Christianity's hidden privilege

[Wildswanderer]

"Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time."

"the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.”

CITATION

As I have said the vast majority of the founders were Christians. Jefferson and Franklin are the only questionable ones, but regardless they based thier politics on a belief in God.

 

[Augustus]

List the principles of humanism and Christianity and look for overlap. You just won't find it.

It's not that hard if you look at European history rather than modern US Protestant fundamentalism

The following are shared by liberal Christianity and Humanism, and all of them demonstrably evolved in a Christian context starting in the medieval period or earlier and continuing to evolve over the following centuries:

• Universalism (product of monotheism)
• Progressive teleology (Divine Providence and eschatology)
• Natural rights/human rights that apply to all people, even non-Christians (medieval canon law)
• a universe that can and should be understood through scientific investigation regardless of any practical utility of the knowledge (The medieval theological conception that the 'book of nature' was an alternative 'scripture' that should be studied)
• The value of education for all (Cathedral schools, university system, Protestant promotion of learning, etc.)
• The division between a secular sphere and a religious sphere with different responsibilities and the primacy of the secular in governance ('render unto Caesar..', defensor pacis, William of Ockham, etc.)

While these may seem self-evident to our modern minds, this combination of beliefs is exceedingly rare historically, yet we are supposed to assume that Humanists just happened to magically come up with the same combination of ideas without any influence from their Christian cultural environment. Of course Christian thought itself had multiple non-Christian influences, ideas to tend to evolve from existing ideas rather than appearing out of a vacuum after all,.

Secular humanists were just one step on from the Providential Deists of the Enlightenment (Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) who acknowledged they were culturally Christian without the irrational supernatural and miraculous components. Humanists just ditched the deistic god and replaced Providence with the secular Idea of Progress (see for example Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay by Robert Nisbet | Online Library of Liberty )

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I'm not sure, but I think that before trying to figure out how to address an inequity, the first step is to acknowledge that there is, in fact, an inequity.

Do you agree that there's an inequity in the difference between how we treat Christianity versus non-Christian religions in this society?

No.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No.

Why not?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rome was a very sophisticated and creative secular super power. It was also a military type society due to its vast empire. Christianity was a religion based on love, faith, and forgiveness. Their union was a paradox of extreme opposites.

The USA, which came from a later version of this hybrid, has all types of advanced weapons; Rome, but with the Christian influences for peace. Instead of urge for conquest we have the compromise; peace through strength.

Competition is not just war, in the USA, but it is mostly sports, free market and politics, so the competitive nature of Rome can be harnessed and make constructive. This is how a country of free citizens could appear with choices and rights; controlled chaos that makes the USA able to change and evolve.

Most people under Roman tyranny--including many Romans--weren't free. Why should anyone want to model themselves after it? Exhausting military conquests, brutal treatment towards others, massive enslavement, little to no tolerance for the ways of others, and it was generally rules by dictators.

 

[Augustus]

Rome was a very sophisticated and creative secular super power.

While Roman religion was of a very different nature to Abrahamic faiths, Rome was anything but secular. Religion was inseparable from state, the emperor was even a god.

 

[Sheldon]

Not explicitly Christian, no, but definitely on Christian principles.

I quoted several founders who explicitly stated that America was founded on Christianity.

Equivocation...

 

[Sheldon]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
Christianity does not give men the right to cast off the chains of oppression from the prevailing government, nor does it permit the pursuit of happiness,

Nonsense.

No it isn't.

 

[Sheldon]

As I have said the vast majority of the founders were Christians.

Nope, and this is a very different claim to your previous one that "the US was founded on Christianity."

Jefferson and Franklin are the only questionable ones,

Again this is nonsense, and again it is equivocation, since it's not what you claimed originally.

but regardless they based thier politics on a belief in God.

Nope, in a deity maybe, but the capital G is nonsense there.

Did you read what I quoted or go to the linked citation? What am I thinking.

"Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time."

"the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.”

CITATION

 

[Wildswanderer]

Again this is nonsense, and again it is equivocation, since it's not what you claimed originally.

It's the same thing I said earlier..

 

[Augustus]

No it isn't.

Some medieval writers, beginning with the canon lawyers of the twelfth century, refer to certain iura naturalia, ‘‘natural rights’’ that belong to human beings apart from any human positive law. They held that some of these natural rights are alienable or able to be overridden by human law, but others (or these same rights) are in certain circumstances operative irrespective of positive law – that is, at least some natural rights are, at least for some circumstances, inalienable. This is the ancestor of the modern idea of human rights, that is, rights belonging permanently to any human being as such, independently of the law or customs of any community...

The right to use things, the right to freedom and the right of self-defense were included in Isidore’s statement of natural law: ‘‘the common possession of all things and the one liberty of all... and the repelling of force with force’’...

Independent rulers hold power ‘‘from God alone’’ in the sense that regularly they are answerable to God alone, but rulers receive their power from the people and on occasion can be corrected or deposed by their subjects, or even by an individual subject... just as in situations of necessity an owner’s positive rights may be overridden by the right to use, so if government breaks down, or if the ruler becomes a tyrant, the people’s natural right to provide themselves with government and law revives and they may depose one ruler or regime and establish another.

Natural Rights

Deism influenced a majority of the Founders.

Providential deism, while rejecting the authority of the church, was basically cultural Christianity stripped of the supernatural and miraculous components. It rejected the power of the church and the authority of scripture, but was grounded in the Christian tradition.

For example, the idea of divine Providence is in the Declaration of Independence:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Deism at this point was basically the earliest form of "post-Christianity", so when people say they weren't Christians and rejected traditional Christianity that is true. But when people say America was founded on Christian beliefs this is also partially true.

 

[Redwing]

As a society, we've arranged our schedule around Christianity: Christian days of worship and holidays are "standard" days off work. Other religions don't get this privilege. This has lots of effects that disadvantage non-Christians.

In the USA, the only Christian holiday that many people get off from work is Christmas.

What holidays does Canada have so many of that workers get to take off?

 

[Redwing]

It was founded as a democratic republic, and the constitution made it crystal clear that people were free to believe whatever they wanted, without any interference or discrimination by the government.

You’re not quoting or summarizing correctly; nonetheless, the government isn’t to impose laws onto Christianity, but Democrat-Communists do.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Why not?

Because every nation and culture has its roots.

I am not about to claim that signs written in French in France or the fact that there are "non-Muslim" areas in Saudi Arabia are examples of "privilege" either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because every nation and culture has its roots.

Isn't this just another way of saying that some types of privilege are long-standing?

I am not about to claim that signs written in French in France or the fact that there are "non-Muslim" areas in Saudi Arabia are examples of "privilege" either.

Why not?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Isn't this just another way of saying that some types of privilege are long-standing?

No - it is saying that every nation and/or culture has its own unique heritage, and they should be honored - not disparaged.

Why not?

Pretty much what I said above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No - it is saying that every nation and/or culture has its own unique heritage, and they should be honored - not disparaged.

Honored... IOW given a privileged position in society?

Pretty much what I said above.

But you keep on acknowledging the privilege, just with slightly different terms that mean the same thing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Honored... IOW given a privileged position in society?

I can't answer for FP, but I took it be in more of a way that means respected.
It also doesn't follow that privilege can exist when all are held to equal standards. Even if we deified each other for our backgrounds and heritages and such, no one would be privileged as that's the default way of treating others.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Honored... IOW given a privileged position in society?

If you consider that privilege - then what isn't a privilege?

I mean - its not like France chose French as the national language in order to "privilege" anyone - it was just the language spoken by most of the citizens.

Predominantly Muslim countries have Thursday-Friday or Friday-Saturday weekends to accommodate the majority of the people there.

Would I - all of a sudden - be a a victim of discrimination if I moved to either of those countries?

But you keep on acknowledging the privilege, just with slightly different terms that mean the same thing.

I think you and I just don't agree on what a "privilege" is.

Everyone in the United States share the same weekend - it's not like only "Christians" can consider those days the weekend.

This entire discussion may be poisoned by whatever your motivation is for asking the question.

Are you trying to be "anti-Christian" or "anti-nationalism" or "anti-heritage" or "anti-culture" or "anti-everything"?

 

[Truth in love]

As a society, we've arranged our schedule around Christianity: Christian days of worship and holidays are "standard" days off work. Other religions don't get this privilege. This has lots of effects that disadvantage non-Christians.

As an example (I'm a transportation engineer, so my brain goes to traffic impacts), say you have a plot of land next to a high school that you're looking to develop. You have in mind a place of worship for 1000 people... but what do you build?

If you build a mosque there, the peak of site traffic is going to be on Friday afternoon, just when the high school - and background traffic - is at its busiest. This can often mean that to build a mosque, you'd need expensive traffic upgrades: maybe building a left turn lane, or lengthening turn lanes at a nearby intersection. Expensive stuff.

OTOH, if you build a church there, the peak of site traffic is going to be on Sunday morning. There will be no traffic from the high school and background traffic will be light. Odds are that the road network can accommodate the church without expensive upgrades.

This difference in direct cost - which will end up as a major difference in out-of-pocket cost to the members of a religious congregation - can be traced back entirely to privileged treatment of Christianity: we shut a lot of our society down on Christian holy days, but Islam isn't afforded the same luxury.

So... what should be done about this? Do you agree that the mosque is being treated in a discriminatory way (maybe not deliberately, but discriminatory in effect)? If so, how should we as a society respond?

Aside form Christmas I’m not aware of any other holidays. Religious buildings are often an issue and opposed by some Christians (not a very biblical action). There are some traditions that run deep. Spring break is for planting crops, we vote on Tuesday’s due to sabbaths and travel time back in the day.


What to do? Nothing except make sure groups are not targeted or mistreated.