the common value that it is wrong to endanger children in daycare centers, even if we disagree on literally everything else. If I lived in Indiana, I certainly wouldn't send my kid to an illegal church-run daycare (I might trust them to people I personally know from church who I know to be responsible and able to handle them, but not to a facility with no accountability, because such places shouldn't be allowed to exist to begin with).

Running an illegal daycare is a big time crime in the USA, though the process getting licensed varies from state to state, so what may be legal in one state may not be another. Every daycare should be licensed and subject to monitoring...religiously-based definitely included. This isn't a religious issue to me, but I can definitely see the point our atheist friends are making here, and it is the correct one, even if I am not entirely sure that 'Christian privilege' is the best way to describe it (since again, abuse of children also happens in secular settings without oversight, so it could also be argued to be a more basic issue of oversight vs. no oversight). But that's all secondary to the fact that kid's lives are at risk in some of these places.

They are not illegal day care centres. Their right to operate without sanctions, inspections or licensing is a legal decision derived from their status as Christian institutions under separation of Church and state rulings. They also (mostly) get government funding. Some other legal centres may well behave badly but they are subject to licensing rules, inspections and sanctions.

Day care centres run by other religions would probably also get a similar privilege in the same states. Christian privilege is just a subset of a broader religious privilege. In a country with a significant Christian majority, Christian privilege and religious privilege are synonymous. If I were discussing this issue in a worldwide context I could be talking more broadly about religious privilege.

Now you understand one of the direr consequences of Christian privilege I invite you to look with open eyes at the other examples in the OP. Consider the issue of the basic unfairness resulting from inequality of treatment. Consider the broader impact on society where a prestigious institution (Christianity) is allowed to practice (for instance) gender discrimination. Apart from disadvantaging those directly discriminated against, it provides aid and comfort to those elements of society who regard discrimination as desirable. As a Christian, even you should be aware that turning a blind eye to bad behaviour encourages more of the same.
OB

Christian Privilege

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Expert Fool

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Expert Fool

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Wanderer

Newbie

Expert Fool

Newbie

Expert Fool

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Expert Fool

Newbie

Similar threads