That's privilege, not persecution.

[juldea]

Standard fine text applies: this is someone else's words, not mine; I agree with much of what they are saying, but not all, and not every nuance of how they say it; this is directed at/covers certain people who make certain claims, and not the entirety of a religious group; I'm probably preaching to the crowd; etc etc.

Christians have convinced our country to allow one of their primary holy days to be a legally recognized paid holiday, something no other religion has ever accomplished. That’s privilege, not persecution.

Christians can use their religion to practically guarantee an election. People of any other religion, were they to use their religious adherence as part of their political campaign, would have a nigh impossible task be elected. That’s privilege, not persecution.

Most government bodies, when they convene, if they open with a prayer, benediction, or blessing of some sort, invariably open with Christian prayers. Those few that don’t open with Christian prayers open with “non-denominational” prayers that are still very Christian in feel. Once in a great while, they open with a benediction from some other religion - but that person rarely receives the respect expected during a Christian prayer. When a Buddhist gave the opening benediction for a Senate session in the US government, he received catcalls from a couple of senators and had others carry on private conversations - something that would never happen to a Christian officiant. That’s privilege, not persecution.

Our Pledge of Allegiance (that patriotic little ditty penned as part of an advertising campaign) was altered by Federal Government intervention to include the words “under God” - paying homage to just one of the many religions existing in America at that time. That’s privilege, not persecution.

There are more churches per capita than there are places of worship for all the other religions combined in the US. If we adjust for proportions of adherents, there are still more Christian churches (ie if 7% of the population is Buddhist, then 7% of the churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc should be Buddist temples, not 2%), mostly because when other religions seek permits, they must prove they are a legitimate religion, but if they’re a Christian denomination they are automatically granted the permit. That’s privilege, not persecution.

When a Christian’s religion becomes known at work, they don’t have to worry about being harassed by co-workers or even fired. That’s privilege, not persecution.

When Christians want to start a new church or new organization, they know filing for tax exempt status is pretty much a given, that they won’t have to prove their religion is a real one, and that tax exempt status may still be denied even if they meet all the IRS criteria just because their religion isn't known. That’s privilege, not persecution.

If a Christian wants to hold a retreat at a camp ground, or a picnic in a park, they know they will get the permits without any problems and they won’t have picketers trying to force them to change venues or not have it at all or disrupt their event. That’s privilege, not persecution.

Christians know they can publicize their religion in their business and attract customers, not rocks through the windows. That’s privilege, not persecution.

If Christians want a chaplain in the military, no bars are placed in their way, yet soldiers of minority religions go without military chaplains – even when the religion is recognized in the Military Chaplain’s Handbook (I have a copy). The military chaplains all come from the mainstream religions, and predominantly from Christian religions. Not one minority religion chaplain has been able to leap all the hurdles placed in their path to date. That’s privilege, not persecution.

If Christians want to be married by officiants in their religion, they have thousands of choices all across the country, yet adherents of many minority religions don’t have licensed officiants to perform marriages because many states and county clerks make it not just difficult but virtually impossible for them to be licensed. That’s privilege, not persecution.

Other religions don’t necessarily want the same privileges that Christianity enjoys in America; what they want is to be allowed to exist without harassment, without fear, without being accused of being “in a phase” or belonging to a “fake” religion, or having reporters say they "claim" to be an adherent of their religion, or having their religion dragged into a news report just because they aren't Christian.

Asking for the right to exist peacefully and to be allowed to live their beliefs without deliberate hardships and barriers placed in their way isn’t persecuting Christianity.

And it’s not persecution for someone to wish another “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.

All from here.

Comments

[ron_newman]

Not one minority religion chaplain has been able to leap all the hurdles placed in their path to date.

I'm not sure how 'minority religion' is being defined in that sentence, as there certainly are Jewish and Muslim military chaplains.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I believe the original author is referring to various Pagan/Wiccan religions in this particular statement.

[faerieboots.livejournal.com]

I'm just curious, what was the social/political context that prompted this piece? Was it written in response to the 9/11 "burn the Koran" idiocy, or was this in response to the "happy holidays" idiocy? (The original text was clearly written very recently, but her reference to the "happy holidays" business made me wonder how long some of these observations had been stewing)

Also, because this is bugging me, I can't help but note that the entire narrative, while true in the U.S., is written like it is universally true (which it is not). Actively practicing Christianity in a public way in, say, Riyadh, can get you deported. Just sayin'. But I appreciate the sentiment of the writing.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

At the bottom of the post I link to the source; that explains the reason it was written and also indicates that it is definitely US-driven.

[tiamat360.livejournal.com]

So. I went back to read the original post to try to glean some background. And I have to say, now I'm very confused. In what way do Christians think they've been persecuted in the US? I mean, I realize that the point of the original post was to show how privileged Christians are, I'm just trying to figure out why the people who inspired the post claim that they're persecuted. Gay marriage? (Cuz obviously gay people can't be Christian...) Muslims wanting to build mosques in this country? People upset because some Christians want to burn the holy text of another religion?

Oh wait. I forgot. The religious right, pretty much by definition, makes no sense. Fucking hell...

[faerieboots.livejournal.com]

I read the original link and I understand why the author felt moved to post as (s)he did; it just bugged me how universal she made some of her language. Is likely a reflection on me, and not a reflection on the author, but I feel like the actual persecution that happens elsewhere in the world really underscores her point, and it gets a bit lost in the shuffle there.

[londo.livejournal.com]

"Christians are being persecuted," when I see it, is usually a reaction to people trying to enforce the separation between church and state.

It's sometimes difficult to objectively tell the difference between persecution/punishment and a rolling back of privilege.

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

I'm going to pre-empt every\anything with a question.

Do you want me to comment on this?

[tiamat360.livejournal.com]

It's sometimes difficult to objectively tell the difference between persecution/punishment and a rolling back of privilege.

Yes but. No one is trying to take privilege away from Christians (at least, none of the privileges listed above*, or anything else I've heard of**), they just want to give some of those same privileges to other groups. That's not nearly the same thing.

*An aside: one of the problems I have with the post as-written is that I think that things like "Christians know they can publicize their religion in their business and attract customers, not rocks through the windows" are, in fact, a lack of persecution rather than a privilege. Not that I think anyone is trying to take that away from Christians, mind, but I don't think some of those examples work quite the way the author would like them to.

**To be fair, I'm in med school and sort of living under a rock, so it's entirely possible that there are examples that I'm unaware of. Can you think of any?

[londo.livejournal.com]

I'm interested in seeing what you have to say on this, so if you end up not posting here, feel free to CC: me.

[tiamat360.livejournal.com]

Aaand looking back at this it was a bit ironic to use the term "religious right," which I at least invariable take to mean "Christian right." Not that, probably, there aren't politically conservative Jews, Muslims, etc. who vote based on their religion, but I think of the term as uniquely referring to Christians. Another privilege, for the term to be used this way? :P

[londo.livejournal.com]

Uh... I can't think, off the top of my head, of any organized campaigns to remove any particular sort of privilege from American Christians/Christianity. On the other hand, I'd be happy to see Christianity and politics be a whole lot more orthogonal than they are now, and if I never again heard anyone assert that America is-and-should-be ideologically a Christian nation, I'd be happy with that.

I know that I've heard cries of persecution when people dislike "one nation under god", "in god we trust", or nativity scenes at city hall.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dragonwolf_/]

I would tend to think that would NOT be a privilege-- who uses the term "religious right" with a positive connotation these days? Kind of suggests to me that Christians are the only ones who get tarred with the "religious reactionary" brush when there are certainly those among every religion.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I think this article, Christian Conservatives fight Happy Holidays is a good example of what the entry is talking about.

Christian conservatives say retailers should proudly play up Christmas even if some non-Christian customers are alienated.

"Tough luck," said Donald Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association. "This is an overwhelmingly Christian country."


Or here-- this one is better: FOX hypes stories to claim 'Christmas under siege.'

O'REILLY: Secular progressives realize that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation, and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition.

But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility.


I like this entry very much! I take faerieboots's point that there are many places in the world where Christians are, in fact, viciously persecuted. But I am annoyed by right-wing conservative Christians trying to claim that America is one of them because they're expected to be polite.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Relevant quote from L. Sprague DeCamp's time-travel classic _Lest Darkness Fall_:

"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
"You mean that you're persecuted because the heretics and such are not?"
"Certainly, isn't that obvious?

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Are you just saying that she could've ended some of her paragraphs more strongly by pointing out that the ways non-Christian religions have difficulties in the US are similar to the ways Christianity has difficulties in other parts of the world? I can see that, but I don't see her language as universal at all; perhaps that is simply my US-driven perception.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

As long as you have read the fine text at the top of the post, sure.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Completely off-topic: that user icon is intriguing. What's the story behind it?

[tiamat360.livejournal.com]

It's me dressed as Mazikeen from the comic Lucifer (and Sandman). occultatio and I dressed up as Lucifer and Maz respectively for Vericon one year (if you dig around his LJ posts from Jan/Feb of 2006 you can probably find more photos).

I tend to use it as an "I am pissed" icon.

[faerieboots.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was more or less what I was saying. She does use words like "in the US" or "across the country" in some of her points, but some of her points are much more general--e.g. "When a Christian’s religion becomes known at work, they don’t have to worry about being harassed by co-workers or even fired." At work where? Are we talking private organizations throughout the U.S., or is she saying that Christians never need to worry about being fired for being Christian at any organization at all? She seems like she's making a very general statement. This is a very nitpicky point, but it bugged me, so I whined about it.

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, after reading the op.

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll start with this.

tiamat360 made the point earlier that the lack of persecution != privilege. I agree with this.

Back to my thoughts.

The OP, as well as pretty much everyone here, as well as many Christians (probably) fall into what I will, in a pejorative sense, term "Mainstream Christianity". This can further be represented in terms of one of the more popular "Christian" publications - that is, Christianity Today. To give you a sense of my thoughts on the ragmag, I and a number of others I know have affectionately renamed it "Christianity Astray".

Alas, I do lament the fact that it is, in fact, an accurate representation of Christianity in this day and age.

I categorically reject, and have in the past, any notion that grievous misdeeds and barbaric injustice perpetuated under the banner of Christianity do not mean they are "deeds performed by Christians" and, in fact, I suggest to you and everyone else bothering to read this that those who would commit said deeds are not, in reality, Christian. If you want to talk about the Crusades, I'm happy to do so, but it's a different subject (which still applies above, for those wondering), and I won't bother to here.

Let me lay some groundwork for my point.

1. America is not a Christian nation. It never was, and fundamentally, it was established as a nation that had some level of deference to a deity, with no regard to the particular theology. There are a lot of stupid people who have been raised in a "Christian Culture" that think this is the case, but they are, well, stupid.

2. Fundamentally, the goal and intention of every Christian is, as Hebrews 12 says, to run the race that is laid before them, keeping their eyes on the prize (that is, Jesus Christ). Anything we do that is counter to this is to perpetuate the sin of our flesh - that is to say, keeps us from attaining righteousness through Him.

Now that I have established two main points, here goes.

Assertion 1. A Christian holiday is government recognized.
This is largely true, but not as black and white as the OP suggests. There is an increasing number of areas that are allowing paid time off for Jewish holidays. Just look to the suburbs of Boston where there is a heavy Jewish population. This, ultimately, can be determined at a more local level. For what its worth, if Christianity decided to change the official celebration of Christmas to December 28th, I would be surprised if the government would change its policies to observe the 28th instead. The reason I assert it isn't as clear as the OP suggests is because 1. The government mandates everyone be paid for Christmas, not just the Christians, and TIED WITH THIS is the fact that the government prohibits publicly owned organizations from terminating an employee due to their desire to observe the holy days of their religion. Since those two are true, yes, there is some degree of it, but not the start contrast the OP makes.

Assertion 2. Christians can guarantee an election.
Really? I don't know about that. Biblical Christianity calls for us to submit to our government, not determine it. Anyone calls out to those that are "like" them to vote in their favor. Because politicians see "Christian" as such a large demographic, it isn't much of a surprise for them to gather people around that rallying cry. I don't think the parachurch Christian organizations of this country have quite enough clout to get their stuff together to actually do this. Maybe 80 years ago, not now. Within this, I wish you had included the context of "US", which the OP references at the beginning of their post.

Assertion 3. The PoA has "under God" in it.
Um, so? There are many people that claim to worship a "god" or "goddess" as part of their religion. If the PoA said "Under Elohim" or "Under Yahweh" or "Under Jehovah" then they might have a point. Franklin was a deist, who believed in God, but his God was certainly not the Christian one..

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

Assertion 4. "More Churches Per Capita"
The OP is just plain wrong here with their supporting arguments. There are more churches per capita because Christianity has been the prevailing religion in the US for the last 200 years. The OP suggests that this is the case because "mostly because when other religions seek permits, they must prove they are a legitimate religion, but if they're a Christian denomination they are automatically granted the permit" which is only a valid point when you're talking about the church of self. Not only that, but UU (and some similar organizations) churches are called churches. They'd fall into the OP's mischaracterization of Christianity in this point, but if you've ever been to one, even as an atheist or whatever, you'd know they aren't Christian organizations.

Assertion 5. "Christians can be Christians at work"
Again, this is this concept of mainstream Christianity. I can give you personal examples of being mocked at work at my current job because I won't do things with the people at work - strip clubs, excessive drinking, and continuous gossip would top the list. I can give you personal examples of a friend of mine who was nearly fired because during "sharing time" (which was instituted by the company to produce diversity in the workplace) he preached the Gospel during his turn. Not only was he nearly fired, but he has gained the disdain of many coworkers.

Assertion 6. "Christians get Permits"
Once again, it seems the OP is using this "Privilege, not persecution" mantra to complain about the fact that *their* religion isn't "governmentally recognized". Let's see. Judaism. Islam. Buddhism. Taoism. Hinduis. Shinto. All of these organizations can obtain the same status legally as the Christian church without having to prove anything about the validity of their faith.

Assertion 7. "Christians can camp"
Anyone can reserve a public camp ground for any reason. The permit process isn't tied to a religion. I'm not even sure where they're going here.

Assertion 8. "Religious business"
I refer to my previous point made by someone else. Lack of persecution != privilege.

Assertion 9. "Christians get chaplains"
Now the OP is just talking out his rear. They don't know what they're talking about. I have a friend who is a chaplain in the military. He is mandated to learn about the other religions and required by his atheistic superior to be a supportive "religious person" who can not enforce their own faith unless it is the same faith as the soldier going to him. He isn't expected to know everything about every religion, but he is to be tolerant and equally supportive, at least at face value, of every belief system.

Assertion 10. "Christians can get married by whoever"
? Maybe it's just a Massachusetts thing that a friend of ours got a 1 day license to marry two other friends of ours? I don't think his religion (he's an atheist I think) had anything to do with it.

The OP made additions to the entry you are referring to after your post.

Assertion 11. "Christians got businesses closed on their special day"
Yeah. So do the Jews. How is this a Christian thing?

Assertion 12. "Non-Christian kids need to know about Christianity. If you don't raise your kid as a Christian it's child abuse"
This person must live in the Bible Belt or something. It's easier to refute a point if you have a clue where it came from. This isn't even remotely true anywhere I went to school. In fact, a woman just got arrested for child abuse in Britain for preaching the gospel to her daughter. I preach the gospel to my daughter. Am I next? I spank her too. Where are the shackles?

Assertion 13. Full quote on this one - "When Christians have children and raise them Christian, they encourage their children to share their activities with their friends, family, neighbors. Parents of minority religions school their children in silence so the children won't be taunted and harassed and teased and beaten by not only Christian children but by Christian adults, and pushed to the point of suicide."

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

So, tell me. Do you think anyone who would "taunt, harass, tease, and\or beat" would be defined by the Bible as a Christian? Hopefully the answer is self evident. If I encourage my daughter when she enters school to preach the gospel to her friends, and her friends ask her not to do it, then I expect her to stop, and live her life as a witness of Christ. Similarly, if the OP's child is in my class, and they want to share their faith with my daughter, is it within my rights to ask them not to do it? The OP, over the course of their post, is sounding less and less like a victim of persecution and more and more like someone shouting racism because someone noticed they're a different color.

All of this to say, it's true that people lash out at things they don't understand, or don't feel comfortable with. It's because people are people, and we are all affected by the fall. We all sin because it's part of our nature. Everyone who has ever walked the earth (save one) has said something to someone they regret, done something to someone they shouldn't have, etcetera. It isn't an expectation of perfection that made Christ die on the cross, it was our brutal inability to seek righteousness instead of our sinful desires. Christ's life was a life that was rife with good deeds, with good works, and with righteous living. Because of his death, those who he called to himself don't have to suffer the wages\payment for the sins we've committed. Because of his life, we can be made perfect, more than neutral. Christ's commandment is simple, to trust and obey. To repent and turn away from those sins and turn towards righteousness. To run towards the race and fix our eyes on the prize of him.

He doesn't call us to hate other religions. He doesn't call us to cast stones on people we don't understand. He doesn't call us to lash out. He doesn't call on us to glory in privilege and put down the other man. It simply isn't a goal of the religion, no matter how much ebonypearl thinks.

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

See my responses to this.

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

Not start, stark.