Christian Privilege

[Heather]

The problem with this is that atheism/secularism/humanism has spent a lot of effort claiming that it's not a religion for other reasons. So making the comparison to religions here is a bit odd - "I should be able to wear whatever hat I want because Jews can, but otherwise I don't have a religion so I'm exempt from that "no teaching/expressing religion in schools" clause."

Specifically, the constitution makes separate provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and generally institutes different privileges for each. And yes, there's an implicit assumption that religious beliefs are distinct from non-religious beliefs, and get different levels of enforcement.

Yeah I kinda find it funny too how the belief in nothing has turned into into it's on belief system. 

[DriftingCrow]

I think why religion gets protections over non-religious beliefs is because religion makes a "class" of people.

The Constitution protects classes like race, gender, national origin, etc. because it's a whole group that suffers as a result of lack of protections. Without protections, a whole group is vulnerable, and potentially on the road to social extinction. I don't think religion really has extra protections because it's available to all citizens of all religions, though not everyone qualifies. It would be extra if there was something like a law thatsaid "all religious people get a break on their tax returns".I think in the eyes of the law, religion isn't just peoples beliefs, it's a group of vulnerable people subject to discrimination and hardship -- just like people of certain races and gender. Based on history, there's a need to protect vulnerable groups.

It doesn't always seem fair to the individual, but there's a reason for it (just like some whites think affirmative actionis unfair, but there's a historical basis that shows a need to correct past wrongs).

[dalebert]

Yeah I kinda find it funny too how the belief in nothing has turned into into it's on belief system. 

Everyone has beliefs. I believe in a lot of things. I believe in my cat. I believe I have a gluten sensitivity. I believe in the planet Jupiter. I believe that cutting off a piece of a baby for ritualistic and non-medical reasons is child abuse and should be illegal. I might ask "What does it take for my collection of beliefs, my belief system, to be elevated to the class of religion so that my beliefs can get a preferential status in the law?" but please understand, that's a rhetorical question. It's meant to point out that the religious are privileged in a manner that is not fair and there's something wrong with that. The moment a belief gets legally labeled a religious belief, it's achieves a special status. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be explained or defended on the basis of logic or evidence like any other belief a person might have. People are expected to respect the belief itself, not necessarily just the right to those beliefs and the practice thereof.

And in response to Learned Hand, you seem to define a religion as a belief shared by a large enough group of people. I assume if I find 10 other people and start a religion, you would not respect its status. Christianity enjoys privilege for being a majority and the other religions don't get proper respect because they're minorities, right? But my religious members are too much of a minority? It seems incredibly arbitrary. My radical notion is that all us should be free to believe and practice our beliefs peacefully and that all beliefs should enjoy the same status; no privilege, period. Is it that radical? Again, it's a rhetorical question to make a point. I'm not seeking religious status. I'm seeking equal treatment of all people and their beliefs.

It's ironic to me that this thread started as an attempt to point out privilege and when I pointed out privilege, its existence isn't even being denied. The privilege is actually being almost universally defended.

[DriftingCrow]

Dalebert, I think 10 people is fine. I think it's fine to have one person who believes they should wear a taxidermied bird on their head should have the right to.

I read your question as not asking my OPINION but the legal reason why the founders granted religious people certain protections. I actually found a nice law review article discussing this very topic I was going to post once I finished reading it.

edit to add: I do think protections should be for organized religions and individual people who have some sort of spiritual, special, whatever important feelings to the item, garment, haircut, etc. I think things with a fundamental importance to the person should be protected. I don't think someone who's just like "I am super sexy so I believe I shouldn't need to wear clothes in public" should be protected or "i am an angry teen who wants to rebel so I believe I should wear sex toys strapped to my hat" should be protected. There's a difference between just wanting to do something and believing you should or must do something.

[Danielle Emmalee]

Although the law requires that employers must accommodate "sincerely held" religious beliefs that conflict with work requirements, courts rarely question either the sincerity or religiosity of a particular belief. The law's intention is to provide protection and accommodation for a broad spectrum of religious practices and belief - not merely those beliefs based upon organized or recognized teachings of a particular religion. Therefore, religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to be entitled to protection and courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim. In short, the fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief.

However, it is equally clear that [The Civil Rights Act] was intended only to protect and accommodate individuals with sincere religious beliefs and not those with political or other beliefs unrelated to religion. Thus, the religious accommodation rules do not apply to requirements based on personal preferences rooted in non-theological bases such as culture, heritage or politics.

This is a quote from the ADL ("the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency")

I would say from this, as long as YOU claim your belief system to be a religious belief system, no matter how ridiculous it is to others, you are protected under the law and your beliefs must be accommodated the same as any other religious belief (basically as long as it does not cause the employer undue hardship, does not cause health and safety issues and does not conflict with Criminal Law)

[dalebert]

I think we should all have rights up to the point when they would infringe on the rights of others. I don't see why exceptions should be made to this. And I feel like forcing employers to alter their policies because some government bureaucrats don't think it hurts their business is tyrannical. They're not the ones who will suffer the repercussions of that decision. The company owners will. Insisting on special accommodations for such arbitrary reasons is a slippery slope. Let me give some food for thought.

I recently read The Satanic Bible by Anton LeVay. I found it compelling enough that I've discussed some of the concepts of his philosophy on multiple occasions. You could even say I was preaching Satanism, being an evangelist of sorts. When and where did I do this? On my own show that I do in my own studio that I built and designed using my own money and I upload the episodes to a website that I pay for and maintain. No one is forced to provide a platform for my evangelism. No one is forced to read my blog posts or listen to my episodes. It's there for those who care to hear what I have to say.

Now, imagine I took a job at a coffee shop where everyone wears a ball cap with the store logo which also functions to keep hair from falling into muffins and coffee, a white shirt, black pants, and an apron, also with the store logo which has a hygiene function as well as being a tool of advertisement for the store. We each present a clean, professional, and consistent image that comforting to customers.

Is it appropriate for me to go to work wearing a bunch of recognizably Satanic paraphernalia? If I did that anyway one day (DERP!) then I would be grateful if all my employer did was take me aside and said something like "I respect your right to your beliefs, but could you please just not bring it to work? It's disturbing the customers who don't fully understand what it's all about, and there's just not time to clear up their misconceptions in this environment while more customers are waiting in long lines to be served."

What matters is he's the boss and he believes it's hurting his business for me to bring my religious practices to work. He should have to respect my rights to practice my beliefs on my own time but he shouldn't be required to provide a platform for my speech at his business, even if it's to preach my religion. And in this case, I suspect he'd be right. It may very well be hurting his business. The reason it's hurting his business is because people are ignorant and have prejudices about my particular religion because it's a VERY minority religion that most people are ignorant about and they jump to a bunch of incorrect conclusions about me and my character for it. It's not his fault those prejudices exist and it's not his job to clear them up. The role he has taken on is to satisfy people's appetites for excessive carbohydrates and caffeine.

But again, I don't want to join the club of the privileged! Rather than insist he make special accommodations for me based on the fairly arbitrary and mostly ignorant-of-the-particular-circumstances judgment of some bossy bureaucrats in an office 500 miles away who have concluded that religious practices at work won't hurt his business, how about we just let people run their own homes, their own businesses, their own churches, their own whatever, in the manner that they find appropriate as long as they don't hurt people? How about we accept that there's a time and place for all things and that other people shouldn't have to bend over backward to accommodate us? How about instead of trying to use the power of government(s) to force the boss to accommodate me (or anyone with a more broadly accepted religion because its just arbitrary), I could maybe talk with him and try to find a mutually agreeable solution? Maybe he has a job in back roasting beans and cleaning dishes where he wouldn't mind me wearing what I want because it won't disturb the customers.

Or maybe I could just not preach my religion for a short while when my job is to serve coffee. I could get back to it when I'm not being paid to serve coffee, when I get home to my recording studio or my computer or my favorite online forums where it's more appropriate.

[dalebert]

BTW, I agree with you, Learned Hand. Christians still enjoy a great degree of privilege in Western culture over other minority religions and the rest of us. When some of them complain about gay marriage being legally recognized (just one of the more vocal complaints with the direction of modern culture) as if it's somehow an infringement of their "rights", what I hear is the lament over the gradual loss of long-held privilege. By virtue of having an overwhelming majority belief system for so long, they've held a strangle-hold on the culture and have been willing and able to impose their beliefs on others through government(s).

We do seem to be becoming more secularized, a change I welcome. I believe those change will continue as various beliefs and ideas are vetted with the advent of the Internet. But if the day comes when there's just one religious person left in the world, I would fight to protect that person's right to believe what they want and engage in any practices that don't harm anyone or force anyone else to violate their own principles.

[Danielle Emmalee]

I think we should all have rights up to the point when they would infringe on the rights of others. I don't see why exceptions should be made to this. And I feel like forcing employers to alter their policies because some government bureaucrats don't think it hurts their business is tyrannical. They're not the ones who will suffer the repercussions of that decision. The company owners will. Insisting on special accommodations for such arbitrary reasons is a slippery slope. Let me give some food for thought.

I recently read The Satanic Bible by Anton LeVay. I found it compelling enough that I've discussed some of the concepts of his philosophy on multiple occasions. You could even say I was preaching Satanism, being an evangelist of sorts. When and where did I do this? On my own show that I do in my own studio that I built and designed using my own money and I upload the episodes to a website that I pay for and maintain. No one is forced to provide a platform for my evangelism. No one is forced to read my blog posts or listen to my episodes. It's there for those who care to hear what I have to say.

Now, imagine I took a job at a coffee shop where everyone wears a ball cap with the store logo which also functions to keep hair from falling into muffins and coffee, a white shirt, black pants, and an apron, also with the store logo which has a hygiene function as well as being a tool of advertisement for the store. We each present a clean, professional, and consistent image that comforting to customers.

Is it appropriate for me to go to work wearing a bunch of recognizably Satanic paraphernalia? If I did that anyway one day (DERP!) then I would be grateful if all my employer did was take me aside and said something like "I respect your right to your beliefs, but could you please just not bring it to work? It's disturbing the customers who don't fully understand what it's all about, and there's just not time to clear up their misconceptions in this environment while more customers are waiting in long lines to be served."

What matters is he's the boss and he believes it's hurting his business for me to bring my religious practices to work. He should have to respect my rights to practice my beliefs on my own time but he shouldn't be required to provide a platform for my speech at his business, even if it's to preach my religion. And in this case, I suspect he'd be right. It may very well be hurting his business. The reason it's hurting his business is because people are ignorant and have prejudices about my particular religion because it's a VERY minority religion that most people are ignorant about and they jump to a bunch of incorrect conclusions about me and my character for it. It's not his fault those prejudices exist and it's not his job to clear them up. The role he has taken on is to satisfy people's appetites for excessive carbohydrates and caffeine.

But again, I don't want to join the club of the privileged! Rather than insist he make special accommodations for me based on the fairly arbitrary and mostly ignorant-of-the-particular-circumstances judgment of some bossy bureaucrats in an office 500 miles away who have concluded that religious practices at work won't hurt his business, how about we just let people run their own homes, their own businesses, their own churches, their own whatever, in the manner that they find appropriate as long as they don't hurt people? How about we accept that there's a time and place for all things and that other people shouldn't have to bend over backward to accommodate us? How about instead of trying to use the power of government(s) to force the boss to accommodate me (or anyone with a more broadly accepted religion because its just arbitrary), I could maybe talk with him and try to find a mutually agreeable solution? Maybe he has a job in back roasting beans and cleaning dishes where he wouldn't mind me wearing what I want because it won't disturb the customers.

Or maybe I could just not preach my religion for a short while when my job is to serve coffee. I could get back to it when I'm not being paid to serve coffee, when I get home to my recording studio or my computer or my favorite online forums where it's more appropriate.

The difference here is that you don't believe that you are required by the rules of your religion to wear the paraphernalia.  Some people do believe that there are certain things required by their religion, not just something they want to do to promote their religion.  Are you suggesting that they are given no legal protections to practice these beliefs without worrying about it affecting their ability to be gainfully employed?

[DriftingCrow]

Dalebert, I think you're misunderstanding employment law.

The business only is prohibited from discriminating against a religious person -- like they can't say "I won't hire you because you're X".

See the EEOC --> http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Workplaces are required to make reasonable accomodations unless it's unduly burdensome. So, if the religious person is driving away customers, costing the company business, they don't need to hire them or keep them on staff. (edit to add: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/backlash-employee.cfm says you can't fire someone just because their religion makes customers uncomfortable, however I do recall a case when I was studying Employment Law that stated if it's a bit more than just the mere religion that's the issue, you can fire them. I believe in the case I read, an anti-abortion Christian woman would wear buttons on her clothes that showed very very graphic photos of fetuses being aborted, but she claimed she had to wear them as part of her religious duties to discourage abortions. Her co-workers were very disturbed, getting sick even because of it, and the court said it was okay to fire her. So, perhaps in your scenario it'd be problemsome if you were starting the conversations with customers about Satanism instead of them just asking questions, and if no reasonable accommodation could be made, like having you work in the back during busy hours, etc.)

The only thing I see troublesome about your proposal (if I am understanding it right) to get rid of all protections and just let people fend for themselves is that the freedom to contract isn't really a reality. It might work bargaining with a small company, but if someone wants to work at like. . .McDonald's or some other huge place, all the contracts are going to be standard boilerplate doctrines. If there's no religious/spiritual protections at all, I don't see why these giant corps. would bother making any reasonable accomodations (for religious/spiritual folks, as well as other protected classes). It's cheaper and easier to have everyone the same -- everyone look the same, everyone of the same physical/mental abilities, etc. Anyone who's "different" would have to get a job with a company or small business only run by people of the same faith or those who are accepting.

Yeah, sometimes it does suck for businesses if customers are afraid of a particular person. But, we still enforced Equal Protection after segregation was ended. It would be totally unreasonable to say "it's okay restaurant to not hire black servers because it would scare the white folks". Sure, some people nowadays get afraid when they see someone in hijab, a turban, with a Satanic necklace, etc. There's a line between it being an unreasonable accommodation and one that is being abused simply for discrimatory reasons.

--------------
BTW, I've also read the Satanic Bible by LaVey and I really enjoy the philosophy. When I was Pagan, I was greatly influenced by his theories.(And, he does have a great sense of humor which everyone needs )

[Danielle Emmalee]

Dalebert, I think you're misunderstanding employment law.

The business only is prohibited from discriminating against a religious person -- like they can't say "I won't hire you because you're X".

See the EEOC --> http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Workplaces are required to make reasonable accomodations unless it's unduly burdensome. So, if the religious person is driving away customers, costing the company business, they don't need to hire them or keep them on staff.

The trouble with that is, does "driving away customers" mean the loss of 1 customer or 100 or 1000?  Also, it's difficult to prove which customers are being lost because of a which specific thing.  I really dislike laws that use terms like "reasonable" and "unduly" and other subjective measurements.

[DriftingCrow]

The trouble with that is, does "driving away customers" mean the loss of 1 customer or 100 or 1000?  Also, it's difficult to prove which customers are being lost because of a which specific thing.  I really dislike laws that use terms like "reasonable" and "unduly" and other subjective measurements.

They do seem subjective, but that's why case law comes in. Every business is different so 1 out of 100 might be a lot for a small business, but not someone huge like McDonald's.

(btw I added more to the post you quoted)

[Danielle Emmalee]

They do seem subjective, but that's why case law comes in. Every business is different so 1 out of 100 might be a lot for a small business, but not someone huge like McDonald's.

(btw I added more to the post you quoted)

You think a 1% loss of business to McDonald's wouldn't be unacceptable?  That's hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue.

I could get into the question of how fair precedent really is to base judgement on but that'd be getting a little more off topic than I'd like. 

You can't please everyone, somebody's going to get hurt by any judgement, I wont claim that it is an easy decision for business owners, judges, and politicians to make.  Or that there even is a "right" decision to make. 

[DriftingCrow]

You think a 1% loss of business to McDonald's wouldn't be unacceptable?  That's hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue.

I could get into the question of how fair precedent really is to base judgement on but that'd be getting a little more off topic than I'd like. 

You can't please everyone, somebody's going to get hurt by any judgement, I wont claim that it is an easy decision for business owners, judges, and politicians to make.  Or that there even is a "right" decision to make.

Well see, the thing is that in society there's always some accommodations businesses need to make in order to make it a better place to live and work in. Some things cost money, but it's worth it: build factories with better fire protections  and better labor laws to prevent the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory from happening again, it costs money to do this, but I think we're all glad we're not like Bangladesh now with their poor building codes and labor laws. Preventing racial discrimination and having mixed-race work forces probably drove away some customers for businesses and probably caused some white employees to quit and leave, but I am sure most people in the USA would agree that this was a good decision to push forward despite the cost to businesses.

[Danielle Emmalee]

Well see, the thing is that in society there's always some accommodations businesses need to make in order to make it a better place to live and work in. Some things cost money, but it's worth it: build factories with better fire protections  and better labor laws to prevent the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory from happening again, it costs money to do this, but I think we're all glad we're not like Bangladesh now with their poor building codes and labor laws. Preventing racial discrimination and having mixed-race work forces probably drove away some customers for businesses and probably caused some white employees to quit and leave, but I am sure most people in the USA would agree that this was a good decision to push forward despite the cost to businesses.

You're probably right that most people would agree.  Most people agreeing on something doesn't automatically make it right or good, it just makes it popular opinion.  Maybe that's the best way to run a country, maybe not. 

[Gina_Z]

Extreme Muslim Terrorists are today doing bad public relations for moderate Muslims.
Just as
Extreme Christian Crusaders did bad p.r. for moderate Christians years ago.

Unfortunately, Muslim terrorists are a threat to civility today, where as
Christian crusaders are a thing of the past.

Also- each religion has a reputation based on myths and facts. There seems to be a consensus that most Buddhists are not terrorists. Few people from Montana seem to be terrorists.
   Are we forced into a role of victim? Because it might be possible to find a country or community somewhere that caters to your culture or religion. Happiness might be found there. I can remember when b->-bleeped-<-ipes were frowned upon here. And we do know how good they can sound. 

[DriftingCrow]

Also- each religion has a reputation based on myths and facts. There seems to be a consensus that most Buddhists are not terrorists. Few people from Montana seem to be terrorists.
   Are we forced into a role of victim? Because it might be possible to find a country or community somewhere that caters to your culture or religion. Happiness might be found there. I can remember when b->-bleeped-<-ipes were frowned upon here. And we do know how good they can sound.

I don't think telling people to "pack up and leave" is the answer.

For Muslims here in the USA: when the US goes to war or interferes with internal politics of other countries (US and Britain have been shown to have meddled in Persian politics which made things worse for everyday Iranians, which eventually lead to 1979. . .) it's only reasonable to expect that there's going to be some refugees and immigrants coming in from those countries.

I could go on about some of the causes of extremism, but it's not the place here. I just think the "assimilate with us or leave" is a bad policy. I don't think anyone here is endorsing or accepting extremism from any group.

Edit to add: I think it's important to remember that us LGBT people are also minorities. We were once, and often still are, are told to "assimilate with us -- be straight, be cis, etc. or go elsewhere". A big burly "man" suddenly coming into work wearing a dress one day may be shocking to some people, some people may be disgusted and show hate, yet I'd assume the majority of people on this website would fully support this person's ability to transition without experiencing discrimination at work, school, etc. If we're cool to see her live her life the way she pleases, why should someone who decides to wear a yarmulke or turban be told me move elsewhere? If it's not unduly disruptive, I don't see the problem.

Also, I could move to Punjab, India and be around tons of Sikhs lol but I don't speak Punjabi!  I'd be so lost, I'll stick with Boston.

And, if I read your post correctly, it does just further add to my initial point, and is representative of some  of the comments I've seen here that I was referring to.

[dalebert]

Dalebert, I think you're misunderstanding employment law.

The business only is prohibited from discriminating against a religious person -- like they can't say "I won't hire you because you're X".

There was a case recently in the news exactly as I've been describing. I'll try to find it.

[Gina_Z]

Actually, 'packing up and leaving' is exactly what immigration is. Like the British and Germans coming to the USA in the 19th century. Like Mexicans coming here now. That's packing up and leaving. Going to a 'better' place for a variety of reasons. It's fruitless to expect fringe elements to have the same social privileges but we all have the same legal privileges as an ideal. Oh, I can't wait for the day that we are not defined by our race, religion, nationality, education, gender, etc.
Where is Dr. King when we need him?

[Shaina]

In southeast Michigan, we aren't exactly known for diversity or multiculturalism. However, there is a really large population of Muslims here made up primarily of the Arab people in the burbs' and Black people in Detroit. So, some people-like myself- have had the opportunity to grow up alongside someone of another religion. In comparing my treatment as a Christian to my friends' as Muslims I have to say that-in my opinion- everything described by LearnedHand has been correct without exception.

Now, I am in no way implying that knowing my friends has given me any clue what it's like to be a part of their culture because I lack those lived experiences. But the suggestion that we are beyond this type of privilege or that it doesn't exist isn't what I've observed.

Perhaps the experiences of my friends aren't representative of what happens to most people observing a religion other than Christianity but if it's true for even a handful of people, are we really beyond it?

Oh and I think there's a lot of great discussion going on in this thread! I'm learning a lot so thanks for contributing everybody!

[Gina_Z]

Generally people associate Moslems with terrorism because a very large percentage of terrorists call themselves Moslem. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with Christian privilege.