Christian Privilege

Resha Caner · Jun 15, 2019

Resha Caner said:
Maybe you said it better than I. We'll see if Occams Barber gets the point from you.

I guess not … Wait for it … wait for it ...

Occams Barber said:
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.

And there it is. Now the church has to conform to Occams' morals.

I'm out. I hope you find peace.

Occams Barber · Jun 15, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I guess not … Wait for it … wait for it ...

And there it is. Now the church has to conform to Occams' morals.

I'm out. I hope you find peace.

For the three hundred and twenty seventh time - I have consistently talked about Christianity conforming to the standards society expects from non-Christian institutions.

Not my morals or standards - those of the broader society.
OB

The Transcendentian · Jun 16, 2019

HitchSlap said:
This is fine and all, but in the meantime, there is a growing sentiment among the NIFB crowd that believe homosexuals and unruly children should be executed.

Indeed they should be executed, only when it's God himself doing the killing. He has the right to take the life that He has given, it belongs to Him.
I believe that God does not want Christians to kill people for breaking His law.
God clearly says that ALL of us deserve death.

Romans 3:23 ESV
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 6:23 ESV
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Occams Barber said:
... conforming to the standards society expects ...

So, right and wrong, ethics, are defined and enforced by popular opinion?

In the past, "Christain privilege" was a real thing. Not so anymore. Christians aren't currently actually persecuted in "The First World". We will be if your side succeeds in obtaining all political power in the world.

Resha Caner · Jun 16, 2019

Occams Barber said:
Not my morals or standards - those of the broader society.

You know there are examples of what society has, at times, accepted and even enforced that you think is unacceptable and would resist. There's no point going through the list.

thecolorsblend · Jun 16, 2019

Occams Barber said:
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.

In the American tradition, religion in general has always been given an extraordinary amount of leeway. The American government recognizes that it has at best limited legal authority to regulate religious groups. They must comply with most elements of the legal code but, beyond that, the government simply lacks the authority to impose upon religious groups.

I hear so often about the need for a separation of Church and state. But in those instances where Church and state truly are separated from each other, it appears that the separatist cheerleaders complain the most.

Occams Barber said:
Some Christian institutions (charities, caring, schools etc.) are allowed to restrict their staff to people who follow their particular form of Christianity.

Should they be compelled to hire atheists?

It's worth mentioning that a lot of Catholic schools will hire Protestant teachers. In such cases, the catch is usually similar to the rules of OBOB: they cannot teach against Catholicism. Protestants who accept such teaching posts largely do not seem to believe they're being treated unfairly.

Occams Barber said:
This is in spite of the fact that the work these people do doesn’t require a particular religious orientation.

With respect, this willfully overlooks the reality that teaching allows, and sometimes demands, an educator to impart their worldview upon the student body.

Occams Barber said:
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.

A lot of businesses have signs up saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. Common examples are "No shirt, no shoes, no service". Do businesses have the right to refuse service to would-be customers or not?

If your answer is "No", should society apply that to 100% of society without exceptions?

If your answer is "Yes", again, should society apply that to 100% of society without exceptions?

Occams Barber said:
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.

The US government has long recognized the need for religious groups who believe in Confession to have a privileged relationship with their faithful in exercising their ministries.

This privilege is comparable to that which exists between attorneys and their clients, doctors and their patients, reporters and their sources, accountants and their clients, etc. Are those privileges similarly corrupt? If so, I would assume you advocate dispensing with them as well, right?

Occams Barber said:
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.

The Christian groups who teach such things frequently are called out.

Occams Barber said:
Homosexuals have been publicly described as sinners, disordered, needing fixing, going to hell, unnatural, perverted, an ‘abomination’ – the list goes on.

Are Christians and Church groups permitted to express an opinion?

Occams Barber said:
There are other things I could list, like tax exemptions,

Freedom of religion in America is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Taxation is by its nature burdensome. So, with respect, it would be obtuse to suggest that religious groups should bear the burden of taxation on the one hand while claiming that they have religious freedom on the other.

Occams Barber said:
banning homosexual students,

I think this falls rather comfortably under the "free exercise of religion" mentioned in the Constitution. And, arguably, freedom of association, which is another privilege recognized in American society. In any case, there is no compulsion for outsiders to agree with those sentiments. And, I might add, there is no obstacle preventing outsiders from starting their own educational institutions which welcome LGBT students.

Occams Barber said:
insulting other religions,

Matters of opinion. Here again, no compulsion exists for outsiders to agree with those sentiments.

Occams Barber said:
denying science

lolwut?

Occams Barber said:
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.

This is a theme which was hammered home again and again through your post.

Occams Barber said:
a latitude which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation.

Occams Barber said:
discrimination which would be totally unacceptable in a secular organisation.

Occams Barber said:
A secular organisation openly practising discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation would be publicly castigated

Occams Barber said:
Again, this type of discrimination, based on sexual orientation, would be unacceptable from a secular entity.

Occams Barber said:
Once again, a secular organisation with a similar attitude would be intensely criticised.

Occams Barber said:
In the secular world this sort of behaviour is called discrimination and vilification

An ignorant observer might think someone who writes statements like those (A) resents the "privilege" Christians have in society and (B) wants that privilege for himself. The tone of the post doesn't come off to me as a call for reform. Rather, it reads like part of a manifesto where the writer wants the "privileges" for his group but not for others.

I recognize that this may not be the message you intended to convey. But it is nevertheless the message which I received.

In the end, it appears that the post is assuming the "secular" worldview to be the default position and, on that basis, the only valid position. This attitude flies in the face of western civilization's history, particularly the American tradition. When America was a more predominantly Christian country, our legal tradition was generally structured in such a way as to recognize that "secular" citizenship was an entire order of magnitude lower in priority to religious, specifically Christian in our case, affiliation.

Such assumptions are still vestigial in the social, legal and other orders. Bluntly, I think the American system has been mutilated beyond recognition quite enough. It's probably time to leave things alone. If anything, it's probably time to roll some of these unnecessary "secular" incursions into religious practice back.

Pommer · Jun 16, 2019

GodsGrace101 said:
I guess one hand washes the other.
The same could be said about secular atheist religion.

I was sorely tempted to stop reading but, I’m a glutton for punishment, so...

Christianity should NEVER be required to comply with the law of secular governments that accept everything.

“Rule-of-Law” does not comport well with an “a la carte” philosophy that allows the majority to enforce laws (or ignore same), to promote their sectarian mores.

Do YOU accept Christianity?
No.
So why do you think the Christian world should accept YOUR standards?

“The law of the land” is not “good enough” to live under?

We prefer the standards of God.
You don't have to accept them...and it's apparent atheists do not...

So please don't feel sorry for us because we do.

BTW, YOU also follow God's rules.

All this and Heaven TOO?

Pommer · Jun 16, 2019

Having read most of the thread...

The OP seemingly disregarded First Amendment Rights that are not in the text of the Glorious First, but derive from it.
To wit:

First Amendment said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That part in red there, is key, here, I’m guessing.

You have the Right to your religion (or no religion) and if that religion says “no women in LEADERSHIP”, that would obviously be a case where Religion trumps Secular Government, save that, the “free-association” clause, there, also allows you to gather with other people who decry female ministers. If these people belong to (or start) a religion, that has a “boys only” sign on it, that’s their right to do that. No one can be forced to attend such a House of Worship, either.

But the larger problem the OP has, is convincing American Evangelicals (as well as some of the other of the 35,000 denominations) ,that they are privileged.
Heck, even having this many sects should set off the alarm that Christians are so privileged that if they don’t like their church they can simply go to another one that suits their tastes!

Imagine living in a country where you could belong to any religion that you do desired...so long as it was the right One”.

Got that? Mull it over, THINK about it.
You wouldn’t like that at all, would you?
Yet, this is where millions of people who are Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, atheistic, et. al....who live with this reality everyday!

For the “but Muslims are worse” crowd...how many schools, sects or divisions within Islam do you know about?

Oh, there’s plenty, no doubt, but I do not think they’ve achieved 3,500, yet alone, 35,000!

Occams Barber · Jun 16, 2019

Pommer said:
Having read most of the thread...

The OP seemingly disregarded First Amendment Rights that are not in the text of the Glorious First, but derive from it.
To wit:

That part in red there, is key, here, I’m guessing.

You have the Right to your religion (or no religion) and if that religion says “no women in LEADERSHIP”, that would obviously be a case where Religion trumps Secular Government, save that, the “free-association” clause, there, also allows you to gather with other people who decry female ministers. If these people belong to (or start) a religion, that has a “boys only” sign on it, that’s their right to do that. No one can be forced to attend such a House of Worship, either.

But the larger problem the OP has, is convincing American Evangelicals (as well as some of the other of the 35,000 denominations) ,that they are privileged.
Heck, even having this many sects should set off the alarm that Christians are so privileged that if they don’t like their church they can simply go to another one that suits their tastes!

Imagine living in a country where you could belong to any religion that you do desired...so long as it was the right One”.

Got that? Mull it over, THINK about it.
You wouldn’t like that at all, would you?
Yet, this is where millions of people who are Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, atheistic, et. al....who live with this reality everyday!

For the “but Muslims are worse” crowd...how many schools, sects or divisions within Islam do you know about?

Oh, there’s plenty, no doubt, but I do not think they’ve achieved 3,500, yet alone, 35,000!

This thread is about Christianity in Western (Christian) democratic societies. It isn't specifically about the USA although many posters seem to imagine that that's all there is. I've argued that Christian Churches are given (or take) permission to behave in ways that would be unacceptable for a secular institution.

Whether this privilege derives from the US constitution (in the US) or some informal French habit (in France) is irrelevant to the argument. I'm afraid "It's ok because its legal" is not an argument, (see Post #154 for a horrendous example of legal Christian privilege in the USA) Nor am I denying that laws or conventions about religion can be reasonable.

Heck, there might even be a decent argument about why they should get the sort of privileges I've mentioned, but I've yet to see it. So far the only reasoning I've seen are arguments telling me they get Christian privilege because they're Christian. The circularity is obvious.

OB

Pommer · Jun 16, 2019

Occams Barber said:
This thread is about Christianity in Western (Christian) democratic societies. It isn't specifically about the USA although many posters seem to imagine that that's all there is. I've argued that Christian Churches are given (or take) permission to behave in ways that would be unacceptable for a secular institution.

Whether this privilege derives from the US constitution (in the US) or some informal French habit (in France) is irrelevant to the argument. I'm afraid "It's ok because its legal" is not an argument, (see Post #154 for a horrendous example of legal Christian privilege in the USA) Nor am I denying that laws or conventions about religion can be reasonable.

Heck, there might even be a decent argument about why they should get the sort of privileges I've mentioned, but I've yet to see it. So far the only reasoning I've seen are arguments telling me they get Christian privilege because they're Christian. The circularity is obvious.

OB

I’m not disagreeing with you as much as, yes, being USA-centric because that where I’m. The “how does thing relate to me & mine?” thing is going to pop up no matter the flavor of religious views a person may hold.

Occams Barber · Jun 16, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
In the American tradition, religion in general has always been given an extraordinary amount of leeway.

Firstly this thread is not about America. Secondly this is exactly my point. Why should Christianity get away with bad behaviour (as defined by society) where secular organisations would be socially (or legally) sanctioned?

thecolorsblend said:
It's worth mentioning that a lot of Catholic schools will hire Protestant teachers. In such cases, the catch is usually similar to the rules of OBOB: they cannot teach against Catholicism. Protestants who accept such teaching posts largely do not seem to believe they're being treated unfairly.

Great - so they aren't discriminating.

thecolorsblend said:
With respect, this willfully overlooks the reality that teaching allows, and sometimes demands, an educator to impart their worldview upon the student body.

Make up your mind. If one Catholic school can employ Protestants then there doesn't appear to be a worldview issue.

thecolorsblend said:
A lot of businesses have signs up saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. Common examples are "No shirt, no shoes, no service". Do businesses have the right to refuse service to would-be customers or not?

This is disingenuous. As you well know there are groups which are usually protected based on historic discrimination. Is refusing service to brown people ok ?

thecolorsblend said:
The US government has long recognized the need for religious groups who believe in Confession to have a privileged relationship with their faithful in exercising their ministries.

Then the US Government will need to do something about Guam, New Hampshire, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Texas. They all reject confessional privilege.
“… among the States that list clergy as mandated reporters, Guam, New Hampshire, and West Virginia deny the clergy penitent privilege in cases of child abuse or neglect. Four of the States that enumerate “any person” as a mandated reporter (North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Texas) also deny clergy-penitent privilege in child abuse cases.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf#page=2&view=Privileged communications
Internationally several Australia States have laws removing confessional privilege. The Irish Republic has similar laws. You've basically told me that they should get privilege because they 'need' it. That isn't a reason.

thecolorsblend said:
The Christian groups who teach such things frequently are called out.

Great. There should be more of it. The issue here is that some churches assume that it's ok because they are Christian.

thecolorsblend said:
Are Christians and Church groups permitted to express an opinion?

Certainly. Under the same set of conditions which govern other parts of society. Christianity appears to go out of its way to be nasty.

thecolorsblend said:
Freedom of religion in America is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Taxation is by its nature burdensome. So, with respect, it would be obtuse to suggest that religious groups should bear the burden of taxation on the one hand while claiming that they have religious freedom on the other.

Beacause it's a law doesn't mean we can ignore the issue of equal treatment.

thecolorsblend said:
I think this falls rather comfortably under the "free exercise of religion" mentioned in the Constitution. And, arguably, freedom of association, which is another privilege recognized in American society. In any case, there is no compulsion for outsiders to agree with those sentiments. And, I might add, there is no obstacle preventing outsiders from starting their own educational institutions which welcome LGBT students.

Once again - law is not the issue and we don't all live in the US. Secular society is normally not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. Why should Christianity get special treatment?

thecolorsblend said:
Matters of opinion. Here again, no compulsion exists for outsiders to agree with those sentiments.

It only matters if Christianity is treated differently to secular society. I suspect we'd probably see a public reaction if Walmart purposely insulted the Hindu religion.

thecolorsblend said:
lolwut?

Evolution, the flood, the age of the universe, Tower of Babel. To a lesser extent vaccination and climate change.

thecolorsblend said:
This is a theme which was hammered home again and again through your post.

Intentionally hammered to make it clear that I was talking about special privilege afforded to Christian institutions.

You should also consider that a society's worldview and a Christian worldview can differ even if Christianity is part of that society, (acceptance of homosexuality and SSM is a classic example).

I have repeatedly said that I'm arguing for equal treatment. No more, no less.
OB

Occams Barber · Jun 16, 2019

Pommer said:
I’m not disagreeing with you as much as, yes, being USA-centric because that where I’m. The “how does thing relate to me & mine?” thing is going to pop up no matter the flavor of religious views a person may hold.

Hi Pommer
Sorry of I appeared to be critical. One of the big problems with CF is that, since it's predominately full of Americans, there's an unfortunate tendency to see America as the only part of the world which counts and to see your Constitution as Holy Writ. For those of us who aren't Americans this can get very annoying. Its also an attitude which has dogged me in this thread.

I used your post to make a point - Christianity and Christian privilege is an international phenomenon.

I'm sorry if I came off a bit snarky.
OB

thecolorsblend · Jun 16, 2019

Occams Barber said:
Firstly this thread is not about America.

Indeed, it is not. At least, not specifically. But since I specifically am American, that is the perspective which I speak from. That is why much of my reply specifies my citizenship. As an American, I have no real place dictating what other countries should or should not do with respect to their establishment of religion (if any).

This courtesy is very rarely returned by non-Americans, who are only too eager to tell me where my country is going wrong.

Occams Barber said:
Why should Christianity get away with bad behaviour (as defined by society) where secular organisations would be socially (or legally) sanctioned?

Because they have a legal right to state their views, both in law and in America's cultural tradition. Others are not obligated to listen. If they choose to listen, they are not obligated to agree.

But the impression I get from your posts on this subject is that you would happily use the coercive power of government to silence these groups simply because you don't agree with what they say.

Occams Barber said:
Make up your mind. If one Catholic school can employ Protestants then there doesn't appear to be a worldview issue.

You are conflating two unrelated issues. My example of a Catholic school hypothetical practice of hiring Protestant teachers indicates that your claim about "discrimination" is misleading at best.

The practice is not without merit. There are many instances when an institution would do well to only hire like-minded employees. It would be quite surprising to find a socialist think tank employing large numbers of libertarians simply to avoid the appearance of "discrimination". Your critique of religious groups hiring preferences extending primarily, if not exclusively, to adherents of their faith overlooks the plain truth that such organizations need such restrictive hiring policies in order to maintain unity of message.

As regards the worldview issue I mentioned, do you deny that a Protestant is a likely closer match to a Catholic worldview than, for example, a Sam Harris-tier atheist?

Occams Barber said:
This is disingenuous. As you well know there are groups which are usually protected based on historic discrimination. Is refusing service to brown people ok ?

The laws in my country are rather clear on that.

Occams Barber said:
Then the US Government will need to do something about Guam, New Hampshire, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Texas. They all reject confessional privilege.

Many of those laws are either recent or else largely untested in court. Indeed, something does need to be done about them. You are right about that much.

Occams Barber said:
Beacause it's a law doesn't mean we can ignore the issue of equal treatment.

I don't see the connection between this statement and my remark that taxation would represent a burden which makes a mockery of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by my country's constitution. Am I perhaps missing your point here?

Occams Barber said:
Once again - law is not the issue

It seems to be very much the issue, at least when you believe that citing the law represents an appeal to authority. When the law does not support your policy preferences, it seems that there's some higher "secular" ideal which society should pursue.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

Occams Barber said:
we don't all live in the US.

Times are changing.

In all seriousness though, as above, I speak from an American viewpoint. Not Brazilian, not German, not Russian, not Australian. These are the terms by which I participate in this discussion. If you do not wish to abide by my terms, that is fine. You may ignore my posts as you see fit.

Occams Barber said:
Secular society is normally not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. Why should Christianity get special treatment?

You do grasp that American law regards "secular" institutions differently from religious institutions, yes? I believe I have been fairly clear on this point. The American government has limited authority to regulate religious groups.

Occams Barber said:
It only matters if Christianity is treated differently to secular society. I suspect we'd probably see a public reaction if Walmart purposely insulted the Hindu religion.

Indeed we would. Walmart is a publicly traded company which is answerable to shareholders, not to mention a public who might not take kindly to members of the public being singled out for insults and belittlement.

A religious group who has a religious critique of the religious viewpoints of Hinduism as a religion, however, is well within its rights (morally, legally, socially, etc) to offer a differing opinion regarding Hindu beliefs and tenets.

Occams Barber said:
Evolution

Without getting sidetracked into meaningless tangents, creation as proponents believe in it cannot be reproduced in laboratory conditions. By that same token, the exact degree of evolution which many scientists subscribe to is also not possible to reproduce in laboratory conditions.

On a personal note, I find that a certain amount of evolution is simply undeniable. How that squares with the universe as God's creation is above my paygrade. I don't understand why people find it so difficult to say "I don't know" on this subject. Because they don't know. They can speculate, hypothesize, suggest, recommend, study; but know? That's simply not possible with the data currently available.

Occams Barber said:
the flood

As an article of religious faith, I don't see why this should be bothersome to non-believers. But in relation to the flood of Genesis as an historical event, adherents of that viewpoint have offered evidence for why they believe what they do beyond merely "the Bible tells me so". Rather than harangue me over that (as my faith does not rise and fall based on whether the flood described in Genesis is a statement of literal fact vs. a useful allegorical lesson teaching a spiritual truth, though not necessarily a historical account), wouldn't a more effective use of your time be a thoughtful rebuttal to the case made by flood-believers?

To be clear, I recognize that adherents of the flood narrative bear the burden of proof in this matter.

Occams Barber said:
the age of the universe

As is the case with discussions about evolution, the data currently available cannot give an answer to this matter with absolute certainty. Therefore, I don't see the harm in allowing different points of view to exist on this subject.

Occams Barber said:
Tower of Babel

Forgive me but I do not see the "science-denying" implications of believing in or not believing in the historicity of the tower of Babel narrative found in Sacred Scripture. Here again, I might be missing your point so I welcome clarification on this.

Occams Barber said:
To a lesser extent vaccination and climate change.

I might have written "To no extent". I suppose that skeptics on those subjects are free to believe anything they like. But I do not see how a religious viewpoint can legitimately exist on either of those subjects. I don't recall seeing anybody refer to a specific part of scripture or their religious leaders' teachings to justify disbelief in those things, though I acknowledge that such possibly has happened. But I would find such arguments weak and unconvincing.

In any case, it remains inaccurate to paint all religious people with so broad a brush.

Occams Barber said:
Intentionally hammered to make it clear that I was talking about special privilege afforded to Christian institutions.

Which, again, is extended to all religious groups in America precisely because they are not "secular".

Occams Barber said:
You should also consider that a society's worldview and a Christian worldview can differ even if Christianity is part of that society, (acceptance of homosexuality and SSM is a classic example).

I acknowledge that the "secular" world may have differing opinions on certain subjects than do religious people. However, I refuse to acknowledge the validity and/or the correctness of the "secular" viewpoint simply because it is "secular".

As a matter of anecdotal "evidence", I have observed that the tendency among secularists is to assume the rightness of their cause and message by simple virtue of their belief in "secularism". The logic appears to be that an idea conjured by secularism is correct, ipso facto. I see this as ironic given that my co-religionists are so often derisively labeled "dogmatists", blind to our own biases.

A healthy amount of self-reflection could benefit both sides.

Occams Barber · Jun 17, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Indeed, it is not. At least, not specifically. But since I specifically am American, that is the perspective which I speak from. That is why much of my reply specifies my citizenship. As an American, I have no real place dictating what other countries should or should not do with respect to their establishment of religion (if any).

If you read the OP you'll see I wrote it without naming a single country (or a denomination). I could do this because I was discussing a broad principle. I am obviously in no position to 'dictate' anything to anyone but I am able to advocate equality of treatment. I am disappointed that you seem to be unable to think beyond a purely American perspective.

thecolorsblend said:
Because they have a legal right to state their views, both in law and in America's cultural tradition. Others are not obligated to listen. If they choose to listen, they are not obligated to agree.
Once again laws are not the issue unless their is a discrimination in the way they are applied.
But the impression I get from your posts on this subject is that you would happily use the coercive power of government to silence these groups simply because you don't agree with what they say.

Now your dragging my arguments to the extremes. If its illegal for the rest of society why is it legal for Christianity. If, as a society, we disapprove of what Company X does then why can't we disapprove of a Christian group doing the same thing.

thecolorsblend said:
You are conflating two unrelated issues. My example of a Catholic school hypothetical practice of hiring Protestant teachers indicates that your claim about "discrimination" is misleading at best.

The practice is not without merit. There are many instances when an institution would do well to only hire like-minded employees. It would be quite surprising to find a socialist think tank employing large numbers of libertarians simply to avoid the appearance of "discrimination". Your critique of religious groups hiring preferences extending primarily, if not exclusively, to adherents of their faith overlooks the plain truth that such organizations need such restrictive hiring policies in order to maintain unity of message.

As regards the worldview issue I mentioned, do you deny that a Protestant is a likely closer match to a Catholic worldview than, for example, a Sam Harris-tier atheist?

I agreed that Catholics hiring Protestants teachers was not discriminatory.

If like-mindedness was a legitimate attribute for doing the job I have no problem. But you don't need to be a Baptist to teach geography.

thecolorsblend said:
The laws in my country are rather clear on that.

Evasion

thecolorsblend said:
Many of those laws are either recent or else largely untested in court. Indeed, something does need to be done about them. You are right about that much.

You're missing the point. There is demonstrably a case for not privileging confessional reporting because its happening.

thecolorsblend said:
I don't see the connection between this statement and my remark that taxation would represent a burden which makes a mockery of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by my country's constitution. Am I perhaps missing your point here?

Not taxing amounts to unequal treatment. You may well believe its OK but you can't deny the principle. It also happens in my country without benefit of your constitution. You pay tax - are your freedoms infringed?

thecolorsblend said:
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.

I don't eat cake. It's one reason I've retained my youthful good looks in spite of my advancing age.

thecolorsblend said:
In all seriousness though, as above, I speak from an American viewpoint. Not Brazilian, not German, not Russian, not Australian. These are the terms by which I participate in this discussion. If you do not wish to abide by my terms, that is fine. You may ignore my posts as you see fit.

Perhaps you should open yourself up to alternate viewpoints.

thecolorsblend said:
You do grasp that American law regards "secular" institutions differently from religious institutions, yes? I believe I have been fairly clear on this point. The American government has limited authority to regulate religious groups.

I grasp quite well thank you. Whether the govt has authority to regulate doesn't alter the principle. Christianity gets special treatment in the ways I've listed. Something doesn't become right because it can't be stopped.

thecolorsblend said:
A religious group who has a religious critique of the religious viewpoints of Hinduism as a religion, however, is well within its rights (morally, legally, socially, etc) to offer a differing opinion regarding Hindu beliefs and tenets.

If a Christian religious group insults another religion, society should take it to task since this would not be accepted from a secular organisation. Actually this usually happens. I have however seen freedom of religion used by Christians as a justification for a right to insult.

thecolorsblend said:
Without getting sidetracked into meaningless tangents,

Good. We don't need an argument about evolution etc.
(The Tower of Babel story is at odds with biology (particularly genetics), physics and linguistics.)

thecolorsblend said:
I acknowledge that the "secular" world may have differing opinions on certain subjects than do religious people. However, I refuse to acknowledge the validity and/or the correctness of the "secular" viewpoint simply because it is "secular".

"Secular" viewpoint is just another way of describing the range of values shared within a given society; the things we tend to agree on as a group. In this discussion I've used discrimination as the main example. We all agree that discrimination is wrong. We all agree that an organisation practising discrimination should be held to account. But if a Christian organisation discriminates that's somehow OK?

It worries me that you and others appear unable, or unwilling, to accept that Christianity can, sometimes, be wrong and harmful. You only need to go back to this link:
Religious day cares get freedom from oversight, with tragic results
for an example of what can happen.
OB

The Transcendentian · Jun 17, 2019

Occams Barber said:
It worries me that you and others appear unable, or unwilling, to accept that Christianity can, sometimes, be wrong and harmful.

I accept that Christians (groups of people and individuals, besides Jesus Himself), can sometimes (maybe even often) be wrong and harmful.
I and hopefully all other Christians, will never accept that Christianity (as God intends it to be) can, sometimes, be wrong and harmful.

Occams Barber · Jun 17, 2019

The Transcendentian said:
I accept that Christians (groups of people and individuals, besides Jesus Himself), can sometimes (maybe even often) be wrong and harmful.
I and hopefully all other Christians, will never accept that Christianity (as God intends it to be) can, sometimes, be wrong and harmful.

Christianity is made up of Christians therefore it's entirely possible for the collective entity to be wrong on a given issue. Christians, as far as a I know, are not infallible. (OK, there's that one exception :priest:

)

Your argument has merit if you talk about Christian principles not being wrong rather than Christianity itself.

As an atheist I wouldn't agree, but at least it's a more valid argument.
OB
EDIT: Scratch the above. Since 'Christianity' describes a religion, it can be used to mean the organisation or the set of beliefs.
Organisations can be wrong
Beliefs (theoretically) can't.
We're both right.
OB

The Transcendentian · Jun 17, 2019

Occams Barber said:
Christianity is made up of Christians therefore it's entirely possible for the collective entity to be wrong on a given issue. Christians, as far as a I know, are not infallible. (OK, there's that one exception )

Your argument has merit if you talk about Christian principles not being wrong rather than Christianity itself.

As an atheist I wouldn't agree, but at least it's a more valid argument.
OB

By Christianity I meant Christian principles.
Do you believe yourself or the collective groups you are part of or your principles to be infallible?

Occams Barber · Jun 17, 2019

The Transcendentian said:
By Christianity I meant Christian principles.
Do you believe yourself or the collective groups you are part of or your principles to be infallible?

I had a moment to think and decided we were both right. I edited my post.

As far as I know I'm not infallible and not part of an infallible group. Nor do I have infallible principles, meaning I could well be wrong about stuff.
OB

The Transcendentian · Jun 17, 2019

Occams Barber said:
As far as I know I'm not infallible and not part of an infallible group. Nor do I have infallible principles, meaning I could well be wrong about stuff.

Interesting.
I don't think that Christians should get any special privilege from this world or from the powers and authorities of this world.
We sure do get special privileges from God.
I do believe it is good and right if Christian organizations have the right to hire people based on weather or not they agree with Christian principles (for example not hiring people who believe same sex marriage is not a sin).
To be fair, other organizations should also have the right to not hire people based on weather or not they agree with said organization's principles.

Non-profit organizations that are actually non-profit should be tax-exempt. That would include most Christian organizations.

This one is just my personal preference: I think it should not be illegal to insult people.
I don't think insulting people is a good thing, unless it's God doing the insulting.

I think that discrimination should not be illegal (right to refuse service for any reason).
The problem comes when freedom (to discriminate or from discrimination) is applied unequally.
If Christians should have the right to discriminate against others, then others should have the right to discriminate against them, the same can be said for any divide the people would like to discriminate by.

In the present, Christians are discriminated against and also have a few privileges.
In the future (no definite timescale), Christians will be very discriminated against; we won't be allowed to buy or sell anything legally anywhere in the world.

Occams Barber · Jun 17, 2019

The Transcendentian said:
Interesting.
I don't think that Christians should get any special privilege from this world or from the powers and authorities of this world.
We sure do get special privileges from God.
I do believe it is good and right if Christian organizations have the right to hire people based on weather or not they agree with Christian principles (for example not hiring people who believe same sex marriage is not a sin).
To be fair, other organizations should also have the right to not hire people based on weather or not they agree with said organization's principles.

Non-profit organizations that are actually non-profit should be tax-exempt. That would include most Christian organizations.

This one is just my personal preference: I think it should not be illegal to insult people.
I don't think insulting people is a good thing, unless it's God doing the insulting.

I think that discrimination should not be illegal (right to refuse service for any reason).
The problem comes when freedom (to discriminate or from discrimination) is applied unequally.
If Christians should have the right to discriminate against others, then others should have the right to discriminate against them, the same can be said for any divide the people would like to discriminate by.

In the present, Christians are discriminated against and also have a few privileges.
In the future (no definite timescale), Christians will be very discriminated against; we won't be allowed to buy or sell anything legally anywhere in the world.

Transy mon ami

I would talk with you but, after reading your post (see below) on the dangers (and pointlessness) of talking to Atheists, I'm afraid that I would be dragging you into a pointless exercise. More especially I would not want to accidentally convert you to my kitten-eating Satan worship.

As you mentioned - even if you prove stuff to me I would ignore it and continue with my immoral atheistic ways.

On the other hand - if you want to dance with the devil...

OB

Your post:

After hanging around this site looking at some of the debates and talking with a family member about it,
I have come to the conclusion:

Debating an atheist, or other person who believes a lie and is fully convinced that it's the truth, is completely pointless and hopeless.
They will never accept that what you are saying is true simply because you can prove it or argue for it well in a debate.

Debating someone, is not going to in any way help win them or other people to Christ.

You can present the truth in the best, fullest, most convincing way possible, but a person who wants to be an atheist is going to stay an atheist no matter how many times you disprove their beliefs or prove the truth of yours.

FireDragon76 · Jun 17, 2019

I don't believe in the Catholic or Evangelical ways of doing church... but attacking their right to practice their religion is not a helpful approach towards advancing a freer and more just society.

Christian Privilege

Expert Fool

Newbie

Wise Guy

Expert Fool

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Newbie

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Newbie

Newbie

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Newbie

Wise Guy

Newbie

Wise Guy

Newbie

Wise Guy

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads