quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

In pure numbers "Christians" probably outnumber any other single "denomination" in the US, but they don't represent a majority.

Not true. Declining, yes, but still a majority--56% to 75%, depending on which survey.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-09/living/us.religion.less.christian_1_american-religious-identification-survey-christian-nation-evangelical?_s=PM:LIVING

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Arturas
It does mean you must not dictate to the church or their hospitals or their homeless shelter organizations what insurance benefit they must provide.

How can one reconcile the claim that Christian privilege "doesn't exist" with the above demand?

To insist that Christian institutions must be beyond social or legal oversight, is to make a clear unambiguous claim for a privileged status. It is a direct demand that Christian institutions be given a privileged status not extended to other institutions or organisations operating in the same area., a status no secular organisation would ever dream of applying for or claiming.

I fail to see how this demand can be reconciled with the claim that Christian privilege doesn't exist.

It's not that complicated either. No church may be forced to do something contrary to their beliefs and not just the Christian Church. That simple fact negates any position there is a "Christian Priviledge" which is the OP.

"Religion" is priviledged in being given protection to prevent it's control by the State. Specifically. For good reason. The founding fathers did not wish the State to be controlled by religion nor should religion be controlled by the state, any religion. To take this furthur, we are not just talking about Christian Churches only. There is no special priviledge given the Christian Church over any other church.

I see no argument contrary to my position supported by a point of fact or justified by actual events or happenstance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

To get things rolling, I'll offer a rough-hewn definition of my own. "Christian privilege," to my eye, is the idea that Christianity occupies--or should occupy, in its adherents' minds--a special place, respected and not without its perks, in society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

The question of whether we are a Christian nation is a contentious one and like many questions does not admit an easy answer. Were most of the founders nominally Christian, of course they were. They were also all male. Does that make us a male nation (whatever that means)? They were all elites. Does that make us a nation only for elites? Obviously, as with almost any somewhat diverse group, there were those who were more orthodox and those who were more heterodox. Thomas Paine (a man of great importance, but often neglected) Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would lean toward the atheistic end of the scale. Thomas Jefferson even re-wrote the Bible sans miracles, an act that would meet great condemnation from many Christian today and Thomas Paine was an outright atheist in a time that really hadn't yet coined the word. John Adams and many others were more traditional in their beliefs and worship, but nevertheless strongly under the sway of Enlightenment thinking.
I will not pick out quotes from secondary and tertiary entitles (especially those who are ministers as that seems to be searching for an argument supporting view) as quotes to support either position can be found. The Declaration is a deist document and one can easily substitute 'reason' for 'creator' and 'judge' with little effect. Deism was a anti-theistic philosophy that basically believed in an entity (not necessarily Christian) that set the universe in motion, but was not involved in historical affairs (this would be offense to most evangelical Christians, but is pretty much mainline Protestant theology). Deist were forerunner of agnostics and atheists and most of the important founding fathers would have fallen generally into this category especially in the 1770's and 80's. People need to understand that our easy categories of today may not work horribly well as descriptors of belief two centuries ago.
The Constitution, which is our primary governing document, is remarkable (for the time) in its complete absence of any mention of religion (until the amendments). It explicitly rejects the establishment of a religious test for any office which is radical testimony to the fact they were not establishing a Christian nation (they knew there were other religions and that this would open public office to all).
American became a more Christian nation during the Second Great Awakening (in response to large scale economic changes) and this clouds some understanding of the revolutionary generation and early republic. Incidentally, it also became a much more capitalistic nation at the same time further clouding the judgment of contemporaries as to the role of capitalism in our founding. Anyone interested in these issues should read The Shopkeeper's Millennium and The Market Revolution.
So we are not a Christian nation, but we are a nation founded by mostly Christians as the word was understood and as Christianity was practiced by the elite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland
There are religious Muslims and then there is the Taliban.
There are religious Christians and then there is the "Christian" Taliban.
The same applies to Jews.
There are patriots and those that grasp the intent of our founding fathers and then those that pick and choose what elements they wish to deem important via the constitution.
The problem is not a particular religion per se, but hard core fundamentalists and zealots.
Zealots usually (sometimes always) think the world needs to believe their doctrine upon pain of persecution, prosecution, oppression and even death for failure to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanessaChaland
There are religious Muslims and then there is the Taliban.
There are religious Christians and then there is the "Christian" Taliban.
The same applies to Jews.
There are patriots and those that grasp the intent of our founding fathers and then those that pick and choose what elements they wish to deem important via the constitution.
The problem is not a particular religion per se, but hard core fundamentalists and zealots.
Zealots usually (sometimes always) think the world needs to believe their doctrine upon pain of persecution, prosecution, oppression and even death for failure to do so.

When it comes to Christian Privilege and as you rightly point out other sorts of majority privilege the blatant extremist stuff is pretty noticeable but that's not all there is to privilege it exists in more subtle forms as well. There are cultural norms, values, perspectives and preconceptions held by perfectly well meaning non-zealots who aren't looking to oppress the rest of us but still manage to give us the short end of the stick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

If there's anything complicated about it, it's trying to keep track of whether they're claiming their oppressive behavior is justified because they're the majority, or whether they're claiming to be minority victims of oppression - usually at the same time.

I'm sure it's very confusing trying to figure out which one gets better results - whatever works I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Does either apply?
I thought the oppressive behaviour was supposed to be an instruction from God, and had fuck all to do with what percentage of the population they are...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

If there's anything complicated about it, it's trying to keep track of whether they're claiming their oppressive behavior is justified because they're the majority, or whether they're claiming to be minority victims of oppression - usually at the same time.

I'm sure it's very confusing trying to figure out which one gets better results - whatever works I guess.

Does either apply?
I thought the oppressive behaviour was supposed to be an instruction from God, and had fuck all to do with what percentage of the population they are...