Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?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."
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
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.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?
*sigh*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.
Well... no.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.
Get back to us when we locate a Christian church or school that actually does want to throw virgins into a volcano.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.
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.
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?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.
No, its not.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?
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?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.*
That reads like an admission that it wasn't irrelevant after all.What you believe about "Christian POV" is irrelevant when there are Christians espousing death to homosexuals and unruly children.
It's hard to tell if you're being intentionally obtuse.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.
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?That reads like an admission that it wasn't irrelevant after all.
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.The OT god commands execution of homosexuals and unruly children.
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 that cannot be done, there is nothing to the claims about Christianity supposedly doing or believing this or that. Obviously.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?