Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Just things that I've noticed. . . Applies mainly to those in Western countries, and of course there are always some exceptions.

1) Most people at least know the basics of your religion.

2) Whenever a Christian does a bad act, you don't need to put a pastor/priest on the news to defend your religion and members.

3) Overall, your religion is associated with peace and love. Forced conversions and killings done in the past are largely forgotten and ignored.

4) With the exception of very rural areas, there are many churches within a reasonable distance from your home to choose from.

5) While wearing your Sunday best, people don't assume that you're a foreigner.

6) People don't look at you with suspicion, they don't blatantly yell "terrorist!" at you, and follow you around. Overall, you don't need to leave the house and wonder if this is the day that someone is going to beat you up or kill you because of your religion.

7) People of your religion hold a majority of political seats and other positions of power.

8) Overall, you don't need to worry if a landlord charged you higher rent because of your religion.

9) Christian women aren't looked down upon for being "submissive" and Christian men aren't assumed to hate or disrespect women.

10) For the most part, if you aren't hired somewhere, you don't worry if it was because of your religion.

11) You don't feel as religiously isolated because it's easy to find other Christians nearby.

12) When you tell people you are Christian, they don't ask "why??" and then ask you about radical and hate groups. When you convert from one denomination to the other, people don't think you're "just trying to be different" or that you're going through a phase.

13) Food service workers don't question your order by saying "you know there's bacon in that?" or "I thought you guys didn't drink alcohol".

14) You're not considered a threat to the American/British/Norwegian/etc. way of life.

15) People don't burn crosses in your yard, or deface your business or house of worship by painting swastikas and other hateful and threatening messages on the walls because of your religion. People don't boycott the construction of a new church because they hate your religion. People don't walk into your house of worship and shoot worshippers  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting) because they think you're a threat.

16) You don't need to wonder if a new member of the congregation is a FBI or NYPD undercover agent. You don't feel like you're under surveillance by the government.

---------
Edited to add link and to say, this wasn't intended to offend anyone, please see my explanation below.

Not all who call themselves Christian are Christians.
There are some of us that are just as hated and disrespected.

Increasingly, I've found, this is not the case. I do get asked "Why?" I do get asked about "hate groups" and such. I often have no idea someone's a Christian because nobody wants to admit it. And increasingly, I am considered a threat to the American way of life. And saying it's because of my politics is no excuse. In America, of all places, the news media, entertainment media, and education system should not be overtly hostile to fully half the nation. The fact that they are is the antithesis of "Christian privilege."

I don't believe there is any "Christian Privilege", that is a myth perpetuated by those who disagree with the religion.

I keep hearing this word privilege thrown around but I'm not really buying it everybody has it tough in this world. Sure some people will discriminate against people different than them but you'll find that anywhere and in any belief. This grass is greener on the other side mentality is not healthy and very unproductive.  ;)

Why I made this post wasn't to make people feel bad. It was in response to some recent statements, and many statements and attitudes I've seen written on this board. To me, it seemed like statements that suggest a hatred and intolerance of other religious groups wasn't be taken seriously. The statements were being made by people who say they're Christian (also some by people who say they're atheist).

Those who I perceived to be attacking other groups and blaming the other groups for their problems I believed seemed blind to some of the benefits they have from being in a majority religion, especially one where it is easy to not be noticed in the crowd. As I stated in the OP, there are exceptions, and I meant privileges compared to minority religions, rather then privileges in general in society. I am aware that our country is moving toward being more atheist/agnostic, and the churches like the WBC make Christians look bad.

Saying other religions are "taking over" and having bad, stereotypical, and discriminatory things to say about people in these other religions isn't very productive though, and some statements I've seen really shows a need of some to try going to an Interfaith dialogue. 

Like some people will tell you, I don't hate Christians. I have Christian friends, I have a Christian Bible, and I've defended Christians both here on Susan's and IRL. Despite that, I do think every once in awhile we need to at least think about some things we have that are good (like. . . not having people yell terrorist at you because most Christian women don't believe they need to wear a headscarf). I had to read the "Invisible Knapsack: White Privilege" essay years ago, and that was a great read, and as a pale-skinned person, I think of that list all the time. While you may not agree with my list, those are just some things that I've noticed I had more when I was identifying as Christian and that I don't quite have now. I don't cover my head every day, so I have the contrast of days where I am just seen as another white female in the crowd, and then on days when I am going to temple, and I put a scarf on and maybe stop quickly at a store on the way to or fro and seeing how some people treat me. There are some benefits to being in a headscarf, and other really bad things.

I am mainly just sick of being on here and hearing these statements from people who claim they're Christians that put down other religious groups. There should be more tolerance and empathy.

If you think Christianity is under threat, it's been easy to blame "the boogeyman" which is Islam and other visible religious minority. Why? Because you can see them. Walking down the street, you see a woman with a scarf or a dark skinned man with a beard and skull-cap, you can easily assume s/he is a Muslim. The media often paints them in a bad light, they're misunderstood, there's sometimes language barriers, culture barriers, etc. The media is confused about what Sharia law is, and confusion and ignorance makes things seem more threatening.

However, it isn't these religious groups that are threatening Christianity in the Western world. It's unfair to blame these other groups and say things which come across as being insensitive and hurtful to these people. The real threat isn't just to Christianity, it's to religious people of all types. Anyone seen the proposed law (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323595004579067262175527866) from Quebec? They want to ban large crosses, skull caps, hijab, niqab, turbans, and yarmulkes from public workers.  This effects people of ALL religions.

Now, I could write a Sikh privilege list, or Pagan privilege list too. (I was raised Christian, it didn't connect with me. I was Pagan for awhile, and then I realized that I was actually Sikh and didn't know it). All religions have their benefits and con in society.

Those were my observations, and your feedback is always appreciated. :)

I do though think it would be a nice exercise to see what it's like being a visible religious minority (we all know what it's like to be visible as trans). For anyone willing to play along, it would be interesting to see those who live as female in their everyday life to put on a headscarf, long sleeves and pants, and go out to the store, the movies, whatever and write about if you think you were treated differently. Those who live as men, put on a skull cap or tie a turban and try to grow your beard and see if you're treated differently.

Tolerance and empathy can come with walking a mile in each other's shoes. I feel like I've been on both sides of this. Being assumed to be a Muslim even though I am not, and having been called a terrorist and traitor is perspective-changing.

Again, I don't hate Christians or Christianity. Not everyone here or Christians in general are who I am talking about.

(wow, I think this is my longest post ever)

Learnedhand,
I would hope that my posts do not fall into a category as you say as I do not attempt to offend people. But it can happen being crude of speech and all.

When I was in Israel I wore a skull cap to go into the Holocaust Museum. I did this to honor their faith and their beliefs. I do not regret this as it is just a courtesy and even though the word of God says a man should not pray with his head covered I feel too many Pentecostal people go overboard with it. The ones I used to worship with who were rather works-oriented.

You would have thought I was the world's worse blasphemer when I told them. Since I do not believe in lying I had to tell them the truth when asked. Still, I am surprised they didn't call me Judas or something.

I ended up leaving that church. the reasons go way farther and not of importance in this topic. Still however, I do know how some are treated when they do that which is really innocent and gives honor to another faith.

At any rate, I hope you don't feel I am doing what you say of some. My references to Islam in a negative connotation are the extremists who I personally do not feel are true Muslims. Just like the abortion bombing people and such aren't true Christians.

May God bless.

Del, I don't hold anything you or others have said against you. I believe in forgiveness, though some things I felt the need to say because some aren't always aware of the things they say or do. I make mistakes all the time, I offend people, and when I do, I'd want someone to tell me so I don't do it again.

I do not believe in *privilege* in any sense of the word and most of all in Christianity.Just like the human race,orientation,culture or anything else that has a living,breathing person with a brain-there will ALWAYS be one that does wrong by others.There is simply human beings that have either been taught or just feel,that many deserve such negative actions against them.I myself *even with current mental state,tho this i cant control* do not have the heart to act this way towards anyone,regardless of anything.Its true that many will do many bad things to another,even some horrible things and i believe that calling it privilege/justice for the hate they receive from a mindless,hateful bigot/or whatever excuse they give,is purely on the person dishing it out.I have seen alot of support in many places and these actions speak louder then the negative *to me anyway* and many who are weak are easy to be crushed under such negative things.Even my own mind became crushed but due to my own doing,allowing others the ability to even enter it.I believe that hate is hate in any form and even though i do not agree with other religions or have different views,i still believe what my religion says and it says to love ALL and thats exactly what i do.Of course as long as they respect me and my beliefs,not expecting me to convert,then i have no issues what so ever and would treat them the same as any other human being.I do feel that there needs to be a greater respect and understanding for other people and the domination mind set and twisting,to be done away with.

Responses based on personal experience in the USA and apply only to the USA.  I travel a lot within the US for work.  We have over 200 manufacturing sites that are spread all over and I've been to a bunch of them.  In general, what you say applies to the center and religious left.  The religious right is another story.

1) Most people at least know the basics of your religion.  (Probably true)
2) Whenever a Christian does a bad act, you don't need to put a pastor/priest on the news to defend your religion and members. (Depends on how bad or extreme the act really is....I'm thinking about some of the extremely conservative Christian sects.)
3) Overall, your religion is associated with peace and love. Forced conversions and killings done in the past are largely forgotten and ignored. (Forced conversions and killings seem to be out.  Shunning, forced behavioral changes still go on.)
4) With the exception of very rural areas, there are many churches within a reasonable distance from your home to choose from.  (I'm thinking that a 15 mile radius will get most of the area covered, which is great if one has a car.)
5) While wearing your Sunday best, people don't assume that you're a foreigner. (Depends on where one is at.  There are ethnic neighborhoods and areas in the southern US where clothes acceptable in New England would get someone in trouble.  This does not depend on race.  The US is a BIG country.)
6) People don't look at you with suspicion, they don't blatantly yell "terrorist!" at you, and follow you around. Overall, you don't need to leave the house and wonder if this is the day that someone is going to beat you up or kill you because of your religion. (Again the neighborhood thing or southern thing.  In this instance, it is based more on race than on religion.)
7) People of your religion hold a majority of political seats and other positions of power. (Christianity in the US has to many sects within it for this to apply.  Some conservative parts believe Catholics are worse than any pegan religion.)
8) Overall, you don't need to worry if a landlord charged you higher rent because of your religion. (Generally true.  They just won't rent to someone who is to different.)
9) Christian women aren't looked down upon for being "submissive" and Christian men aren't assumed to hate or disrespect women. (There are some very conservative sects that don't seem to have much, if any respect for women.)
10) For the most part, if you aren't hired somewhere, you don't worry if it was because of your religion. (For the most part.  About the only exception would be a very conservative Christian in a very liberal area. )
11) You don't feel as religiously isolated because it's easy to find other Christians nearby. (I live in a metro area of over 3 million.  I can't find a church I like.  Every neighbor I have is Christian and none go to the same church.  We do not talk about religion.) 

12) When you tell people you are Christian, they don't ask "why??" and then ask you about radical and hate groups. When you convert from one denomination to the other, people don't think you're "just trying to be different" or that you're going through a phase. (In liberal areas, they will ask "why?".  People do not think you are trying to be different.  The response could be anything from "OK" to a total rejection equal to anything a transgender sees.  Seriously, I've know people who have not talked to their families for year.)
13) Food service workers don't question your order by saying "you know there's bacon in that?" or "I thought you guys didn't drink alcohol".  (Conservative Christians often believe that drinking is a sin.)
14) You're not considered a threat to the American/British/Norwegian/etc. way of life. (I can go with this one.)
15) People don't burn crosses in your yard, or deface your business or house of worship by painting swastikas and other hateful and threatening messages on the walls because of your religion. People don't boycott the construction of a new church because they hate your religion. People don't walk into your house of worship and shoot worshippers because they think you're a threat. (They don't shoot worshippers in the US.  The rest?  Not often but it does happen.)
16) You don't need to wonder if a new member of the congregation is a FBI or NYPD undercover agent. You don't feel like you're under surveillance by the government.  (Probably not)

If I may make a post here. As many of you know I do not follow any religion or any belief but I will willingly defend the right of anyone to follow their religious beliefs in safety, comfort and with absolute respect for those beliefs.

History is sadly bathed in the the blood of people who have been persecuted for their religious belief and that is wrong, totally and unforgivably wrong.

People of any religion are welcome at my table to share my meal and my conversation without prejudice.

Members of this site in particular suffer discrimination in many forms for many different reasons; let us lead by example to show that tolerance for and love of our fellow humans is the only acceptable way to treat people.

The word "privilege" often rubs me the wrong way because it tends to be abused. It's often a way to be dismissive about other people's real problems. "My problems are way worse than yours so quit complaining. Check your privilege!"

That said, I do feel there is a certain privilege that all religions enjoy that bugs me. I think it's the failure to distinguish between respecting someone's belief and respecting their right to their beliefs. I don't respect most religious beliefs but I absolutely respect someone's right to practice their beliefs peacefully, meaning as long as that practice doesn't infringe on my rights. There's this notion that a belief, if it's religiously-based, is beyond criticism. This leads to the misconception that you somehow have a right to not be offended, but a right to not be offended requires a right to suppress someone else's free speech.

I don't respect a church that rejects gay marriage but I respect their right to not marry a same-sex couple or to acknowledge such a marriage or even to not allow openly gay people in their membership. Courts shouldn't force them. That said, I have a lot to say about that practice. I might even engage in loud but peaceful expressions against such a practice.

On the other hand, a business that has a strict dress code for all its employees can be forced to make an exception for religious reasons. For instance, a business with a no hats policy will likely legally be forced to make an exception for Jewish men or Muslim women. That's ridiculous. As an atheist, I can say I believe all men should wear a certain kind of hat at all times, but that belief is not automatically respected and defended because it's not religiously-based. If I wanted an exception to the policy, I would have to justify my case with a rational argument, i.e. evidence for my reasoning. I might get away with arguing medical reasons if I have a condition that causes me to lose extra heat from my head or something.

The Jew or the Muslim just says "That's my religion" and the debate is over. The courts will force a business to make special exceptions for that person's beliefs. That is absolutely a legal privilege. There are powerful people willing to threaten that business with sanctions if they don't obey and extend special privileges simply on the basis of religion.

Quote from: dalebert on October 22, 2013, 10:30:14 AM
On the other hand, a business that has a strict dress code for all its employees can be forced to make an exception for religious reasons. For instance, a business with a no hats policy will likely legally be forced to make an exception for Jewish men or Muslim women. That's ridiculous. As an atheist, I can say I believe all men should wear a certain kind of hat at all times, but that belief is not automatically respected and defended because it's not religiously-based. If I wanted an exception to the policy, I would have to justify my case with a rational argument, i.e. evidence for my reasoning. I might get away with arguing medical reasons if I have a condition that causes me to lose extra heat from my head or something.

The Jew or the Muslim just says "That's my religion" and the debate is over. The courts will force a business to make special exceptions for that person's beliefs. That is absolutely a legal privilege. There are powerful people willing to threaten that business with sanctions if they don't obey and extend special privileges simply on the basis of religion.

Well the First Amendment of the US Constitution gives the freedom to practice your religion, not to wear a hat if you like wearing hats, or a bracelet because it has special meaning to you.

QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If wearing a yarmulke is part of someone's religion, it can't be taken away. People wearing religious gear aren't given a free-for-all. You don't see yarmulkes, hijab, turbans, etc. in the military (with the very rare exceptions), because the military in the US wants to keep everyone uniform. You can't wear hijab in factories where it would be dangerous if it's likely the cloth will get caught in equipment. And so on. . .

The exceptions are only given in circumstances where the religious attire wouldn't interfere with stuff like the health, safety, and function of the workplace. I fully support this Amendment, because otherwise people would just say "you can't work here because your [insert article of faith here] will scare customers," etc. This is to protect people of all faiths from religious discrimination.

Religion is considered a "fundamental right" in the US Constitution while people's likes or dislikes don't rise to the same level of protection.

Part of the reason for the OP was to make noticeable some of the things religious minorities who are often seen with dislike in Western countries go through, no to make Christian problems seem less severe. The issue with religious freedom is easy for some secularists and even people of other religions to wish to bend the 1st Amendment right to freedom of worship for various political and social reasons. The thing is though, going down the slippery slope will affect more than the "undesirables". Banning the burqa will lead to banning other things (like in the Quebec article I linked above. I am aware Quebec is not the USA, but there's been similar statements made about wanting to curb the right to this sort of free expression).

Quote from: LearnedHand on October 22, 2013, 10:48:50 AM
Well the First Amendment of the US Constitution gives the freedom to practice your religion, not to wear a hat if you like wearing hats, or a bracelet because it has special meaning to you.

That's exactly my point. Why are some beliefs given priority over other beliefs for freedom to practice? I'm aware the Constitution gives special status to religious beliefs. I'm arguing for how things ought to be.

QuoteYou don't see yarmulkes, hijab, turbans, etc. in the military (with the very rare exceptions), because the military in the US wants to keep everyone uniform.

That's what they want. And some companies want to keep their employees uniform because while they're on the job, they're representing the company. I'd be appalled at a company that tried to say you couldn't wear a special hat off the job, but if they have a uniform policy that conflicts with your religion, then don't take the job. Don't ask for special treatment that non-religious people don't get. I'm morally opposed to what I would have to do if I joined the military so I won't join the military (again). If someone is morally opposed to dressing a certain way for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, they shouldn't take a job at such a company. No one is going to force them to work there versus somewhere else that doesn't have the same requirements. If the company is smart, they'll exercise such policies with care so as not to turn away good potential employees over something like a religious hat, but how strict their dress policy is should be their decision based on factors they evaluate.

Quote
Religion is considered a "fundamental right" in the US Constitution while people's likes or dislikes don't rise to the same level of protection.

Exactly! And that's my beef. What's the difference? What if I declare one of my beliefs to be a religiously-based belief? When does it qualify as a freedom to practice that would be legally protected and imposed on employers? Why is your religious belief more meaningful legally than my non-religious belief?

QuoteBanning the burqa will lead to banning other things...

Absolutely! The thought of the government telling people how to dress or not to dress, for any reason, terrifies me. That's a step in the direction of tyranny. The thought of two free entities coming to some sort of agreement, forming a freely-entered contract for their mutual benefit like exchanging services for money under certain terms that were made clear in the beginning does not bother me. Why should it? But the thought of a force like a government intervening and imposing certain restrictions on how those two entities freely interact with one another also terrifies me.

Do you understand the difference between me telling you that you will be punished by the government for certain non-violent practices, garmets, etc...
and me offering you a job with certain conditions, made clear up front, with no threat whatsoever to make you take the job or not?

Quote from: dalebert on October 22, 2013, 12:40:39 PM
That's exactly my point. Why are some beliefs given priority over other beliefs for freedom to practice? I'm aware the Constitution gives special status to religious beliefs. I'm arguing for how things ought to be.

That's what they want. And some companies want to keep their employees uniform because while they're on the job, they're representing the company. I'd be appalled at a company that tried to say you couldn't wear a special hat off the job, but if they have a uniform policy that conflicts with your religion, then don't take the job. Don't ask for special treatment that non-religious people don't get. I'm morally opposed to what I would have to do if I joined the military so I won't join the military (again). If someone is morally opposed to dressing a certain way for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, they shouldn't take a job at such a company. No one is going to force them to work there versus somewhere else that doesn't have the same requirements. If the company is smart, they'll exercise such policies with care so as not to turn away good potential employees over something like a religious hat, but how strict their dress policy is should be their decision based on factors they evaluate.

Exactly! And that's my beef. What's the difference? What if I declare one of my beliefs to be a religiously-based belief? When does it qualify as a freedom to practice that would be legally protected and imposed on employers? Why is your religious belief more meaningful legally than my non-religious belief?

Absolutely! The thought of the government telling people how to dress or not to dress, for any reason, terrifies me. That's a step in the direction of tyranny. The thought of two free entities coming to some sort of agreement, forming a freely-entered contract for their mutual benefit like exchanging services for money under certain terms that were made clear in the beginning does not bother me. Why should it? But the thought of a force like a government intervening and imposing certain restrictions on how those two entities freely interact with one another also terrifies me.

Do you understand the difference between me telling you that you will be punished by the government for certain non-violent practices, garmets, etc...
and me offering you a job with certain conditions, made clear up front, with no threat whatsoever to make you take the job or not?

To answer the question about why religion is more important: Because this country, perhaps uniquely out of all the countries on Earth, is based on freedom of - and to practice - religion.
If you want a strictly secular, keep-it-to-yourself humanist nation, there's always Canada. But America is the way it is because some nation, somewhere, has to be. A refuge where all religions can wear any fancy hat they choose, worship what they choose, teach their kids what they choose, and nobody gets to tell them no.

Quote from: ZoeM on October 22, 2013, 12:56:42 PM
To answer the question about why religion is more important: Because this country, perhaps uniquely out of all the countries on Earth, is based on freedom of - and to practice - religion.
If you want a strictly secular, keep-it-to-yourself humanist nation, there's always Canada. But America is the way it is because some nation, somewhere, has to be. A refuge where all religions can wear any fancy hat they choose, worship what they choose, teach their kids what they choose, and nobody gets to tell them no.

Canada?  I'm not sure where you're getting your information but you are badly mistaken. Canada's first fundamental freedom according to the Constitution is freedom of religion.   Yeah, the first fundamental freedom, just like the first amendment of the US Constitution.

Also I don't think that's what dalebert is arguing.  What he is arguing if I understand correctly is that if its okay to use religion to circumvent dress codes then that is giving EXTRA rights to those who have a religion that those who do not practice a religion do not have.

 

Quote from: ZoeM on October 22, 2013, 12:56:42 PM
But America is the way it is because some nation, somewhere, has to be. A refuge where all religions can wear any fancy hat they choose, worship what they choose, teach their kids what they choose, and nobody gets to tell them no.

And we can and should continue to be that. Those are freedoms we should all have regardless of our religious beliefs. No one should have the power to force you to do something you disagree with, wear or not wear what you want. And no one should be able to force you to take a job that has dress codes that conflict with your religious beliefs.

Quote from: <3 on October 22, 2013, 01:04:20 PM
What he is arguing if I understand correctly is that if its okay to use religion to circumvent dress codes then that is giving EXTRA rights to those who have a religion that those who do not practice a religion do not have.

Exactly. That's just one example. Treating all your employees the same regardless of their beliefs is not religious discrimination. Making special exceptions for some of your employees depending on their religious beliefs IS religious discrimination and it's not fair to those who don't get the exception due to their (lack of) beliefs.

Wouldn't you be concerned that some people wouldn't get jobs at all without protections? Without  some restrictions on the freedom to contract, little to no progress would be made on some fronts. Physically and mentally disabled people hadlittle chances of employment until the ADA came along and other protections and incentives (their work numbers are still poor). New and hated groups would have little opportunities to work if forced to comply in workplaces where their articles of faith make little or no impact on performance.

Quote from: dalebert on October 22, 2013, 03:17:20 PM
Exactly. That's just one example. Treating all your employees the same regardless of their beliefs is not religious discrimination. Making special exceptions for some of your employees depending on their religious beliefs IS religious discrimination and it's not fair to those who don't get the exception due to their (lack of) beliefs.

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.

Quote from: ZoeM on October 22, 2013, 03:28:53 PM
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.  :eusa_think:

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).

Quote from: Heather on October 22, 2013, 03:35:19 PM
Yeah I kinda find it funny too how the belief in nothing has turned into into it's on belief system.  :eusa_think:

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.

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.

QuoteAlthough 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)

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.

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.

Quote from: dalebert on October 22, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
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?

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 :) )

Quote from: LearnedHand on October 22, 2013, 09:19:28 PM
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.

Quote from: <3 on October 22, 2013, 09:26:13 PM
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)

Quote from: LearnedHand on October 22, 2013, 09:32:29 PM
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. 

Quote from: <3 on October 22, 2013, 09:42:13 PM
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.

Quote from: LearnedHand on October 22, 2013, 09:53:10 PM
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. 

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. 

Quote from: Gina_Z on October 22, 2013, 10:13:19 PM
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!  :laugh: 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.

Quote from: LearnedHand on October 22, 2013, 09:19:28 PM
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.

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?

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! :D

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.

Quote from: Gina_Z on October 26, 2013, 05:39:07 PM
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.

Valid point but I'm not so sure I agree. The perpetuation of those stereotypes (Muslims as terrorists) put practitioners of that faith at a disadvantage. Often, Christians don't have to deal with being associated with terrorism though we've had our fair share of terrorists, like The Army of God that bombed those clinics.

Anywho, I could be wrong but isn't the absence of that disadvantage experienced by others the very definition of privilege?

it's the 21st century and people from all kinds of cultures and religions live everywhere in the world together. i think it's high time everybody kept their religious beliefs to themselves and started treating the rest of the world as animals of their own species, no more categorization beyond that.

I think it's a good idea to share all ideas, including ideas about religion, science, sex, politics, philosophies, etc.   

the first thing you need to know about a person you just met regardless of his or her appearance is just how extremes his/her views on anything are.....

Any body who is extreme in his/her:
religious,
environmental,
political,
philosophical,
sexual,
health,
etc

is a person who would not compromise, would not negotiate, who will be willing to die -if required- in order to proselytize his or her "good news" with you...

These self-righteous people are and have been the source of many of humanities genocides and horror...

Let see: crusaders, inquisition, the "Indian fighters" in the conquest of the west, the ethnocidals preachers in south America, the Nazis, the communist, the list goes on and on

Anyone who is extreme in their regard to human life and fair treatment to all is A OK in my book.

I'm all for free speech and against its suppression.
I'm against terrorism and violent acts.
If someone wants to convince me to eat tofu, that's OK.
If they want to force me to eat tofu, that's unacceptable.     

And in regard with the original premise of the OP is not a fart fetched idea to extend that a Muslim in a Muslim country is going to feel a "Muslim Privilege", and so we can get a Jewish privilege in Israel (or NY..LOL), and Hindu Privilege in India, and so on and so forth

Quote from: peky on November 02, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
And in regard with the original premise of the OP is not a fart fetched idea to extend that a Muslim in a Muslim country is going to feel a "Muslim Privilege", and so we can get a Jewish privilege in Israel (or NY..LOL), and Hindu Privilege in India, and so on and so forth

Of course, like in Saudi Arabia where for the most part non-Muslims aren't even allowed into the country.

Main thing I was trying to say (rehashed again) is that with anyone with privilege (which of course depends on your locale, culture, etc.) it's easy to become blind to the benefits you have in society and blind to the needs of others. I know some white people who were quite upset when reading the White Privilege (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html) essay, saying that we're in a "post-racial" society (geez, and this was before Obama came into office!) and that everyone is equal, and that it's not fair that African-Americans have affirmative action. Anyone who pays attention to social issues or isn't white will clearly explain how we're not in a post-racial society, and how white people still have privileges. (This is for Americans here, I can't speak for other countries). Realizing one has white privilege is a good thing, because then you can help be the end to systemic racial discrimination in policy or society.

Sometimes we just have the illusion that we're in a post-racial world because it's no longer politically correct to outright say discriminatory things like it was a few decades ago. Nowadays, most people at least know others of different races (not exactly friends with people of other races (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/08/19932778-poll-many-americans-have-no-friends-outside-their-race)), so some of the traditional discriminatory views have been shaken just by merely knowing and interacting with others outside of the same race. (If more people were actually close friends with people of other races, we'd likely have much less discrimination IMO).

It's just now that Muslims are the current people where it's totally acceptable to say hateful, stereotypical things about all over the place without even having to pretend you're not hateful (for someone else's wording (http://mattkrause.com/2011/07/muslims-are-the-new--%3E-bleeped-%3C-s/) *warning, n word in the title*) --- as I've experienced, I hear hateful anti-Muslim, anti-anyreligionthatlooksdifferentthanme speech at work, in media, in movies, and here at Susan's Place. And, surprising to me, is that most of this speech that I've witnessed comes from Christians (there are some Atheists I've seen too). I'd venture to say that many people in the USA who say these things does not really know anyone who's Muslim or Sikh or Hindu or any number of religions that are not Judeo-Christian, perhaps the most interaction is with a cashier, or the guy/girl that is sometimes at the office water cooler at the same time, or the few times you sit near another on the train.

Privilege comes into this, because for the Americans I've seen/heard in my daily life (either talking about Muslims or going out of their way to try to insult me when they perceive me as a foreigner, or as a Muslim) are white and/or Christian, and it's easy to forget that there's benefits for being part of the majority religion, the one that most people are used to, the one that people don't see as threatening or foreign. It's easy to get afraid of the extremist Muslims out there and use your words to say "Islam is a threat" which paints a brush on every Muslim in the world, and only recant and say "oh no, I only meant the radicals" when someone says something about it.  To me, if someone said "blacks are a threat b/c X, Y, and Z" I'd say you were racist and not take any recant seriously, and I am sure many others would too; instead, it's fine here on Susan's to say "Muslims are a threat, b/c of X, Y, and Z", painting the stroke on every Muslim in the world, and that's perfectly fine to do here as I discovered and it's even condoned by some higher-ups. On Susan's, in the media, at work, etc. this type of outright Islamphobic speech of okay, most people don't even consider it to be hateful or unacceptable.

When you have privilege (whether it's white privilege in America, Muslim privilege in Saudi Arabia (although, in Saudi, you need to be the right kind of Muslim to get any privilege), able-bodied privilege anywhere, etc.), and you ignore your privilege, you can become another agent of repression. Instead of finding ways to be more inclusive, you can say "oh women/blacks/disabled folks/etc. are equal now" and continue on with the status quo because you don't even realize that things are tilted. It's fine to dislike extremist Muslims, or extremists of other faiths, who kill other people and repress others because they're doing something that's bad under any sort of moral viewpoint, but it's not acceptable to continue allowing broad stroked hatred to continue, and to allow ignorance to continue (while some people don't outright say hateful thigns against Muslims, in my daily life and here at Susan's I've heard/seen comments that show that many people don't even do some basic research).

Anyways, like I said before, I'll defend anyone who I perceive is getting the short end of the stick, whether you're Christian, white, Atheist, tan, rich, poor, whatever, I don't care. I take the "all men are created equal" part of the Constitution quite seriously, to me it truly means all people, not just the white, male, British descent, property owners like it was more thought of at the time it was written. America is reaching another turning point, we're expanding equality further than we have before (most recently is for LGBTs like we've been seeing more and more in the news), but we're seeing some people pop up saying that certain people should just leave the country (thanks Gina), should assimilate by taking the rags off their heads, and would like to see similar laws to France and Canada which were mainly instated with Muslims in mind to limit religious expression. By ignoring the privileges available to us, whoever we are, wherever we are, and allowing the furtherance of public displays of hate, we're setting ourselves up to be hurt in the future. If we continue view it as acceptable to hate minorities (religious, racial, ethnic, etc.), we're cutting off our own legs, there'll be nothing left to stand on, no defenses left when lenses shift.

As often attributed to Martin Niemöller:

QuoteFirst they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me

Anyways, that's my soap box. For those that see Islam as a threat, who still want those who are different to either fully assimilate or to "go home", continue on. I don't expect many of you to become less public in your hatred or to remember that in the future Christians could be treated the way Muslims/other visible religious minorities currently are in America because of my long-winded (and likely poorly written) post here.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1337.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo665%2FLearnedHand1%2Fsoapbox_zpsb1073865.jpg&hash=0b89175592faad680d9d02ad9649a0f42ef58441) (http://s1337.photobucket.com/user/LearnedHand1/media/soapbox_zpsb1073865.jpg.html)

Again, all from the point of view from an American, mixed-race, non-Christian who sometimes gets mistaken for Muslim, US Constitution lovin' transguy, who just wants to see everyone at least make an attempt to put hatred aside and treat others the same way we want to be.

Quote from: LearnedHand on November 04, 2013, 10:40:50 PM


It's just now that Muslims are the current people where it's totally acceptable to say hateful, stereotypical things about all over the place without even having to pretend you're not hateful

I think it's hateful for you to make such a generalization.

Certainly,  there are stupid people who make nasty generalized statements about Moslems, but to say it's a mainstream phenomenon is silly and just stirs up negative attitudes. Where's the data, the studies? When 9 out of 10 terrorists are self-described Muslims, that has an effect on people's attitudes. It's that simple. I think most people realize that those terrorists are not mainstream Muslims, but a fringe element. As for your idea about 'privilege', what would you like to see happen or changed? It comes across as vague whining without offering a solution. I don't think that's your intention. 

As for 'leaving the country', I was making the point that it is a severe contradiction to move to a country that you do not like. For what purpose? An example of the absurdity: A couple from middle America moving to Saudi Arabia and then not being happy about the treatment of women in that country. Ideally, people should leave a country for another country because they LIKE the new country better, often MUCH better. If a person is looking for acceptance, she should do what the Romans do, when in Rome. Act likable.

BTW, who exactly are they coming for? In my suburban neighborhood they are not coming for anyone. What's happening over by you? Why isn't the media covering it? Tell us all.

One last point- If you want to defend people, it works best when you specifically defend an individual, rather that a huge group of people. Why? because large groups of people behave in a wide variety of ways. Try to defend all southerners or all people in Montana and it just doesn't work. If you want to make a difference, choose an individual and defend them. Make a lot of friends. Show them love. Avoid contempt. Show forgiveness. One on one relationships have the most power, in terms of changing the world.

Quote from: LearnedHand on November 04, 2013, 10:40:50 PM
As often attributed to Martin Niemöller:
Anyways, that's my soap box. For those that see Islam as a threat, who still want those who are different to either fully assimilate or to "go home", continue on. I don't expect many of you to become less public in your hatred or to remember that in the future Christians could be treated the way Muslims/other visible religious minorities currently are in America because of my long-winded (and likely poorly written) post here.

Stay up on that "soap box" I for one am quite enjoying learning about another perspective :)

Love that quote btw it's one of my Dad's favorites!

People who are oppressed, should be defended, but it's impossible to legislate 'love' or niceness. We often hear about individual acts of hate, but what about acts of love, between individuals? My niece has a new roommate this semester. She's a Muslim. So? They get along fine. Maybe we should explain the privilege thing to them. Or not. 

I'm happy to hear your niece has a nice roomie Gina! Doesn't always work out that way :D

Oh and love cannot be legislated, I agree, but hate-specifically hate crimes-can definitely be addressed by the law. I think we get so desensitized by all the acts of hate you mentioned that we come to a point of acceptance. It can be tempting to just say, "There are always going to be intolerant people so we can't do x, y and z when it happens".

My grandmother felt like white privilege was a fact of life and that blacks speaking against it (or even acknowledging the existence of white privilege) during the civil rights era were fighting human nature. I wonder where we'd be if everyone thought like her? Or where we will be if we have the same attitude about other cultures, religions etc.? Just a thought.