Misplaced Pages

Christian privilege: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:26, 6 September 2014 edit24.222.1.2 (talk) rv - "blanking"? What? Making an article less biased and bringing up concerns of NPOV is now considered "blanking"?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:53, 20 November 2024 edit undoIch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,964 editsm ref work 
(209 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Theoretical social advantage that is bestowed upon Christians in society}}
{{NPOV}}
{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=March 2020}}
⚫ '''Christian privilege''' is claimed to be a system of advantages bestowed upon ]s in some societies. It is claimed that this system arises out of the presumption that the belief in Christianity is a ], leading to the exclusion of the nonreligious and members of other religions through institutional ]. Christian privilege is claimed to also sometimes lead to the neglect of outsiders' cultural heritage and religious practices.<ref name="Christian">{{cite journal |last=Blumenfeld |first=W. J. |year=2006 |title=Christian privilege and the promotion of "secular" and not-so "secular" mainline Christianity in public schooling and in the larger society |journal=Equity and Excellence in Education |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=195–210 |doi=10.1080/10665680600788024}}</ref>
{{Discrimination sidebar|Related}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2024}}{{Use American English|date=January 2024}}

⚫ '''Christian privilege''' is a social advantage bestowed upon ] in any historically Christian society. This arises out of the presumption that ] is a ], that leads to the ] of the ] and members of other religions through institutional ] or ]. Christian privilege can also lead to the neglect of outsiders' cultural heritage and religious practices.<ref name="Christian">{{cite journal |last=Blumenfeld |first=W. J. |year=2006 |title=Christian privilege and the promotion of 'secular' and not-so 'secular' mainline Christianity in public schooling and in the larger society |journal=Equity and Excellence in Education |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=195–210 |doi=10.1080/10665680600788024|s2cid=144270138 }}</ref>


==Overview== ==Overview==
Christian ] is a type of ] in which the unconscious or conscious attitudes and beliefs of Christians are used to discriminate against non-Christians, usually specifically in the ].<ref name="Hardiman">{{cite book |last1=Hardiman |first1=R. |last2=Jackson |first2=B. |year=1997 |chapter=Conceptual foundations for social justice courses |editor1-first=M. |editor1-last=Adams |editor2-first=L. A. |editor2-last=Bell |editor3-first=P. |editor3-last=Griffin |title=Teaching for diversity and social justice |pages=16–29 |location=New York |publisher=Routledge}}</ref> Examples include views that non-Christian faiths are inferior or dangerous, or that adherents of other faiths are immoral, sinful, or misguided. These beliefs infiltrate established social institutions, are reinforced by broader American society, and are societal/cultural norms that have evolved as part of a society's history.<ref name="Investigating">{{cite book |editor1-last=Blumenfeld |editor1-first=W. J. |editor2-last=Joshi |editor2-first=K. Y. |editor3-last=Fairchild |editor3-first=E. E. |year=2009 |title=Investigating Christian privilege and religious oppression in the United States |location=Rotterdam, Netherlands |publisher=Sense Publishers}}</ref> Christian ] is a type of ] where the unconscious or conscious attitudes and beliefs of Christians are advantageous to Christians over non-Christians.<ref name="Hardiman">{{cite book |last1=Hardiman |first1=R. |last2=Jackson |first2=B. |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V-BEnvaodCoC&pg=PA16 |year=1997 |chapter=Conceptual foundations for social justice courses |editor1-first=M. |editor1-last=Adams |editor2-first=L. A. |editor2-last=Bell |editor3-first=P. |editor3-last=Griffin |title=Teaching for diversity and social justice |pages=16–29 |location=New York |publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-415-91057-6 }}</ref> Examples include opinions that non-Christian beliefs are inferior or dangerous, or that those who adhere to non-Christian beliefs are ], ], or ]. Such prejudices pervade established social institutions, are reinforced by the broader society, and have evolved as part of its history.<ref name="Investigating">{{cite book |editor1-last=Blumenfeld |editor1-first=W. J. |editor2-last=Joshi |editor2-first=K. Y. |editor3-last=Fairchild |editor3-first=E. E. |year=2009 |title=Investigating Christian privilege and religious oppression in the United States |location=Rotterdam, Netherlands |isbn=9789087906764 |publisher=Sense Publishers}}</ref>


Lewis Z. Schlosser<ref name="Schlosser">{{cite journal |last=Schlosser |first=L. Z. |year=2003 |title=Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo |journal=Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=44–51 |doi=10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00530.x}}</ref> observes that the exposure of Christian privilege breaks a “sacred taboo,” and that “both subtle and obvious pressures exist to ensure that these privileges continue to be in the sole domain of Christians. This process is quite similar to the way in which whites and males continue to (consciously and unconsciously) ensure the privilege of their racial and gender groups”.<ref name="Schlosser"/>{{rp|p.47}} Lewis Z. Schlosser<ref name="Schlosser">{{cite journal |last=Schlosser |first=L. Z. |year=2003 |title=Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo |journal=Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=44–51 |doi=10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00530.x}}</ref> observes that the exposure of Christian privilege breaks a "sacred taboo", and that "both subtle and obvious pressures exist to ensure that these privileges continue to be in the sole domain of Christians. This process is comparable to the way in which whites and males, ], continue to (consciously and unconsciously) ensure the privilege of their racial and gender groups".<ref name=" Schlosser"/>{{rp|p.47}}


There is a varying hierarchy of Christian privilege in the United States, with members of white ] denominations having greater degrees of privilege than members of other minority Christian denominations. Such groups include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], adherents of the ], ], ], and in some instances, ].<ref name="Christian" /> In the United States, White mainstream ] denominations have greater degrees of privilege than minority Christian denominations. Such minority denominations include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], adherents of the ], ], ], and in some instances, ].<ref name="Christian" />


Oppression occurs when a dominant Christian group imposes its ] norms, values, and perspectives on individuals with differing beliefs.<ref name="Hardiman" /> These values are imposed “on institutions by individuals and on individuals by institutions”.<ref name="Hardiman"/>{{rp|p.19}} These social and cultural values define ideas of good and evil, health and sickness, normality and deviancy, and how one should live one’s life. The dominant group unconsciously uses dominant social values to justify and rationalize social oppression, while often lacking awareness or understanding of the ways in which they are privileged on the basis of their own social identity.;<ref name="Investigating" /> “unpacking” McIntosh’s allegorical knapsack of privilege (of any kind) is to become aware of and to develop critical consciousness of its existence and how it impacts the daily lives of both those with and those without this privilege.<ref name="Investigating" /> When dominating groups within societies place Christian ] norms and perspectives on individuals holding differing viewpoints, those people are sometimes deemed, in social justice terms, to be oppressed.<ref name=" Hardiman" /> These norms can be imposed "on institutions by individuals and on individuals by institutions".<ref name="Hardiman"/>{{rp|p.19}} These social and cultural norms define issues related to good and evil, health and sickness, normality and deviance, and a person's normative ethic.


==History== ==History==
] was a French political scientist and diplomat who traveled across the United States for nine months between 1831–1832, conducting research for his book '']''. He noted a paradox of religion in the U.S. On the one hand, he observed that the United States promoted itself around the world as a country that valued the “separation of church and state,” as well as valuing religious freedom and tolerance. On the other hand, he noted that, “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America”.<ref name="Tocqueville">{{cite book |last=de Tocqueville |first=A. |origyear=1840 |year=1956 |title=Democracy in America |location=New York |publisher=The New American Library}}</ref>{{rp|pp.303–304}} He answered this apparent contradiction by proposing that, in this country with no officially sanctioned governmental religion, denominations were compelled to compete with one another and promote themselves in order to attract and keep parishioners, thereby making religion even stronger. While the government was not supporting Christian denominations and churches as such, Tocqueville argued that religion should be considered the first political institution due to the enormous influence that churches had on the political process.<ref name="Tocqueville" /> ] the French political scientist and diplomat, traveled across the United States for nine months between 1831 and 1832, conducting research for his book '']''. He noted a paradox of religion in the U.S. On the one hand, the United States promoted itself around the world as a country that valued both the "separation of church and state", and religious freedom and tolerance. On the other hand, "There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America".<ref name="Tocqueville">{{cite book |last=de Tocqueville |first=A. |orig-year=1840 |year=1956 |title=Democracy in America |title-link=Democracy in America |location=New York |publisher=The New American Library}}</ref>{{rp|pp.303–304}} He explained this paradox by proposing that with no officially sanctioned governmental religion, Christian denominations were compelled to compete with one another and promote themselves in order to attract and keep parishioners, thereby making religion even stronger. While the government did not support Christian churches as such, Tocqueville argued that religion should be considered the first political institution because of the enormous influence that churches had on the political process.<ref name="Tocqueville" />


Although de Tocqueville favored U.S. style democracy, he found its major limitation to be in its limiting of independent thought and independent beliefs. In a country that promoted the notion that the majority rules, this effectively silenced minorities by what Tocqueville termed the “].”<ref name="Tocqueville" /> Without specific guarantees of minority rights—in this case minority religious rights—there is a danger of religious domination over religious minorities and non-believers.<ref name="Investigating" /> The religious majority in the U.S. have historically been adherents of mainline Protestant Christian denominations who often assume that their values and standard apply equally to others. Although de Tocqueville favored U.S. style democracy, he found its major limitation to be in its limiting of independent thought and independent beliefs. In a country that promoted the notion that the majority rules, this effectively silenced minorities by what Tocqueville termed the "]".<ref name="Tocqueville" /> Without specific guarantees of minority rights—in this case minority religious rights—there is a danger of religious domination over religious minorities and non-believers.<ref name="Investigating" /> The religious majority in the U.S. has historically been adherents of mainline Protestant Christian denominations who often assume that their values and standard apply equally to others.


Another traveler to the United States, social theorist ]<ref>{{cite book |last=Myrdal |first=Gunnar |year=1962 |title=An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy |edition=Twentieth Anniversary |location=New York |publisher=Harper & Row}}</ref> examined U.S. society following World War II, and he noted a contradiction, which he termed “an American dilemma.” He found an overriding commitment to democracy, liberty, freedom, human dignity, and egalitarian values, coexisting alongside deep-seated patterns of racial discrimination, privileging of white people, and the subordination of peoples of color. This contradiction has been reframed for contemporary consideration by the religious scholar, Diana Eck: Another traveler to the United States, social theorist ]<ref>{{cite book |last=Myrdal |first=Gunnar |year=1962 |title=An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy |url=https://archive.org/details/americandilemman0000myrd |url-access=registration |edition=Twentieth Anniversary |location=New York |publisher=Harper & Row}}</ref> examined U.S. society following World War II, and he noted a contradiction, which he termed "an American dilemma". He found an overriding commitment to democracy, liberty, freedom, human dignity, and egalitarian values, coexisting alongside deep-seated patterns of racial discrimination, privileging of white people, and the subordination of peoples of color. This contradiction has been reframed for contemporary consideration by the religious scholar, Diana Eck:


{{quote|“The new American dilemma is real religious pluralism, and it poses challenges to America’s Christian churches that are as difficult and divisive as those of race. Today, the invocation of a Christian America takes on a new set of tensions as our population of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist neighbors grows. The ideal of a Christian America stands in contradiction to the spirit, if not the letter, of America’s foundational principle of religious freedom”<ref>{{cite book |last=Eck |first=Diane |year=2001 |title=A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" has become the world’s most religiously diverse nation |location=New York: |publisher=HarperCollins Publishers |page=46}}</ref>}} {{quote|"The new American dilemma is real religious pluralism, and it poses challenges to America's Christian churches that are as difficult and divisive as those of race. Today, the invocation of a Christian America takes on a new set of tensions as our population of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist neighbors grows. The ideal of a Christian America stands in contradiction to the spirit, if not the letter, of America's foundational principle of religious freedom"<ref>{{cite book |last=Eck |first=Diane |year=2001 |title=A New Religious America: How a 'Christian Country' has become the world's most religiously diverse nation |url=https://archive.org/details/newreligiousamer00eckd |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=HarperCollins Publishers |page=}}</ref>}}


==Christian hegemony== ==Christian hegemony==
The concept of ]<ref>{{cite book |last=Gramsci |first=Antonio |year=1971 |title=Selections from the prison notebooks |others=Trans. Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith |location=New York |publisher=International}}</ref> describes the ways in which the dominant group, in this case U.S. Christians in general and predominantly Protestants, successfully disseminate ''dominant'' social constructions as being common sense, as ], or as universal, even though an estimated 70% of the world’s inhabitants are not Christian.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=D. J. |last2=Harter |first2=P. M. |year=2002 |title=If the world were a village: A book about the world’s people |location=Stanford, CA |publisher=Stanford University Press}}</ref> Christian hegemony also supposes that Christianity is part of the natural order, even at times by those who are marginalized, disempowered, or rendered invisible by it.<ref>{{cite book |last=Tong |first=R. |year=1989 |title=Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. |location=Boulder, CO |publisher=Westview Press}}</ref> Thus, Christian hegemony maintains the marginality of already marginalized religions, faiths, and spiritual communities. According to Beaman,<ref name="Beaman">{{cite journal |last=Beaman |first=L. G. |year=2003 |title=The myth of pluralism, diversity, and vigor: The constitutional privilege of Protestantism in the United States and Canada |journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=311–325 |doi=10.1111/1468-5906.00183}}</ref> “the binary opposition of sameness/difference is reflected in Protestant/minority religion in which mainstream Protestantism is representative of the ‘normal’”.<ref name="Beaman"/>{{rp|p.321}} The concept of ]<ref>{{cite book |last=Gramsci |first=Antonio |author-link=Antonio Gramsci |year=1971 |title=Selections from the prison notebooks |title-link=Prison Notebooks |translator-first=Q. |translator-last=Hoare |translator-first2=G. N. |translator-last2=Smith |location=New York |publisher=International}}</ref> describes the ways in which a dominant group, in this case mainly Christians, disseminate their ''dominant'' social constructions as common sense, ], or even universal, even though most of the world's inhabitants are not Christian.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=D. J. |last2=Harter |first2=P. M. |year=2002 |title=If the world were a village: A book about the world's people |location=Stanford, CA |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-1-55074-779-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wH5oZXbf7M8C }}</ref> Christian hegemony also accepts Christianity as part of the natural order, even at times by those who are marginalized, disempowered, or rendered invisible by it.<ref>{{cite book |last=Tong |first=R. |year=1989 |title=Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. |url=https://archive.org/details/feministthoughtc00tong |url-access=registration |location=Boulder, CO |publisher=Westview Press}}</ref> Thus, Christian hegemony helps to maintain the marginality of other religions and beliefs. According to Beaman,<ref name="Beaman">{{cite journal |last=Beaman |first=L. G. |year=2003 |title=The myth of pluralism, diversity, and vigor: The constitutional privilege of Protestantism in the United States and Canada |journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=311–325 |doi=10.1111/1468-5906.00183}}</ref> "the binary opposition of sameness/difference is reflected in Protestant/minority religion in which mainstream Protestantism is representative of the 'normal'".<ref name="Beaman"/>{{rp|p.321}}


Other ideas about Christian hegemony relate to the thinking of French philosopher ], who described how dominant-group oppression is advanced through “discourses”.<ref name="Foucault">{{cite book |last=Foucault |first=Michel |year=1980 |title=The history of sexuality, Part 1 |location=New York |publisher=Vintage Books |others= Trans. R. Hurley}}</ref> Discourses include the ideas, written expressions, theoretical foundations, and language of the dominant culture. According to Foucault, dominant-group discourses pervade networks of social and political control, which he called “regimes of truth”,<ref name="Foucault" />{{rp|p.133}} and which function to legitimize what can be said, who has the authority to speak and be heard, and what is authorized as true or as ''the'' truth. The French philosopher, ], described how a dominant-group's hegemony is advanced through "discourses".<ref name="Foucault">{{cite book |last=Foucault |first=Michel |year=1980 |title=The history of sexuality, Part 1 |location=New York |publisher=Vintage Books |others= Trans. R. Hurley}}</ref> Discourses include the ideas, written expressions, theoretical foundations, and language of the dominant culture. According to Foucault, dominant-group discourses pervade networks of social and political control, which he called "regimes of truth",<ref name="Foucault" />{{rp|p.133}} and which function to legitimize what can be said, who has the authority to speak and be heard, and what is authorized as true or as ''the'' truth.


==Pervasiveness== ==Pervasiveness==
Christian privilege at the individual level occurs in proselytizing to convert or reconvert non-Christians to Christianity.<ref name="Investigating" /> While many Christians view proselytizing as offering the gift of Jesus to the non-Christians, many individuals of other faiths and many non-believers consider this as an imposition, manipulation, or oppression.<ref name="Schlosser" /> Christian privilege at the individual level occurs in proselytizing to convert or reconvert non-Christians to Christianity.<ref name="Investigating" /> While many Christians view proselytizing as offering the gift of Jesus to the non-Christians, some non-believers and people of other faiths may view this as an imposition, manipulation, or oppression.<ref name="Schlosser" />


Social institutions—including but not limited to educational, governmental, and religious bodies—often maintain and perpetuate policies that explicitly or implicitly privilege and promote some groups while limiting access, excluding, or rendering invisible other groups based on social identity and social status.<ref name="Hardiman"/> Social institutions—including but not limited to educational, governmental, and religious bodies—often maintain and perpetuate policies that explicitly or implicitly privilege and rendering invisible other groups based on social identity and social status.<ref name="Hardiman"/>


Many overt forms of oppression are obvious when a dominant group tyrannizes a subordinate group; e.g. apartheid, slavery, ethnic cleansing, etc. However, many forms of oppression (and dominant group privilege) are not as apparent, especially to members of dominant groups.<ref name="Investigating" /> Oppression in its fullest sense also refers to structural or systemic constraints imposed on groups, even within constitutional democracies, and its “causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules”.<ref>{{cite book |last=Young |first=I. M. |year=1990 |title=Justice and the politics of difference |location=Princeton, NJ |publisher=Princeton University Press}}</ref> Overt forms of oppression, when a dominant group tyrannizes a subordinate group, for example, apartheid, slavery and ethnic cleansing, are obvious. However, dominant group privilege is not as obvious, especially to members of dominant groups.<ref name="Investigating" /> Oppression in its fullest sense refers to structural or systemic constraints imposed on groups, even within constitutional democracies, and its "causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules".<ref>{{cite book |last=Young |first=I. M. |year=1990 |title=Justice and the politics of difference |url=https://archive.org/details/justicepoliticso00youn |url-access=registration |location=Princeton, NJ |publisher=Princeton University Press}}</ref>


Christian dominance is maintained by its relative invisibility, and with this invisibility, privilege is not analyzed, scrutinized, or confronted.<ref name="Investigating" /> Dominance is perceived as unremarkable or “normal.” For example, the symbolism and rituals associated with religious holidays may appear to be free of religion. However, the effect of the secularization of religion only serves to fortify Christian privilege by perpetuating Christian hegemony in such a way as to avoid detection as religion or to circumvent violating the constitutional requirements for the separation of religion and government.<ref name="Investigating" /> Christian dominance is facilitated by its relative invisibility, and because of this invisibility, it is not analyzed, scrutinized, or confronted.<ref name=" Investigating" /> Dominance is perceived as unremarkable or "normal". For example, some symbolism and rituals associated with religious holidays may appear to be free of religion. However, this very secularization can fortify Christian privilege and perpetuate Christian hegemony by making it harder to recognize and thus circumvent the constitutional requirements for the separation of religion and government.<ref name=" Investigating" />


Christian privilege and religious oppression exist in a symbiotic relationship. Oppression toward non-Christians gives rise to Christian privilege, and Christian privilege maintains oppression toward non-Christian individuals and faith communities.<ref name="Investigating" /> Christian privilege and religious oppression exist in a symbiotic relationship. Oppression toward non-Christians gives rise to Christian privilege, and Christian privilege maintains oppression toward non-Christian individuals and faith communities.<ref name="Investigating" />


==Criticism== ==Criticism==
According to Schlosser,<ref name="Schlosser" /> many Christians reject the notion that they have any privilege by claiming that all religions are essentially the same. Thus, they have no more and no fewer benefits accorded to them than members of other faith communities. Blumenfeld<ref name="Investigating" /> notes the objections that some of his university students raise when discussing Christian privilege as connected with the celebration of Christian holidays. The students, he notes, state that many of the celebrations and decorations have nothing to do with religion as such, and do not represent Christianity, but are rather part of American culture—however, this could be considered a further example of privilege. According to Schlosser,<ref name="Schlosser" /> many Christians reject the notion that they have any privilege by claiming that all religions are essentially the same. Thus, they have no more and no fewer benefits accorded to them than members of other faith communities. Blumenfeld<ref name=" Investigating" /> notes the objections that some of his university students raise when discussing Christian privilege as connected with the celebration of Christian holidays. The students, he notes, state that many of the celebrations and decorations have nothing to do with religion as such, and do not represent Christianity, but are rather part of American culture—however, this could be considered a further example of privilege.{{Citation needed|date=April 2022}}


Scholars and jurists debate the exact scope of religious liberty protected by the ]. It is unclear whether the amendment requires religious minorities to be exempted from neutral laws and whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Congress to exempt religious pacifists from conscription into the military. At a minimum, it prohibits Congress from, in the words of James Madison, compelling "men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience".<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3ia-PQAACAAJ |page=427 |title=The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding |isbn=978-0-86597-715-0 |last1=Dreisbach |first1=Daniel L. |last2=Hall |first2=Mark David |date=2009 |publisher=Liberty Fund }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0224 |title=Founders Online: Amendments to the Constitution, 1789 |work=archives.gov |access-date=20 November 2024 }}</ref>
Similarly, some claim that the religious significance of cultural practices stems not from Christianity, but rather from a Judeo-Christian tradition. Beaman argues that "this obscures the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in the modern world".<ref name="Beaman" />{{rp|322}}


==See also== ==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
*]
*] *]
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*] *]
*] *]
*]
*]
*] *]
*] *]
{{div col end}}


==References== ==References==
Line 57: Line 66:
* , archived from * , archived from
* , archived from * , archived from
* podcast episode from ] * podcast episode from ]

{{Religious persecution}}
{{Discrimination}}
{{Criticism of religion}}
{{Religious persecution}}
{{Christian History}}
{{Theology}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Christian Privilege}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Christian Privilege}}
] ]
]
] ]
] ]
]

Latest revision as of 14:53, 20 November 2024

Theoretical social advantage that is bestowed upon Christians in society
Globe icon.The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (March 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms
Attributes
Social
Religious
Ethnic/national
Manifestations
Policies
Countermeasures
Related topics

Christian privilege is a social advantage bestowed upon Christians in any historically Christian society. This arises out of the presumption that Christian belief is a social norm, that leads to the marginalization of the nonreligious and members of other religions through institutional religious discrimination or religious persecution. Christian privilege can also lead to the neglect of outsiders' cultural heritage and religious practices.

Overview

Christian privilege is a type of dominant group privilege where the unconscious or conscious attitudes and beliefs of Christians are advantageous to Christians over non-Christians. Examples include opinions that non-Christian beliefs are inferior or dangerous, or that those who adhere to non-Christian beliefs are amoral, immoral, or sinful. Such prejudices pervade established social institutions, are reinforced by the broader society, and have evolved as part of its history.

Lewis Z. Schlosser observes that the exposure of Christian privilege breaks a "sacred taboo", and that "both subtle and obvious pressures exist to ensure that these privileges continue to be in the sole domain of Christians. This process is comparable to the way in which whites and males, according to many, continue to (consciously and unconsciously) ensure the privilege of their racial and gender groups".

In the United States, White mainstream Protestant denominations have greater degrees of privilege than minority Christian denominations. Such minority denominations include African American churches, Christian Hispanics and Latinos, Amish people, Mennonite, Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, adherents of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Christian scientists, Mormons, and in some instances, Catholics.

When dominating groups within societies place Christian cultural norms and perspectives on individuals holding differing viewpoints, those people are sometimes deemed, in social justice terms, to be oppressed. These norms can be imposed "on institutions by individuals and on individuals by institutions". These social and cultural norms define issues related to good and evil, health and sickness, normality and deviance, and a person's normative ethic.

History

Alexis de Tocqueville the French political scientist and diplomat, traveled across the United States for nine months between 1831 and 1832, conducting research for his book Democracy in America. He noted a paradox of religion in the U.S. On the one hand, the United States promoted itself around the world as a country that valued both the "separation of church and state", and religious freedom and tolerance. On the other hand, "There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America". He explained this paradox by proposing that with no officially sanctioned governmental religion, Christian denominations were compelled to compete with one another and promote themselves in order to attract and keep parishioners, thereby making religion even stronger. While the government did not support Christian churches as such, Tocqueville argued that religion should be considered the first political institution because of the enormous influence that churches had on the political process.

Although de Tocqueville favored U.S. style democracy, he found its major limitation to be in its limiting of independent thought and independent beliefs. In a country that promoted the notion that the majority rules, this effectively silenced minorities by what Tocqueville termed the "tyranny of the majority". Without specific guarantees of minority rights—in this case minority religious rights—there is a danger of religious domination over religious minorities and non-believers. The religious majority in the U.S. has historically been adherents of mainline Protestant Christian denominations who often assume that their values and standard apply equally to others.

Another traveler to the United States, social theorist Gunnar Myrdal examined U.S. society following World War II, and he noted a contradiction, which he termed "an American dilemma". He found an overriding commitment to democracy, liberty, freedom, human dignity, and egalitarian values, coexisting alongside deep-seated patterns of racial discrimination, privileging of white people, and the subordination of peoples of color. This contradiction has been reframed for contemporary consideration by the religious scholar, Diana Eck:

"The new American dilemma is real religious pluralism, and it poses challenges to America's Christian churches that are as difficult and divisive as those of race. Today, the invocation of a Christian America takes on a new set of tensions as our population of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist neighbors grows. The ideal of a Christian America stands in contradiction to the spirit, if not the letter, of America's foundational principle of religious freedom"

Christian hegemony

The concept of hegemony describes the ways in which a dominant group, in this case mainly Christians, disseminate their dominant social constructions as common sense, normative, or even universal, even though most of the world's inhabitants are not Christian. Christian hegemony also accepts Christianity as part of the natural order, even at times by those who are marginalized, disempowered, or rendered invisible by it. Thus, Christian hegemony helps to maintain the marginality of other religions and beliefs. According to Beaman, "the binary opposition of sameness/difference is reflected in Protestant/minority religion in which mainstream Protestantism is representative of the 'normal'".

The French philosopher, Michel Foucault, described how a dominant-group's hegemony is advanced through "discourses". Discourses include the ideas, written expressions, theoretical foundations, and language of the dominant culture. According to Foucault, dominant-group discourses pervade networks of social and political control, which he called "regimes of truth", and which function to legitimize what can be said, who has the authority to speak and be heard, and what is authorized as true or as the truth.

Pervasiveness

Christian privilege at the individual level occurs in proselytizing to convert or reconvert non-Christians to Christianity. While many Christians view proselytizing as offering the gift of Jesus to the non-Christians, some non-believers and people of other faiths may view this as an imposition, manipulation, or oppression.

Social institutions—including but not limited to educational, governmental, and religious bodies—often maintain and perpetuate policies that explicitly or implicitly privilege and rendering invisible other groups based on social identity and social status.

Overt forms of oppression, when a dominant group tyrannizes a subordinate group, for example, apartheid, slavery and ethnic cleansing, are obvious. However, dominant group privilege is not as obvious, especially to members of dominant groups. Oppression in its fullest sense refers to structural or systemic constraints imposed on groups, even within constitutional democracies, and its "causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules".

Christian dominance is facilitated by its relative invisibility, and because of this invisibility, it is not analyzed, scrutinized, or confronted. Dominance is perceived as unremarkable or "normal". For example, some symbolism and rituals associated with religious holidays may appear to be free of religion. However, this very secularization can fortify Christian privilege and perpetuate Christian hegemony by making it harder to recognize and thus circumvent the constitutional requirements for the separation of religion and government.

Christian privilege and religious oppression exist in a symbiotic relationship. Oppression toward non-Christians gives rise to Christian privilege, and Christian privilege maintains oppression toward non-Christian individuals and faith communities.

Criticism

According to Schlosser, many Christians reject the notion that they have any privilege by claiming that all religions are essentially the same. Thus, they have no more and no fewer benefits accorded to them than members of other faith communities. Blumenfeld notes the objections that some of his university students raise when discussing Christian privilege as connected with the celebration of Christian holidays. The students, he notes, state that many of the celebrations and decorations have nothing to do with religion as such, and do not represent Christianity, but are rather part of American culture—however, this could be considered a further example of privilege.

Scholars and jurists debate the exact scope of religious liberty protected by the First Amendment. It is unclear whether the amendment requires religious minorities to be exempted from neutral laws and whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Congress to exempt religious pacifists from conscription into the military. At a minimum, it prohibits Congress from, in the words of James Madison, compelling "men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience".

See also

References

  1. ^ Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). "Christian privilege and the promotion of 'secular' and not-so 'secular' mainline Christianity in public schooling and in the larger society". Equity and Excellence in Education. 39 (3): 195–210. doi:10.1080/10665680600788024. S2CID 144270138.
  2. ^ Hardiman, R.; Jackson, B. (1997). "Conceptual foundations for social justice courses". In Adams, M.; Bell, L. A.; Griffin, P. (eds.). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge. pp. 16–29. ISBN 978-0-415-91057-6.
  3. ^ Blumenfeld, W. J.; Joshi, K. Y.; Fairchild, E. E., eds. (2009). Investigating Christian privilege and religious oppression in the United States. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. ISBN 9789087906764.
  4. ^ Schlosser, L. Z. (2003). "Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo". Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 31 (1): 44–51. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00530.x.
  5. ^ de Tocqueville, A. (1956) . Democracy in America. New York: The New American Library.
  6. Myrdal, Gunnar (1962). An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (Twentieth Anniversary ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
  7. Eck, Diane (2001). A New Religious America: How a 'Christian Country' has become the world's most religiously diverse nation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. p. 46.
  8. Gramsci, Antonio (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Translated by Hoare, Q.; Smith, G. N. New York: International.
  9. Smith, D. J.; Harter, P. M. (2002). If the world were a village: A book about the world's people. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-55074-779-9.
  10. Tong, R. (1989). Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  11. ^ Beaman, L. G. (2003). "The myth of pluralism, diversity, and vigor: The constitutional privilege of Protestantism in the United States and Canada". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 42 (3): 311–325. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00183.
  12. ^ Foucault, Michel (1980). The history of sexuality, Part 1. Trans. R. Hurley. New York: Vintage Books.
  13. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  14. Dreisbach, Daniel L.; Hall, Mark David (2009). The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding. Liberty Fund. p. 427. ISBN 978-0-86597-715-0.
  15. "Founders Online: Amendments to the Constitution, [15 August] 1789". archives.gov. Retrieved November 20, 2024.

External links

Religious persecution and discrimination
By group
Methods
Events
icon Religion
Discrimination
Forms
Attributes
Social
Religious
Ethnic/National
Manifestations
Discriminatory
policies
Countermeasures
Related topics
Criticism of religion
By religion
Religious texts
Religious figures
Religious discrimination
Religious violence
Books
Movements
  • Agnosticism
  • Antitheism
  • Atheism
  • Cārvāka
  • New Atheism
  • Nontheistic religions
  • Parody religion
    • Related topics
    Religious persecution and discrimination
    By group
    Methods
    Events
    icon Religion
    History of Christianity
    Centuries
    Origins and
    Apostolic Age
    Ante-Nicene
    period
    Late antiquity
    (Great Church)
    Catholicism
    Eastern
    Christianity
    Middle Ages
    Reformation
    and
    Protestantism
    Lutheranism
    Calvinism
    Anglicanism
    Anabaptism
    1640–1789
    1789–present
    Theology
    Conceptions of God
    Theism
    Forms
    Concepts
    Singular god
    theologies
    By faith
    Concepts
    God as
    Trinitarianism
    Eschatology
    By religion
    Feminist
    Other concepts
    Names of God in
    By faith
    Christian
    Hindu
    Islamic
    Jewish
    Pagan
    Religion portal
    Categories: