What you mean is that you don’t like that freedom of speech works in both ways.

You’ve really bought into the ‘Fox News’ definition of humanism. I doubt you’ve actually met a humanist because most of the time, we don’t have to go banging on about it to stangers in the street, we don’t go banging on doors and invading people’s private space in a bid to convert them on their doorsteps, we don’t go round persecuting people who don’t buy into what we believe by boycotting their businesses and driving them out of town and their homes as soon as we find out they have differing beliefs. We don’t try to get our taboos legislated as law.

Don’t like our blogs and books? Don’t read them. Just remember, that unless everyone is free, nobody is. By the way, this isn’t me telling me you can’t be a hateful, twisted bigot. This is me telling me you are one.

The stamp collector may say something like “Man, stamp collecting has changed my life. You should check it out”. The non-stamp collector on the other hand grits his teeth and fires back “keep that nonsense the heck away from me ya half wit! You’re crazy and I intend to spend copious amounts of my free time bashing you and your crazy ideas. I simply have no tolerance for idiots who don’t share my view on non-stamp collecting.”

Hobby or not, I think a reasonable person could conclude that the non-stamp collector might need to step back and examine why it is exactly that they are so profoundly angry at stamp collecting. That is unless the non-stamp collector was touched inappropriatly as a child by the president of a stamp collectors club…then, I understand;-)

“Here the only genuine conflict is between true believers. Of a given text in Holy Writ one faction may say this thing and another that, but both agree unreservedly that the text itself is impeccable, and neither in the midst of the most violent disputation would venture to accuse the other of doubt. To call a man a doubter in these parts is equal to accusing him of cannibalism. Even the infidel Scopes himself is not charged with any such infamy.”
– H L Mencken, “Mencken Likens Trial to a Religious Orgy, with Defendant a Beelzebub” (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 11, 1925 (posted in Positive Atheism’s Historical section)

1. It is likely that state and federal holidays coincide with my religious practices, thereby having little to no impact on my job and/or education.

The only two openly Christian holidays still on the books are Christmas and Thanksgiving, and the former has been co-opted to be mainly a commercial holiday nowadays (though yes, Christians can still celebrate it if they will). It also happens to coincide with the global solstice holiday, the Jewish Hanukkah and others. So while it may still be called Christmas it is actually celebrated for different reasons by different groups and is not restricted to just Christians. I don’t actually think the holiday issue is appropriate as an example of Christian privilege, but that’s JMO.

2. I can talk openly about my religious practices without concern for how it will be received by others.

I’m not sure that is true. As a Christian when I talk about my religious beliefs of late (and I do rarely) unless I know I am in a group of Christians it may or may not be received well. Just my experience anyway.

3. I can be sure to hear music on the radio and watch specials on television that celebrate the holidays of my religion.

I don’t think this has anything to do with privilege at all. After all, the dominant social group will see mainly shows, etc. that cater to it because they are put on by people of similar background. With 600+ cable channels and unknown radio shows it is up to any group, dominant or not to put on shows for themselves if they wish them. It is unrealistic to think that a Christian (or any other person/group) should be expected to put on shows for something in which they have no interest. Obviously there should be no discrimination in place, but I have not seen that either. For this item at least if you want it then you need to put it on yourself.

4. When told about the history of civilization, I am can be sure that I am shown people of my religion made it what it is.

While true to a certain extent (and yes, it can be viewed as an excuse), it is *very* impractical to teach children every single culture, religion, etc. across the globe in the name of “fairness.” Unless of course you wish to extend the school year which as a taxpayer I am not exactly in favor of doing. The origins of this country stem mainly from European immigrants and any history has to begin there. If we wish to include elements of Chinese history for them helping the west be built or African-American history (post slavery) then also good. Perhaps adding in Native American history (which actually my High School did teach to a degree) would be nice as well. But ultimately by adding things in you have to take other things out and what important elements would you have them choose? Can you actually teach “world” history over the course of say 6 years in High School? I don’t think so. I think from a pragmatic standpoint teachers and schools have to pick and choose which ones are most relevant to our society. Since America was founded initially from Europeans then teaching European history such as Rome, Greece, etc. would seem most relevant. At least for this particular issue I think expecting to teach things that people in this country need to know should outweigh the need to teach every possible cultural alternative or contribution. That’s what individual courses in college are for, to explore the other elements that could not be taught in a simple baseline.

5. I can worry about religious privilege without being perceived as “self-interested” or “self seeking.”

Perhaps, but so what? Any minority, religious or otherwise will probably always be seen as such by the majority group(s). Until you reach a point where there is no majority I think expecting this to be otherwise is naive at best.

6. I can have a “Jesus is Lord” bumper sticker or Icthus (Christian Fish) on my car and not worry about someone vandalizing my car because of it.

I would agree, but frankly this speaks of some very poor “Christians” who would think to do such things. Vandalism is vandalism no matter how you look at it.

7. I can share my holiday greetings without being fully conscious of how it may impact those who do not celebrate the same holidays. Also, I can be sure that people are knowledgeable about the holidays of my religion and will greet me with the appropriate holiday greeting (e.g., Merry Christmas, Happy Easter, etc.).

Really? I have never had anyone I know (Christian or otherwise) say something like Happy Hanukkah and not responded politely in return. If you take offense at someone expressing their sentiments then IMO it is on you. That is after all the most basic American right, the right of free speech (1st Amendment after all). As for the knowledge element, again it goes back to the dominant group whether it’s religious or otherwise. I don’t go to a Mosque and expect them to respond accordingly if I wish them a Happy Easter (though realistically they might since Islam includes Christ as a prophet, just one prior to Mohammed). What you are listing as privilege is to be expected any time you have a dominant social group. So while you may have a right to practice your own religion (or none at all), expecting the rest of society to know about yours is inappropriate IMO. I don’t have to go learn about Hinduism if I don’t want to/have a need to do so and I should not be expected to do so. I do because I have friends that are Hindus and I want to be polite to them in return. However, I don’t expect them to know about my beliefs if/when I am in India.

8. I can probably assume that there is a universality of religious experience.

Again, not restricted to Christianity. This is based on dominant/majority social groups and would be true if the majority were comprised of a different element. For instance, if I am in Iraq I would expect the universality of religious experience to be Islam, not my own.

9. I can deny Christian Privilege by asserting that all religions are essentially the same.

Is this really a privilege? Technically anyone from any religion could say the same and if you are talking eastern religions like Buddhism/Hinduism they actually believe that.

10. I probably do not need to learn the religious or spiritual customs of others, and I am likely not penalized for not knowing them.

And why would you be expected to learn a religion other than your own? As for penalizing you for not knowing, I don’t know what you mean. If you don’t understand or know anything about Christianity then how does that keep you from getting a job, getting a driver’s license, voting, walking down the street, etc.? This one makes no sense at all.

11. I am probably unencumbered by having to explain why I am or am not doing things related to my religious norms on a daily basis.

Ummm… I don’t know where you’re living, but in all the places I know of nowadays the “religious norms” are not questioned and unless you are a member of the church and you then don’t attend no one says anything if you aren’t there on a regular basis. This is pretty much totally false nowadays, though admittedly maybe 30+ years ago it was an issue.

12. I am likely not judged by the improper actions of others in my religious group.

If by this you mean along the lines of judging all Muslims by the actions of an extreme few then I would agree. That is a failing on the part of the individual as well as the demonizing that has gone on regarding Islam since 9/11. Christians by and large are not judged by the radical fringe within their own group (such as the Westboro Baptist Church for instance), though the amount of anti-Christian rhetoric in the Atheist community is pretty vehement as well. Based on what I’ve read in the past 2-3 years it seems this is becoming less and less true.

13. If I wish, I can usually or exclusively be among those from my religious group most of the time (in work, school, or at home).

Agreed, but as I said that’s a function of the dominant social group and would be true regardless who was the majority unless it happened to be your own.

14. I can assume that my safety, or the safety of my family, will not be put in jeopardy by disclosing my religion to others at work or at school.

Agreed.

15. It is likely that mass media represents my religion widely AND positively.

Again, it’s the dominant social group thing. You seem to think that such privileges are restricted to Christians and they are not. While it may indeed be a privilege, it is not an inappropriate one by any stretch of the imagination, yet posts like this one would attempt to lead others to believe that they should be. You seem to want to use these as a way to demonstrate that the Christian majority in this country should not have some of the privileges they have because they are unearned, yet that is a natural element of the social order, i.e. the majority will by default gain some privileges simply due to numbers. If the majority is made up of Christians and you assume a commensurate percentage in all segments of society then you will ultimately have that percentage of perspectives on the issue represented in the media. Again, this is not wrong, but you would seem to want to portray it as so.

16. It is likely that I can find items to buy that represent my religious norms and holidays with relative ease (e.g., food, decorations, greeting cards, etc.).

No offense, but this is simple business. If nothing else America is a capitalist/consumerist society and if a given population supports *anything* then some company will provide it in order to make a buck. If Buddhist cards make money then we’ll sell them at Walmart. That’s just who we are. If you cannot find them then perhaps your local community doesn’t have enough people of your ethnic group to support a large commercial presence. I guarantee you go to Chinatown in San Francisco and you can find all the Chinese items you ever wanted. Same with the Jewish neighborhood in New York. Being in a minority (religious or otherwise) in a free society means you may have to search a little harder for things that are exclusive to your culture. Expecting this to be otherwise means you want the majority to cater to your needs and that’s not right either. Your rights can and should be protected so that you can indeed operate freely here, but if you expect some help from the government to subsidize your minority status then that’s altogether wrong.

17. I can speak or write about my religion, and even critique other religions, and have these perspectives listened to and published with relative ease and without much fear of reprisal.

Perhaps, but frankly I don’t think most people care in this country. If you want to speak/write about your beliefs then by all means do so. That’s why we have the 1st Amendment.

18. I could write an article on Christian Privilege without putting my own religion on trial.

Provide an example here. I have read some good thoughts on Christian privilege by a variety of authors and segmenting out the bias is sometimes difficult. It seems some people think that because by our Constitutional Republic we have rule by the majority, but protection of the minority that we should artificially inflate the influence minorities have in our culture, thus penalizing the majority simply for being the majority. That would just be altogether wrong, but that seems to be what some people would like to happen (mainly because they are unhappy they aren’t in the majority if you ask me).

I am not denying there are elements of Christian privilege in the US. I do not, however, think most of them are inappropriate because they could change the moment Christians are no longer in the majority. I am not in favor of artificially inflating the influence *any* minority has on a society.

19. I can travel without others assuming that I put them at risk because of my religion; nor will my religion put me at risk from others when I travel.

True, but this has more to do with the current xenophobic reaction westerners have to the militant Islamics who have demonstrated the willingness to harm others in the name of their religion. No matter what you say about Christians, we mostly don’t go around strapping bombs to our bodies and blowing up airplanes filled with innocent passengers or cutting off the heads of prisoners on video and then sending it to be broadcast on CNN (yes, there are exceptions, but the ratio is negligible in comparison). In my opinion this is as much the fault of Muslims as anyone else because they have done a very poor job distancing themselves from the fringe. If you won’t distance yourself from radicals then there is some basis in others not wanting to trust you. Just my opinion anyway.

20. I can be financially successful without the assumption from others that this success is connected to my religion.

Huh? This one is patently false. I work with Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Americans, Europeans, etc. in my job and I have *never* seen anyone claim that someone else was successful because of their religion. There have been allegations of favoritism depending on who hired who, but it was more culturally based comments rather than religion. Short of the anti-Semitism of the Nazis I cannot think of a recent instance in western history where a religious group was deemed to be successful because of their religion. The only exception I may make is the Mormons, but frankly that’s because as a group they tend to help each other and work together. Other groups could take a lesson from them in my opinion.

21. I can protect myself (and my children) from people who may not like me (or them) based on my religion.

I don’t understand? Are you prohibited from protecting yourself because of your religion? As far as I know every citizen is allowed to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. If you talking about your children being bullied in schools, then yes, I can see that. Unfortunately kids can be horrible to one another, though there are always options to force the school to act, improve education, etc. I know not all of them work as well as they should though.

22. Law enforcement officials will likely assume I am a non-threatening person if my religion is disclosed to them. In fact, disclosure may actually help law enforcement officials perceive me as being “in the right” or “unbiased.”

I think it is an assumption that you think telling the cops you are Christian will help you be viewed as “unbiased.” I know several cops and frankly, working with the worst elements of our society on a daily basis makes you distrustful of pretty much everyone. Religion would seem to be the last thing they care about nowadays. Most I know of are more concerned if you are illegal, running drugs, gang member, etc. Just my opinion anyway.

23. I can safely assume that any authority figure will generally be someone of my religion.

Again, majority population percentages are representative throughout any given society. This is not restricted to religion.

24. I can talk about my religion, even proselytize, and be characterized as “sharing the word,” instead of imposing my ideas on others.

Perhaps, but from my experience *NO* religion views other religions proselytizing in a positive light. In fact, there are countries where they still execute you for doing so. At least in this country you have a right to speak as you wish on any topic, religion being one of them. Unless you are experiencing outright discrimination then I think that’s the best you can hope for really given the nature of religion in general. After all, people have a right to disagree with you as well. In that regard our Constitution is working as designed.

25. I can be gentle and affirming to people without being characterized as an exception to my religion.

Short of Satanism, I have never heard this -ever- and I’ve studied a great number of religions over the years. If you are a good person then people treat you as just that, *especially* in this country.

26. I am never asked to speak on behalf of all Christians.

This has more to do with the aforementioned knowledge of other religions that Christians often do not have. If I were in a Muslim country and had a question about Islam I would ask someone to explain it to me. Heck, I’m not Catholic so when I have a question about Catholicism I ask a friend of mine. This is just people who don’t understand asking to understand. So while you can perhaps not speak for everyone in your religion, you can speak to what you personally believe. Do you know how many evangelicals would kill (figuratively speaking of course) for such an opportunity?

27. My citizenship and immigration status will likely not be questioned, and my background will likely not be investigated, because of my religion.

I do not know what criteria the police use for investigations. However, whether you like to believe it or not, the threat of terrorism is real and if you come from somewhere known to harbor them then you will be investigated more heavily I would hope. That is just the cold hard reality of what we are up against today. If it changes sometime in the future then great. Until then I think it is a necessary evil in order to protect everyone in this country, *including* those who may be from the same culture as those who would try to harm us.

28. My place of worship is probably not targeted for violence because of sentiment against my religion.

If *any* place of worship in this country is targeted by violence then that is wrong and the police need to address it. I would point out though that so-called ‘hate crimes’ by definition cannot happen to Christians either. It’s only a hate crime if it’s a minority who is harmed, religious or otherwise.

29. I can be sure that my religion will not work against me when seeking medical or legal help.

Specific examples please. I don’t know of anywhere that would turn away someone for medical help based on religion. And Lawyers, well, they are not exactly known for turning away anyone with money in my experience.

30. My religion will not cause teachers to pigeonhole me into certain professions based of the assumed “prowess” of my religious group.

I cannot speak to what teachers do or do not do. However, a person’s profession is their own choice, not that of a teacher.

31. I will not have my children taken from me from governmental authorities who are aware of my religious affiliation.

Specific examples please. I know of absolutely zero instances where a person’s children have been taken from them based on their religious affiliation. My best friend works in social services and they take children away when there is risk of abuse, neglect, etc. Religion plays zero part in their decisions or actions and they take children from families of all religious beliefs, including Christians. I claim complete falsehood on this statement.

32. Disclosure of my religion to an adoption agency will likely not prevent me from being able to adopt children.

I do not know of adoption agency policies, but frankly, I smell a red herring here. Please provide examples of discrimination based on religion if you wish to promote this as fact.

33. If I wish to give my children a parochial religious education, I probably have a variety of options nearby.

Again, social majority. If you are in a minority religion and move away from somewhere where there are other people who share your beliefs, expecting to have support services for those beliefs is hardly grounds for claiming unjust/unearned privilege against those who do.

34. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence and importance of my religion.

Last I recall religion is not a taught subject in K-12 except in private schools. If we are talking about the history of America then you cannot get away from the fact that the Founding Fathers left Europe for religious reasons. No offense, but non-Christian religions didn’t exactly play a large part in the first 50 yours of this country’s existence and if they are not taught because of that then I’m okay with it. I want actual *history* taught to our children, not some hodge-podge of random information that has no coherent train of progress in learning. What good does it do to teach people about Buddha for instance if you cannot relate him to the development of early American society? None, just like if I were in India and trying to relate Native American tribal society to the caste system. The more I read these supposed “privileges” the more it seems like just a list of things the majority gets because they are the majority and almost none of them are the unearned or inappropriate situations some people would like to believe about America. When you talk unearned or inappropriate then you need to focus on things unfairly given to a particular segment of society by the government, not those things that happen as a result of demographics. I’m not saying there aren’t elements of Christian privilege in our society, but of the ones you list almost none of them are societally wrong.

35. I can be sure that when someone in the media is referring to God, they are referring to my (Christian) God.

True. But then the term “God” is the one used by Judeo-Christians. Other religions tend to use their own word for Him/Her/Whatever. What exactly would you have them refer to a deity by, some random name? Again, social demographics issue, not a Christian-centric one. I expect in Egypt the term is probably Allah on most of their networks.

36. I can easily find academic courses and institutions that give attention only to people of my religion.

Social demographics.

37. My religious holidays are so completely “normal” that, in many ways, they may appear to no longer have any religious significance at all.

If this is a privilege of Christians then I fail to see it. If it were Christian-centric then Christmas would actually feature Christ more often than does the Great American Holiday to Consumerism that it has becomes. If anything this is a perfect example of how to destroy a religious holiday by making it into a secular one.

38. The elected and unelected officials of my government probably are members of my religious group.

Social demographics. People vote for those who look like, act like and believe like they do.

39. When swearing an oath, I am probably making this oath by placing my hand on the scripture of my religion.

You are not required to use the Bible to swear oaths anymore, nor are you required to use the phrase “So help me God.” You have that option, but you are free not to do so. Is this not fair to all involved when you have a choice?

40. I can openly display my religious symbol(s) on my person or property without fear of disapproval, violence, and/or vandalism.

Vandalism is vandalism and is a crime. If that is happening go to the police plain and simple.

There are some really good books and information about Christian privilege out there, but realistically I think pointing out that societies favor the majority population is just trying to get emotional support for the fact that someone is not in that majority and trying to obtain actual unfair advantages for said minority. I am all in favor of eliminating discrimination. I am not in favor of artificially propping up minority elements so that they have more influence than they should. As I said earlier, rule by the majority while protecting the minority. The way you protect is to prevent discrimination. It is not to tell people they have to vote in a Muslim now because we have enough Christians in government, or that we have to shop at the local Chinese supermarket because too many Christians have already shopped at Walmart. The latter is patently ridiculous.