Christian Privilege

[HitchSlap]

Well, "personal religious convictions" and "killing homosexuals" do not at all go hand in hand. Besides, the topic here started with an allegation about "Christian Privilege."

Exactly! "Christian Privilege" is the current milieu that allows for idiots like Steven Anderson and Matt Powell to actively advocate for the executions of homosexuals and unruly children. Is this the kind of society that you honestly would prefer?

 

[dzheremi]

Is that "Christian privilege", or is that them using their western (secular) freedom of speech to say stupid stuff that most of society (Christians included) finds abhorrent and wrong?

That same freedom of speech allows Islamic imams, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Hindu nationalists (to the extent that they may exist in the West...), and even atheists and the secular-minded unaffiliated/ex-Christian or whoever to say things that are also horrific, or have horrific implications. Are these all examples of "Christian privilege" somehow, too?

How "This guy is X and says Y without _____ (whatever you'd like to see happen)" gets transformed into a 'privilege' available to everyone of his class (in your mind, anyway) is just a manifestation of your own political tribalism and identity politics nonsense. It doesn't necessarily exist in reality.

Show me something that a Christian can do in the public square (not in private organizations, like their own churches or monasteries) by virtue of their Christianity that a non-Christian cannot do by virtue of their non-Christianity and then we can talk about 'Christian privilege'.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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

Who is it that gets to decide what my moral standards should be? You seem quite judgmental about what is and is not a proper moral belief. What underpinning can you cite for your POV on morality being more objectively valid than the Christians you criticize? How come you don't seem to want to criticize Muslims or orthodox Jews that hold most of the same beliefs on the things you mentioned and in the case of the majority of Muslims, polling suggest they would like their religious morality codified into law.

 

[Albion]

Exactly! "Christian Privilege" is the current milieu that allows for idiots like Steven Anderson and Matt Powell to actively advocate for the executions of homosexuals and unruly children. Is this the kind of society that you honestly would prefer?

Relax. That kind of posting has no place in a serious discussion. First, you know that I do not advocate killing people for holding religious or social views different from my own, and second, that is not a Christian POV anyway.

The discussion started with references to real issues, actual church bodies, actual legal controversies, and so on; and now it has degenerated into *Someone knows of a couple of guys somewhere who are out of step with almost everybody and every church, so we are going to make them out to be the representatives of X, Y, an X although they are not.*

 

[Freodin]

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

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

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

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.

*sigh*

Makes me wonder... could we get rid of Christian fundie by pointing out that traffic laws are secular... and have more of them die in traffic accidents because they don't have to follow our atheistic standards?

/s

 

[Freodin]

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.

Well... no.
Every right is limited when it starts to infringe on other people's rights. In such a case, there needs to be at least a rational debate.

So if my conscience dictates that I should practice my religion by sacrificing virgins in volcanoes... my "fundamental human right" would count for nothing.

 

[Albion]

Well... no.
Every right is limited when it starts to infringe on other people's rights. In such a case, there needs to be at least a rational debate.

So if my conscience dictates that I should practice my religion by sacrificing virgins in volcanoes... my "fundamental human right" would count for nothing.

Get back to us when we locate a Christian church or school that actually does want to throw virgins into a volcano.

THEN, we will talk about whose rights are inviolable and why.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well... no.
Every right is limited when it starts to infringe on other people's rights. In such a case, there needs to be at least a rational debate.

So if my conscience dictates that I should practice my religion by sacrificing virgins in volcanoes... my "fundamental human right" would count for nothing.

In the case of a conflict of rights how would one decide which right takes precedence? IMO the right of freedom from should always trump a right of freedom to. That is a right to say no I won't should take precedence over a right to say you must do this for me. Being allowed to exercise a right to refuse should take precedence over someone else's right to access whenever the two rights collide. My rationale being that causing another person to do something as if you are their superior infringes upon their rights while not being made an inferior to another person or group is the essence of equality.

 

[Freodin]

Get back to us when we locate a Christian church or school that actually does want to throw virgins into a volcano.

THEN, we will talk about whose rights are inviolable and why.

I wonder, is this a sign of Christian privilege if I make a general statement about the limits of religious freedom in response to a post also making a general statement about the unlimited state of religious freedom... and you think it must be about yourself?

Or is that just your thin skin?

But I'd say it is just a case of thinking that you should be the one who gets to decide which right of which person are inviolable... and which are not.

 

[Albion]

I wonder, is this a sign of Christian privilege if I make a general statement about the limits of religious freedom in response to a post also making a general statement about the unlimited state of religious freedom?

No, its not.

 

[HitchSlap]

Relax. That kind of posting has no place in a serious discussion. First, you know that I do not advocate killing people for holding religious or social views different from my own, and second, that is not a Christian POV anyway.

What you believe about "Christian POV" is irrelevant when there are Christians espousing death to homosexuals and unruly children. At what point would you consider it to be an issue? When the first city (county, state...) passes a homosexual death penalty? Are you aware there are cities in the US with Muslim populations advocating for Sharia law?

IMO, a discussion ignoring potential realities of "Christian Privilege" is not serious at all. At issue is the pervasive attitude created by such privilege that allows hate preachers to spew nonsense without consequence. No one really cares about your feelings when someone wishes you Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

The discussion started with references to real issues, actual church bodies, actual legal controversies, and so on; and now it has degenerated into *Someone knows of a couple of guys somewhere who are out of step with almost everybody and every church, so we are going to make them out to be the representatives of X, Y, an X although they are not.*

Let me know at what point we should be concerned about a "couple of guys somewhere."

 

[Albion]

What you believe about "Christian POV" is irrelevant when there are Christians espousing death to homosexuals and unruly children.

That reads like an admission that it wasn't irrelevant after all.

 

[HitchSlap]

Get back to us when we locate a Christian church or school that actually does want to [execute homosexuals and unruly children]* throw virgins into a volcano.

THEN, we will talk about whose rights are inviolable and why.

It's hard to tell if you're being intentionally obtuse.

Are you ready for a serious conversation yet?

*bolding and insertion of [...] is entirely my insertion into the OP

 

[HitchSlap]

That reads like an admission that it wasn't irrelevant after all.

The OT god commands execution of homosexuals and unruly children. On a scale of 0 -100, with 0 being absolutely no execution, and 100 being absolutely execution, where would you place your personal beliefs?

 

[Albion]

The OT god commands execution of homosexuals and unruly children.

Find me one Christian denomination that says this is its doctrine and we can talk. Give us the link. Otherwise, you are not asking for the "serious conversation" you said you wanted.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's hard to tell if you're being intentionally obtuse.

Are you ready for a serious conversation yet?

*bolding and insertion of [...] is entirely my insertion into the OP

If one found two gay men that advocated killing people that opposed gay marriage would that have any relation to one's right to be homosexual ?

 

[HitchSlap]

Find me one Christian denomination that says this is its doctrine and we can talk. Give us the link. Otherwise, you are not asking for the "serious conversation" you said you wanted.

5:40 Steve Anderson

36:50 Matt Powell

 

[HitchSlap]

If one found two gay men that advocated killing people that opposed gay marriage would that have any relation to one's right to be homosexual ?

Your loaded question seems incoherent.

Parse this out and try to be concise.

 

[Albion]

Ill repeat this once for you, HitchSlap:

Find me one Christian denomination that says this is its doctrine and we can talk. Give us the link. Otherwise, you are not asking for the "serious conversation" you said you wanted.

If that cannot be done, there is nothing to the claims about Christianity supposedly doing or believing this or that. Obviously.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ill repeat this once for you:

If you're unwilling to address the fact that there is movement within these NIFB wackos promoting death to homosexuals, and would rather discuss being upset when someone wishes you Happy Holidays, so be it.