Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,299
7,454
75
Northern NSW
✟990,740.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
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.
For the umpteenth time - I am not questioning their right to practice their religion. I am questioning their right to behave in ways which are not acceptable for non-Christian organisations. I am arguing for equality.

If you need an example of Christian privilege with horrendous results please follow this link.

Religious day cares get freedom from oversight, with tragic results

OB
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,664
18,547
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,234.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
For the umpteenth time - I am not questioning their right to practice their religion. I am questioning their right to behave in ways which are not acceptable for non-Christian organisations. I am arguing for equality.

If you need an example of Christian privilege with horrendous results please follow this link.

Religious day cares get freedom from oversight, with tragic results

OB


Only a minority of states actually have laws like that. Most require the same standards for church-based daycare services as any other.

Institutions in society are not perfect, but that doesn't justify what is really often presented as a broad attack on someone else's human rights.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,299
7,454
75
Northern NSW
✟990,740.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Only a minority of states actually have laws like that. Most require the same standards for church-based daycare services as any other.

Institutions in society are not perfect, but that doesn't justify what is really often presented as a broad attack on someone else's human rights.
It's an extreme example of the Christian privilege I'm talking about. Whether its one centre or many, the point is that they are able to get away with it because they are Christian. Non-Christian centres or licensed Christian centres are subject to licensing rules, inspections and sanctions. This arrangement is a deliberate attempt, by some centres, to use their Christian status to avoid oversight. You are defending the indefensible. Look at what these centres are doing to the human rights of the kids.

The OP lists around a dozen examples where Christianity is allowed to do things which are unacceptable for non-Christian organisations. If a Christian group is allowed to discriminate then it is attacking human rights. it's also being given a privileged status.
OB
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,664
18,547
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,234.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
The OP lists around a dozen examples where Christianity is allowed to do things which are unacceptable for non-Christian organisations. If a Christian group is allowed to discriminate then it is attacking human rights. it's also being given a privileged status.
OB

You are broadening the meaning of "discrimination" to an absurd degree. Churches and religious organizations are free associations of members who share beliefs about things of ultimate concern. Having all male clergy can be consistent with those beliefs, and yet not infringe on the free-association rights of the members- if they don't like how that particular religion works, they are free to belong to another religious organization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,299
7,454
75
Northern NSW
✟990,740.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
You are broadening the meaning of "discrimination" to an absurd degree. Churches and religious organizations are free associations of members who share beliefs about things of ultimate concern. Having all male clergy can be consistent with those beliefs, and yet not infringe on the free-association rights of the members- if they don't like how that particular religion works, they are free to belong to another religious organization.
Like many other Christians you have a huge blind spot when looking at the way in which Christian leadership is male dominated. This is from the OP:
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.
Reconsidering this and other discriminatory behaviour (employees, gays, service provision), which is unacceptable in non-Christian organisations, does not impact on your free association rights. Since a number of Christian Churches allow for female leadership its seems that this is not a central, necessary tenet of Christianity. It's certainly at odds with standards of the wider world. Traditions can and do change to accommodate new knowledge and understanding.
OB
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,664
18,547
Orlando, Florida
✟1,261,234.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Politics
US-Democrat
Like many other Christians you have a huge blind spot when looking at the way in which Christian leadership is male dominated. This is from the OP:
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.
Reconsidering this and other discriminatory behaviour (employees, gays, service provision), which is unacceptable in non-Christian organisations, does not impact on your free association rights. Since a number of Christian Churches allow for female leadership its seems that this is not a central, necessary tenet of Christianity. It's certainly at odds with standards of the wider world. Traditions can and do change to accommodate new knowledge and understanding.
OB

I agree but I don't believe in using the coercive force of the state to make people see things my way. I don't think an authoritarian stance on this issue is particularly helpful. People have to make their own journey through life and come to their own conclusions about what is best for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strathos
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,299
7,454
75
Northern NSW
✟990,740.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
I agree but I don't believe in using the coercive force of the state to make people see things my way. I don't think an authoritarian stance on this issue is particularly helpful. People have to make their own journey through life and come to their own conclusions about what is best for them.
At no point have I suggested using the coercive power of the state unless this is the normal method used for non-Christian organisations, i.e. if it's illegal for one it's illegal for both. If you look at the OP you'll see me mention the sorts of reactions to non-Christian organisations behaving badly (the last sentence of each para). I only mention legal sanction once and qualify it with 'possible'. In the secular world sanctions for the type of behaviour I'm talking about in the OP are usually social. Things like criticism, public exposure, editorials, protest, boycott, shaming etc. etc. I am suggesting that societies not be reluctant to take similar action when Christianity crosses the line. Christianity also needs to be educated on its role in supporting good societal behaviour and not assuming it has a free pass simply because its Christian.
OB
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟155,600.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
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.

Teachers are not information dispensing machines.

I am disappointed that you seem to be unable to think beyond a purely American perspective.

I get the same impression that your perspective, which you claim is broad, is in fact quite narrow. Pardon me for using the U.S. as an example, but I wonder what you know of sovereignty? Religious groups are not the only ones in the U.S. with sovereignty the national government can't touch. Native American groups also have authority over some of their activities that can't be touched.

Is that the case in Australia? Do the Aborigines have sovereignty in certain areas that can't be touched by the Australian government? I ask because, while it seems you understand the idea that Australia can't govern Japan (the people here can't rule the people there) you aren't familiar with intermingled groups falling under different sovereign authorities (people here in group A can't rule people here in group B).

That is a key principle of federalism. Another example would be that States in the U.S. have authority over certain functions and the national government can't interfere (though over time that boundary has eroded).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Other scholars got to me before you did!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,190
9,963
The Void!
✟1,133,318.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Christian Privilege

CF posters regularly complain that Christianity is oppressed in Western democratic society. Looked at realistically the opposite is true. Far from being oppressed, Christians have a significant degree of behavioural leeway in ignoring the rules and standards imposed on the rest of society. Christianity holds a privileged position to the point where it is given, or expects, or demands, a latitude which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation.

Consider the right to ignore rules about gender discrimination. Most mainstream Churches restrict their leadership positions (deacon, minister, priest, bishop, cardinal etc.) to men. Within one Church this is further restricted to celibate, unmarried men. In the Protestant stream, Christian leadership is usually patriarchal. In the limited cases where there is female leadership, this change is contested and has often become the catalyst for division. The problem is that male leadership is so entrenched in the Christian psyche that it isn’t recognised for what it is – blatant gender discrimination which would be totally unacceptable in a secular organisation.

Some Christian institutions (charities, caring, schools etc.) are allowed to restrict their staff to people who follow their particular form of Christianity. This is in spite of the fact that the work these people do doesn’t require a particular religious orientation. Some Church organisations will not accept employees with a same-sex orientation even if they are denominationally correct. A secular organisation openly practising discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation would be publicly castigated and possibly subject to legal sanction. Christianity gets a pass.

There are Christians who believe it is their right to refuse services to homosexuals. Examples include the infamous cake baker and a religiously based foster care placement service. There are other Christians who have indicated that they would also refuse service. This attitude has been publicly supported by some Christian Churches. Again, this type of discrimination, based on sexual orientation, would be unacceptable from a secular entity.

If a First Nations group demanded that its Creation Story be taught as a scientific alternative to Evolution it would not get a hearing. On the other hand, some Christian Churches believe it is their right to have an ancient Hebrew Creation Myth included, as science, in school curriculums, and will use political capital to achieve this aim. There is no legal or factual basis for this demand. There is an assumption by these Christians, and others, that their opinion should be accommodated because they are Christian.

As a general moral and legal principle, we are all expected to report crime if we are aware of it. In the case of child sexual abuse this principle is paramount. At the very least it’s a moral imperative and yet, some Churches have specific legal permission to sit above the law where the crime is revealed in the confessional. Not only is there legal permission but many adherents consider this non-reporting to be an inviolable, moral right. Once again, a secular organisation with a similar attitude would be intensely criticised.

In some Christian churches the idea that women are subservient to the authority of men is openly promoted based on interpretations of the Bible. Within secular society an organisation promoting this opinion would be called out and exposed as misogynistic.

Homosexuals have been publicly described as sinners, disordered, needing fixing, going to hell, unnatural, perverted, an ‘abomination’ – the list goes on. Some of the less egregious terms have been articulated by Christian leaders. Whatever the specific terminology, there are two common factors; the terminology is insulting and; the source (in Christian countries) is usually Christian. Whether it’s the Pope or some evangelical rugby player, it seems Christianity has given itself permission to poke the finger of righteousness at those it disapproves of even where the ‘sin’ has no victim. Some Churches will not allow practising homosexuals to worship in their congregation. In the secular world this sort of behaviour is called discrimination and vilification - and we’re called out if we do it.

There are other things I could list, like tax exemptions, banning homosexual students, insulting other religions, denying science and considering itself above the law, where Christianity gets let off lightly.

The point I’m making is that no secular organisation could come close to getting away with the sort of behaviour we accept, and even expect, from Christianity and Christians. First World Christians aren’t persecuted – they’re privileged with permission to behave badly.

In time, I hope to see these privileges withdrawn to the point where Christianity will be required to comply with the same moral standards we demand of other parts of society.

OB

I'm all for that, too, OB, assuming that today's Secular views of law don't go directly against any correctly interpreted, correctly applied bits of the 1st century articulations/traditions of the Christian Faith. I mean, doing what the Romans do because we might actually be in Rome can only go just so far ... :dontcare:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Resha Caner
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
CF posters regularly complain that Christianity is oppressed in Western democratic society. Looked at realistically the opposite is true. Far from being oppressed, Christians have a significant degree of behavioural leeway in ignoring the rules and standards imposed on the rest of society. Christianity holds a privileged position to the point where it is given, or expects, or demands, a latitude which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation.

I think you have a very misinformed view on what precisely is permitted of private secular institutions. I attended a secular women's college, which by definition involves gender-based discrimination in admissions. This is entirely legal, so your claim that only religious institutions would be allowed to discriminate based on something like gender fails. Private institutions in general are permitted considerable leeway.

You will also find private social clubs that limit their membership, usually to men but sometimes to women instead. If they widen their membership, it is usually because of social pressure, not because the government forced them to do so.

As far as "insulting other religions" goes, the claim that Christianity is privileged and secular organizaions are not permitted to go around insulting religions is frankly laughable. The modus operandi of a group like the Freedom From Religion Organization is to freely insult religions. The government is not coming after them for that, nor should it.

Honestly, this thread strikes me as hysterical, woefully misinformed about what is permitted of any private organization in a liberal society, and more than a tad bit totalitarian. Of course, in a liberal society, even secularists are allowed to engage in totalitarian speech without the force of the government coming down on them, so be grateful that you too benefit from the freedom of speech that you're so inexplicably critical of.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟982,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Christian Privilege

CF posters regularly complain that Christianity is oppressed in Western democratic society. Looked at realistically the opposite is true. Far from being oppressed, Christians have a significant degree of behavioural leeway in ignoring the rules and standards imposed on the rest of society. Christianity holds a privileged position to the point where it is given, or expects, or demands, a latitude which would be unacceptable for a secular organisation.

Consider the right to ignore rules about gender discrimination. Most mainstream Churches restrict their leadership positions (deacon, minister, priest, bishop, cardinal etc.) to men. Within one Church this is further restricted to celibate, unmarried men. In the Protestant stream, Christian leadership is usually patriarchal. In the limited cases where there is female leadership, this change is contested and has often become the catalyst for division. The problem is that male leadership is so entrenched in the Christian psyche that it isn’t recognised for what it is – blatant gender discrimination which would be totally unacceptable in a secular organisation.

Some Christian institutions (charities, caring, schools etc.) are allowed to restrict their staff to people who follow their particular form of Christianity. This is in spite of the fact that the work these people do doesn’t require a particular religious orientation. Some Church organisations will not accept employees with a same-sex orientation even if they are denominationally correct. A secular organisation openly practising discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation would be publicly castigated and possibly subject to legal sanction. Christianity gets a pass.

There are Christians who believe it is their right to refuse services to homosexuals. Examples include the infamous cake baker and a religiously based foster care placement service. There are other Christians who have indicated that they would also refuse service. This attitude has been publicly supported by some Christian Churches. Again, this type of discrimination, based on sexual orientation, would be unacceptable from a secular entity.

If a First Nations group demanded that its Creation Story be taught as a scientific alternative to Evolution it would not get a hearing. On the other hand, some Christian Churches believe it is their right to have an ancient Hebrew Creation Myth included, as science, in school curriculums, and will use political capital to achieve this aim. There is no legal or factual basis for this demand. There is an assumption by these Christians, and others, that their opinion should be accommodated because they are Christian.

As a general moral and legal principle, we are all expected to report crime if we are aware of it. In the case of child sexual abuse this principle is paramount. At the very least it’s a moral imperative and yet, some Churches have specific legal permission to sit above the law where the crime is revealed in the confessional. Not only is there legal permission but many adherents consider this non-reporting to be an inviolable, moral right. Once again, a secular organisation with a similar attitude would be intensely criticised.

In some Christian churches the idea that women are subservient to the authority of men is openly promoted based on interpretations of the Bible. Within secular society an organisation promoting this opinion would be called out and exposed as misogynistic.

Homosexuals have been publicly described as sinners, disordered, needing fixing, going to hell, unnatural, perverted, an ‘abomination’ – the list goes on. Some of the less egregious terms have been articulated by Christian leaders. Whatever the specific terminology, there are two common factors; the terminology is insulting and; the source (in Christian countries) is usually Christian. Whether it’s the Pope or some evangelical rugby player, it seems Christianity has given itself permission to poke the finger of righteousness at those it disapproves of even where the ‘sin’ has no victim. Some Churches will not allow practising homosexuals to worship in their congregation. In the secular world this sort of behaviour is called discrimination and vilification - and we’re called out if we do it.


There are other things I could list, like tax exemptions, banning homosexual students, insulting other religions, denying science and considering itself above the law, where Christianity gets let off lightly.

The point I’m making is that no secular organisation could come close to getting away with the sort of behaviour we accept, and even expect, from Christianity and Christians. First World Christians aren’t persecuted – they’re privileged with permission to behave badly.

In time, I hope to see these privileges withdrawn to the point where Christianity will be required to comply with the same moral standards we demand of other parts of society.

OB

Perhaps if we limit the First Amendment rights of Christians all will be well.
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. People should have the freedom to practice their religion as their conscience dictates. You may not like it, but you should respect other peoples rights to see things differently.
Except religions themselves demand that they be exempt from laws governing discrimination and insist they be allowed to discriminate - including being able to NOT allow freedom of religion.
 
Upvote 0