30+ Examples of Christian Privilege (US)
Gramps49
Shipmate
in Epiphanies
This was posted on by Sam Killermann who is a comedian and author concentrating on gender issues. I saw it posted on the University of Arizona's Humanities Board. Since, it a sense, everyone is invested in these points, I post this thread here.
30+Examples of Christian Privilege
30+Examples of Christian Privilege
Comments
I must admit that I haven't read the 30+ examples exhaustively, but it does seem to me that they mostly apply to the US, which is clear from the title of the thread.
I have a feeling that the law in the UK allows people to take leave on religious holidays of all faiths, if they so desire, but I have no doubt that UK Shipmates more knowledgeable than I will chip in...
Of note: Mr. Killermann says American politicians will likely be of the same faith. But what if they aren't? I remember when Obama first began raise in the polls, there were a number of reactionaries who said he was not Christian, even through he attended a UCC church in Chicago.
This year Vivek Ramaswamy is running as a very distant Republican candidate and he is Hindu. I know Brits have crossed this bridge themselves. Rishi Sunak is a practicing Hindu too. It was not that long ago that even in Britian it would have been assumed the PM was an Anglican. It was part of your unwritten constitution.
Some people here are grappling with Ramaswamy's religion. When Sunak rose to power in GB, was there any similar reaction?
Of note, there is no religious test in our Constitution. I follow the Constitution.
That one seems more applicable to the pre-digital era. Granted, if you were only buying music at a record store or watching TV shows on television, you'd be way more constrained in your options.
re: swearing on bibles in court(10)...
Don't most jurisdictions in the US allow the witness to choose whatever they want?
re: accurate depictions in media(14)...
I would say at least 70% of portrayals of Christian denominations mix in practices and imagery from other denominations, eg. bible-thumping pentecostal-type shacks with Catholic icons all over the place.
I’m not denying that Christians, or at least some Christians, have enjoyed privilege in the US, but I’m not sure how much real light the list sheds on that.
David Lloyd George, Harold Wilson, and Margaret Thatcher were all Non-Conforming protestsnts.
I think you have to go back a fair way to find "Anglican" as the assumption, if you can find it at all. Gordon Brown was Presbyterian, Thatcher obviously a devotee of infernal powers, Callaghan atheist, Attlee agnostic, Ramsay MacDonald Unitarian. I think you could probably say the PM needed to be not overtly hostile to Protestant Christianity, and definitely not RC.
The Chamberlains, Joseph and Neville, were Unitarian as well.
EDIT: Just double-checked. Joseph was never PM.
Other than in Nor'n' Ir'n' religion hasn't really played a big part in British politics for some considerable time.
As the man said probably getting on for 30 years ago now, 'We don't do God.'
Royalty are required to be Anglican. I'm not sure that's applied to PM's for many, many years even in our unwritten Constitution.
Mind you, Blair appeared to wait until he was no longer PM if I remember rightly before converting to Roman Catholicism.
Quite a lot of people have expressed perplexity as to whether Mr Johnson has any religion, or perhaps, as to which religion precisely it is that he does not adhere to. Several people, including me, have expressed the hope that he might casually and without thinking break the law on appointing bishops and so disqualify himself from office.
If anything, there was comparatively little fuss over Johnson apparently returning to the RC fold. What fuss there was tended to come from disgruntled Catholics and Anglicans about the propriety of it all given his chequered relationship history, divorce and so on. Those were particular concerns within those respective traditions rather than Constitutional ones as such - but I stand to be corrected.
I don't remember any eyebrows being raised Constitutionally, although he was the first PM to be RC whilst holding that office.
There is a residual 'anything but Catholic' vibe within the UK's Constitution but as the Coronation of King Charles III showed things have come a long way. There was representation and participation from a wider range of faith traditions there.
At any rate, as other posters have noted, plenty of British PMs haven't been Anglicans. That doesn't appear to have stopped them engaging with the monarch over the appointment of bishops. But that's a pretty arcane process anyway so who knows what factors played into the appointment of bishops when Lloyd George or Chamberlain or other non-Anglicans were PM.
Again, other Shipmates will correct me if I'm wrong but generally what happens, if I understand it correctly, is that the senior bishops present a list to the PM who then takes it to the monarch. Whether this is a rubber-stamping exercise or involves politicking of one form or other has varied, I suspect from one PM or monarch to another.
Thatcher certainly interfered, I think. I'm not sure about more recent appointments.
Education about religion, yes. Instruction in religion, no.
If Gramps49 is wrong in what he has stated, it’s fair enough to correct his error. Whether he has also been wrong in similar subjects elsewhere is neither here nor there as far as this thread is concerned, and your comment looks suspiciously close to a personal attack. Out of place on this board. Do not repeat.
Host hat off
BroJames, Epiphanies Temporary Hosting
(ETA clarification re hosting, DT)
Besides, Nick Tamen, Enoch Arethosemyfeet and Doublethink have nailed it.
We seem to have moved away from the OP which concerns 'Christian privilege' in the US.
I'll defer to US Shipmates on that one.
In Canada, if you live in one of the handful of provinces that still offer sectarian school boards, you have the OPTION of sending your kids to religious schools(usually Catholic), where they'll get religious instruction. But as far as I know, Ontario and Alberta are the only ones that still do that, Quebec and Newfoundland having given up the ghost some time ago.
Well, for a Canadian example...
In the 2007 Ontario provincial election, the Conservatives proposed granting funding to Muslim schools. The Liberal premier McGuinty opposed the idea, saying something like "When I go abroad, people ask me how Canada has managed to avoid the religious strife that plagues other countries, and I tell them it's because we don't divide people. And that's what this proposal does, divides people along religious lines."
Cynics pointed out that Ontario already had religious schools, and that, in fact, McGuinty's own wife was a teacher in the CATHOLIC system, but this discrepancy didn't seem to blunt his or his party's time-honoured image as the avatars of religious tolerance. IOW people seem willing to put up with pretty blatant double-standards, as long as it work to the benefit of the majority tendency(*).
(*) Catholics are, I believe, a minority in Ontario, but these days are likely viewed by most people as basically just Christian.
Not compulsory, but is it still offered as an elective?
As far as I was concerned, the religion classes at my Catholic schools were the ultimate basket-weaving classes, basically just rap sessions, and except for having to keep a journal or prep a presentation now and then, thete was not much homework, or at least none strenuous enough to be remembered.
Suffice to say, I quite enjoyed the classes, and I'm guessing the teachers enjoyed teaching them.
Of course. The issue is one of being accurate about what they might entail, whether in the US or elsewhere.
I can't and it's none of my business to do so, comment on the issue about the US Constitution apart from saying that I get the impression that in the 1770s its take on religion was that the state should be non-denominational rather than not Christian. But I can't really see what's that wrong with getting a bit of privilege where one can find it. One doesn't very often come by any. Be thankful when you get it.
Privilege can range from the relatively benign to the positively toxic for people who don't have it.
I think the more pertinent distinction between then and now was that, in the 1780s/90s(ie. the writing of the First Amendment), the Framers were looking to prevent Establishment only at the federal level, ie. no nationwide church, but state churches were okay, whereas courts today interpret subsequent amendments(post-Civil War) as applying to states and municipalities as well.
Well, privilege is defined as something granted to one person, or at most a select group of people, but not to everyone. So, I think you have to set the bar pretty high in deciding whether to grant it in a given instance.
That church down the road puts up a great Christmas-light display every year, and it draws alot of people into our town to see the lights, and that's good for the economy, so I think they deserve a break on their power bill each December.
That's an argument I'd be willing to entertain. Not so much...
That church down the road is the only one that worships God in the proper fashion, so I think they deserve a break on their power bill, and all those other heathen shacks can just go suck eggs.
*As @Net Spinster says, I think this is mainly Christmas, which arguable is now as much of a cultural holiday as a specifically Christian one (though the reasons for that have to do with Christian dominance in the culture), and Saturday/Sunday, though lots of people do work those days.
Many employers in these parts give each employee a handful of days every year that can be used for religious observance. And yes, non-religious people can use them too; I know one guy who used one of his for baseball opening day. Where I worked, you could trade holidays, so someone could choose to work on, say, Good Friday, which was a holiday, and take Yom Kippur or Eid al-Fitr off instead.
The problem is that the way privilege works, it’s not something you “get.” It’s something you simply have by virtue of being in a group that has power and dominance. Even when there’s no malice or ill will or superiority intended, it’s very easy to ignore that not everyone else gets to enjoy the privileges you enjoy.
I mean courts interpret those post-ACW amendments as making the First Amendment applicable to states and municipalities.
For well over 250 years post Reformation the monarch in Saxony was RC and an important part of his constitutional duties was to appoint the leading clergy of the State Lutheran church. It didn't really cause any confessional difficulties.
Thanks. I can never remember what Amendment that was.
I think we had moved on from that, but I did find an article about the Johnsons baptizing their child through the Roman Catholic Church dated Sat 12 Jun 2021 06.00 EDT
When I grew up, I lived in a small town in Idaho that was heavily LDS. I mean, out of a high school class of 100 there were only 10 of us that were not Morman. While most people would not see much difference Mormons and Christians, there were. For one, Mormon kids were excused from school one afternoon a week so they could go to Primary. There was a lot of pressure on us non-Mormon kids to go with our Mormon peers to their Primary.
Mormon business were all closed on the Sabbath/Sunday. This was good when video rentals first came out since the owner of the video store was Mormon. It meant we could rent a stack of videos on Saturday and not have to return them on Monday.
But even non-Mormon businesses were impacted. If a business did not have a Mormon employee Mormons would not shop there.
This, of course, is against the law. But if you wanted to take the local LDS ward to court, who would be hearing the suit? A Mormon judge.
When I moved to the South, as in Mississippi, there were some differences there too. Mississippi has a large Baptist and Church of Christ flavor to it. Not going to get in specifics here (due to previous experience in another thread).
But I would also have to admit living up in the Dakotas and Minnesota where there were strong Lutheran influences. I mean public schools would have to adjust their extracurricular schedules to accommodate religious programs--mostly Lutheran and also Roman Catholic.
Now, living in Pullman, WA., I would say the community is the most non-Sectarian community in the US I have lived in. A block from my Lutheran church is the Islamic Prayer Center. Next to it is a Church of Christ congregation. They both use their respective parking lots for services. Friday prayers will see Muslims parking in the Church of Christ parking lot. Sunday services will CC people parking in the Islamic parking lot. It all works out.
The public schools have a smattering of kids from all religious backgrounds, so the schools are very sensitive to not offending the different faith groups up to a point. Seems like the one group that always gets offended comes from a fundamentalist church. They have formed their own religious school to avoid being tainted by the "humanism" being taught in the public school. They define "humanism" as the teaching of evolutionary science, critical race theory--which is really not being taught, the rewriting of American history, teaching of basic psychology and sociology etc.
But secular Christmas swamps everything for several weeks every year. The city and local businesses decorate for Christmas in a way they don't do for anything else, with strictly non-religious imagery, you hear secular Christmas music everywhere, and the school system's winter break is organized around Christmas. And that secular Christmas stems from a white Protestant Christianity which is coded as American to the exclusion of other traditions which are practiced by a lot of people living here. The city has no ethnic majority, Latinos are the largest ethnic group, there are sizeable Asian and Pacific Island communities and a fair number of Black people - but a secular version of white Protestant Christianity is still the cultural default. And the synagogues post armed guards when they hold services, something the churches don't even have to think about.
IMO this is a meta-privileged comment on the subject of privilege. The comment - and may I underline, the comment only and not the poster of it - comes with blithe obliviousness about the costs of privilege and who bears them.
I'm thinking @Enoch might not have quite understood how the word "privilege" was being used in this discussion, and thought it meant something like "respect". He can clarify his understanding, if he'd like.
If he did, it passed without comment and the sky didn't fall in.
The British Constitution being pretty elastic, I'm sure some kind of accommodation would have been reached had he been in office when a new Archbishop of Canterbury was appointed. They may have got the Lord Chancellor or someone else to do it instead. Who knows? It didn't happen so it's all in the realm of speculation.
At any rate, Boris was bound to be 'banished' at some point as a result of his slap-dash and exasperating approach to everything and anything other than his own self-aggrandisement. Sure, lots of Tories loved him but the vast majority of those I had dealings with were far from being Boris fans.
The article @Gramps49 cites looks like an 'opinion piece' to me and we'd need to know the context.
My guess would be, if push came to shove and bishoprics had come up under Boris's watch he'd have nearly been left off the hook or they'd had found a way round it if it were Constitutionally difficult.
There certainly wouldn't have been a repeat of the Gordon Riots or burnings of effigies of the 'Bishop of Rome' or cries of 'No Popery!' in the streets.
Anyhow, that's my two happ'orth.
I can't comment on how sectarian or otherwise different regions of the US are other than it's clear that some areas are increasingly becoming more secularised whilst others obviously maintain strong influences from whatever faith traditions were strongest locally in the past.
I had lunch at The Steeples Brewery in Portland Oregon today. It was a church built in 1909. President Taft actually laid the cornerstone. In it's life as a worship center it had four congregations: the Church of Glad Tidings; a Lutheran Church; the Church of Divine Science; and then a Metropolitain congregation. That congregation disbanded during the COVID pandemic, and the building was to be torn down, but the Steeples Brewery bought the building and converted it to a brewery and eatery. They wanted to keep using the building as a community gathering place. Since the purchase of the building, the company has bought four other abandoned church buildings and converted them too.
I can see why the brewery company wanted to save the building. It had some beautiful stained-glass windows, the last one was installed was a Rainbow memorial for all the people who died from AIDS over the years. The Metropolitain folks did a lot to preserve the building.
I have to say, though, I grieve over the loss of the building to a commercial interest. Yes, they are keeping it open as a community center, but it was not the primary intent of the building.
I didn't notice any fuss whatsoever.
The article is saying that having an RC PM is no longer as big a deal as it would have been even comparatively recently.
I doubt if many British people noticed and even if they did they weren't at all fazed by it.
The Establishment would have worked out a way around any arcane Constitutional issues from the past had push come to shove.
One argument for maintaining an unwritten Constitution is that it allows wriggle-room.
Whether that's good, bad or indifferent is a topic for another thread should anyone wish to start a discussion on our Constitution.
On the other points about religious buildings converted to secular use. It's been happening for some considerable time.
(The average American living where there isn’t a strong Mormon presence wouldn’t know what it is either, I suspect.)