Christian Privilege

[Occams Barber]

I don’t have time to reply to each of the 50-60 posts which came in on this thread overnight so this post will be a bit generic.

Firstly, I have no problem with the broad concept of freedom to practice your religion. However, like any freedom/right this is conditional on the ‘do no harm’ principle. The examples chosen in the OP were instances where, in my view, Christian practice was actually harmful to the broader society by breaching common standards like discrimination. I note that many of you have concerns about my ‘attack’ on religion. I’ve seen little consideration of the negative effect of Christian behaviour on society. That says it all.

Secondly. Secular and atheistic are not the same thing. Societal values are determined by a kind of amorphous consensus which includes Christians along with anyone else with an opinion. As a tiny, unorganised minority (dwarfed by the Christian majority) atheists are not in a position to command the influence that Christian conspiracy theorists like to claim they have. I have no patience for the idea that this is a Christian vs Atheist argument. Let my argument (and your response) stand on its own merits.

Thirdly. I have yet to see anyone justify any of the dozen or so negative behaviours I’ve listed. I’m excluding ‘because Christian’ or ‘because we always have’ as valid reasons since this ‘reasoning’ can be used to justify anything. If you want secular society to give you special exemptions then you need to argue in secular terms. Arguments about Sharia or Islam are equally irrelevant.

Finally – I see a significant gap opening up between what is acceptable to secular society and what is acceptable to Christianity. This gap takes two forms:

1. A general difference of view on what acts are (im)moral and what are not. Examples include sex outside of marriage, contraception, homosexuality, euthanasia etc.
2. A different view of what is acceptable behaviour coming from Christian organisations – the subject of this thread.

Some replies are confusing the two concepts.

Whether you like it or not, head-butting between Christianity and society-in-general will continue. Treat this thread as a dress rehearsal for the battles to come.
OB

 

[Strathos]

So you have no qualms with a government insisting that you must, or must not, have an abortion? This seems more sensible to you than giving women a choice regarding what's best them? That's the thing about individual rights, you can choose not to have an abortion if you don't want to. It becomes a problem when the government begins to pass laws effecting the rights of individual people. What if there's a point in time where the government passes a law where an abortion is mandated for women over forty? Would you be ok with this too? Or do you only have equanimity when the government passes laws that agree with your brand of theism?
(BTW, I expect you'll respond with all the usual Christian rhetoric, but all I ask is you give serious thought to the points I've brought up.)

You're completely dodging the issue. I'm talking about the extremists who think abortion should be permitted in any and all circumstances, and even extend that to killing babies after birth. Do you support that?

As an aside, do you honestly think abortion would be legal if men had to carry the fetus, instead of women?

Irrelevant.

It's not an abortion after a baby is born.

(Your attempt to poison the well is noted.)

Whatever you want to call it, there are extremist atheists who support it. Do you agree with them?

Of course not, don't be absurd. I'm judging a privileged Christian society that provides a platform to spew bigotry and hate.

And your ideological allies never do that?

 

[HitchSlap]

You're completely dodging the issue.

I'm sorry. I thought I was being direct.

I'm talking about the extremists who think abortion should be permitted in any and all circumstances, and even extend that to killing babies after birth.

No, I do not support the extremists who think abortion should be permitted in any and all circumstances, and even extend that to killing babies after birth. I would consider that manslaughter/murder, and the perpetrator should be held accountable in a court of law.

Do you support that?

No, I do not support that.

Irrelevant.

Hence my label as "an aside." But you know I'm right.

Whatever you want to call it, there are extremist atheists who support it. Do you agree with them?

No, I do not support them. No, I do not agree with them.
BTW, can you source who these "atheists" are?

And your ideological allies never do that?

Lol... what's an "ideological ally?"

Atheism is a belief regarding one thing only. From there, opinions and "ideologies" are all over the place.

As for dodging, you didn't answer my question to you: are you ok with a government mandating abortions for women over forty? If not, then you've got a serious problem in your thinking.

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

I accept your right to practice your religion as you see fit - up to a point.

When your practice harms society then I'm afraid that society will always trump religion.

I've given you around a dozen examples of Christianity acting in ways which are completely unacceptable for secular organisations and are harmful, since they perpetuate and institutionalise things like discrimination.
OB

 

[Strathos]

No, I do not support them. No, I do not agree with them.

Then why do you act like all Christians agree with the worst extremists who want to kill people?

BTW, can you source who these "atheists" are?

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

 

[Occams Barber]

2) nor are they able to ignore the rules (laws) everyone must follow.

I gave you a dozen examples where Christians are not following the standards expected of secular organisations.

Obviously though among some 2 billion Christians in the world, there will be plenty of individuals ones that do not do this. Even if a tiny 1% don't, that's already a huge number, on the order of 10 million for instance, so that these exceptions are easy to find.

The examples I provided were all practices adopted by a significant proportion of Christian organisations. Not all organisations follow all practices but each one represents a significant sub group of Christians.

etc. This isn't a special exception, that Christian organizations would want to hire Christians according to their view of what they think is Christian.

If the actual job requires a particular religious orientation as an essential skill or knowledge - great - but this is rarely the case. Does a geography teacher need to be a Baptist to teach geography?

Any church that doesn't report criminal behavior to the police is simply an exception and the individuals doing so are violation of the law. They'd be only representing themselves, not Christianity. That you could find a bishop or such somewhere insisting on something otherwise that could be construed that way is merely an exception to the general situation that most Christians would report criminal behavior in most churches.

Not reporting on crimes discovered in the confessional is a basic Catholic tenet supported by Catholic hierarchy all the way up to the Pope as well as lay Catholics. This is hardly 'an exception to the general situation'.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

"There was a time when Christianity was indistinguishable from the secular state."

When was this and what was it that made it indistinguishable?

You definitely need to read a little Christian history. Church and state have been tangled up almost since the beginning of Christianity. Separation of Church and State is a relatively modern concept.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

You are referring to private organizations, however. Is your ideal a society in which nothing is private and there are no individual rights? That kind of society "behaves badly," too, you know. In spades, they do!

I refuse to play your legalistic game.

Discrimination is not accepted whether an organisation is private or public. In many Western countries employment discrimination is illegal whether your organisation is private or public. Requiring or expecting reasonable behaviour is not an infringement of individual rights.
OB

 

[HitchSlap]

Then why do you act like all Christians agree with the worst extremists who want to kill people?

I'm not. Feel free to point out where I have, and I'll be happy to make that correction.

My comment was directly related to the observation that a Christian privileged society allows for hate speech of executing homosexuals and unruly children... by Christians.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

The article doesn't mention anything about atheism, and the article was written in England.

Now who's dodging? Third time asking the question: are you ok with a government mandating abortions for women over forty?

If not, then you've got a serious problem in your thinking.

 

[Occams Barber]

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?

Society sets behavioural standards. In some cases these are translated into laws. In other cases breaching these standards meets with societal disapproval in various forms.

I'm not claiming anything is 'objectively valid'. I have repeatedly said that my concern is about Christianity breaching secular standards of behaviour, like discrimination, and questioning whether it should be afforded this harmful privilege.

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.

This thread is about Christian privilege in Christian dominated societies. If you want to talk about Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Sikh or Jewish privilege please start your own thread.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Secularism has no basis to challenge societal norms; religion does. The West has accorded religion a certain autonomy for a long time, and there are good reasons to do so.

The place of religion as moral arbiter is coming to an end. Society is now more inclined to define its norms without the need for Christian approval. This is usually based on a growing appreciation of what is harmful and what is not as a replacement for Divine Command Theory (i.e. "God said").
OB

 

[Strathos]

I'm not. Feel free to point out where I have, and I'll be happy to make that correction.

My comment was directly related to the observation that a Christian privileged society allows for hate speech of executing homosexuals and unruly children... by Christians.

The article doesn't mention anything about atheism, and the article was written in England.

Now who's dodging? Third time asking the question: are you ok with a government mandating abortions for women over forty?

If not, then you've got a serious problem in your thinking.

And it allows atheists to say things that are just as bad.

 

[JackRT]

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

Did you read the opening post? He detailed a whole list of behaviours that secular governments or organizations do not accept but are acceptable to most Christians. That actually is gradually changing slowly.

 

[Occams Barber]

Interestingly, several of what you mentioned is considered sinful in scripture, the Bible. Christians are not sinless. Many go to extremes on certain issues in order to balance out the system. This is wrong. Though Jesus Christ of Nazareth did go to extremes, it was always in LOVE. Here are a few examples of errors in the part of a Christian that leads to sin. I will also show you scriptural passages showing why it is a sin. Hopefully you will see that what you have posted is not a reflection on our Lord but a weakness in the human flesh.
Sin #1) "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."
Ephesians 4:2: “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love." 1 Peter 4:8: “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." John 15:12: “My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."
Sin #2 "Consider the right to ignore rules about gender discrimination."
Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Sin #3 "Within one Church this is further restricted to celibate, unmarried men."
1 Timothy 2
3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence
Sin#4 "In the Protestant stream, Christian leadership is usually patriarchal. "
Genesis 1
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Sin#4 "Some Christian institutions (charities, caring, schools etc.) are allowed to restrict their staff to people who follow their particular form of Christianity. "
1 Corinthians
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.
Sin #5 "Some Church organisations will not accept employees with a same-sex orientation even if they are denominational correct. "
John 8
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Sin #6 "There are Christians who believe it is their right to refuse services to homosexuals."
Philippians 2
Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
Sin #7 "There is an assumption by these Christians, and others, that their opinion should be accommodated because they are Christian."
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
Sin #8 "some Churches have specific legal permission to sit above the law where the crime is revealed in the confessional."
Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

To be continued if you are interested......

Thank you Maria - I appreciate the effort you put into your post.

My concern is not so much with Christian rules. It's more to do with Christian behaviour. As an observer it seems to me that Christians can (and do) bend the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean. (I'm not accusing you of doing this).

For many centuries Christianity set the rules on what was good and bad behaviour. With time and knowledge we've grown up enough to make our own decisions as a collective society. Christianity is slow in catching up and is still under the impression that it's in charge of the moral rulebook.

We're now at a point where it is not unreasonable to point to certain Christian behaviours and declare them immoral based on our collective societal values. Christianity disagrees and demands exemption from many of these standards under the guise of Religious Freedom.

What Christianity needs to accept is that the world has turned and it no longer holds the standard for moral behaviour.
OB

 

[zippy2006]

The place of religion as moral arbiter is coming to an end. Society is now more inclined to define its norms without the need for Christian approval. This is usually based on a growing appreciation of what is harmful and what is not as a replacement for Divine Command Theory (i.e. "God said").
OB

I don't think religion as a source of morality is coming to an end at all, and the idea that Divine Command Theory was ever a prominent theological opinion is nothing more than a strawman composed of ignorance. Apart from that, though, Western pluralistic society will always give religion a certain degree of autonomy. That really has nothing to do with how society defines its norms. Your alternative is just another form of imposed totalitarianism.

 

[HitchSlap]

And it allows atheists to say things that are just as bad.

All right Dodger, whatever you say.

I used to consider you an honest poster. This last exchange with you has caused me to change my opinion of you.

Take care.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't think religion as a source of morality is coming to an end at all, and the idea that Divine Command Theory was ever a prominent theological opinion is nothing more than a strawman composed of ignorance.

Perhaps not an 'end' but certainly as a significant force.

Apart from that, though, Western pluralistic society will always give religion a certain degree of autonomy.

I agree. I'm just raising the question of how much autonomy is enough.

That really has nothing to do with how society defines its norms

I'm not sure what the "That" is your referring to. Society defines its norms and standards through endless internal conversations, protests, disagreements and investigations. It's a moveable feast with many moving parts. Christianity is in their somewhere although its impact is diminishing.

Your alternative is just another form of imposed totalitarianism.

Raising the question of whether we should reconsider giving free reign to organisations which openly practice discrimination is hardly totalitarian. This is what's known an argument based on the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' or taking the argument to a ridiculous extreme.
OB

 

[zippy2006]

I agree. I'm just raising the question of how much autonomy is enough.

Okay.

I'm not sure what the "That" is your referring to.

My previous sentence: religious autonomy in a pluralistic society.

Raising the question of whether we should reconsider giving free reign to organisations which openly practice discrimination is hardly totalitarian. This is what's known an argument based on the principle of 'reductio ad absurdum' or taking the argument to a ridiculous extreme.
OB

Discrimination is just a word. Its non-pejorative meaning is to sift, weigh, or distinguish. Your pejorative usage is just a classic example of imposed ideology. "Oh, you can disagree and have autonomy, but you can't discriminate!" When a society starts drawing arbitrary lines in the sand based on a few decades of social science you're pert near soft forms of totalitarianism.

 

[FireDragon76]

I accept your right to practice your religion as you see fit - up to a point.

When your practice harms society then I'm afraid that society will always trump religion.

I don't see how having certain religious rites or customs harms society. Adults are free to choose any religion they wish in my country (USA).

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay.



My previous sentence: religious autonomy in a pluralistic society.



Discrimination is just a word. Its non-pejorative meaning is to sift, weigh, or distinguish. Your pejorative usage is just a classic example of imposed ideology. "Oh, you can disagree and have autonomy, but you can't discriminate!" When a society starts drawing arbitrary lines in the sand based on a few decades of social science you're pert near soft forms of totalitarianism.

I agree. BTW, my church does ordain women as pastors but I do not agree with characterizing churches that do not as a "harm to society" that justifies prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. That's infantilizing grown adults.

In a free marketplace of ideas, the best ideas tend to win out anyways. Many Protestants in my country belong to churches that ordain women or have women in positions of leadership.