One Christian talking about religious privilege.

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2018, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, in a majority Christian country, their is a degree of privilege in being a Christian.

If I were living in China, I would have a degree of privilege if I were an atheist.

If I were living in a matriarchal society, women would have a degree of privilege.

Living in a white dominated society, whites have a degree of privilege.

In a technological society, the educated have a degree of privilege.

In a money based society, the rich obviously have a degree of privilege.

In Israel, Jews have a degree of privilege.

In a predominantly Anglophone society, English speakers have a degree of privilege.


Every society ranks people using many different and varying criteria. That is a fact of human existence. What criteria count, and how much each criterion counts, differs in every society.

[KT2000]

1. always wondered

why some Christians announce they are Christians. I always thought they were announcing their privilege. But when I have asked why they do that, there has never been an answer.

[guillaumeb]

2. If a person is a white male, there is no need to mention it.

But belief has no outward sign, unless perhaps one is wearing clothing with a specific message.

[Ohiogal]

4. I always thought

they did that to make themselves feel superior to everyone else.

[KT2000]

41. that was how I took it too

and still feel that is what they are really saying.

[yallerdawg]

3. Of course, no privilege to...

identify other people's "problems" and instruct them on what they should say or do.

It's kind of like defining altruism as what makes me happy!

[guillaumeb]

5. In my view, the word is often overused.

And often used to shut down speakers.

[yallerdawg]

6. On the "Hierarchy of Disagreement" calling people 'privileged' is...

just a more pleasant word for what you'd really like to call them.

[guillaumeb]

7. A University instructor said that name calling is the surest sign that the other person

is losing the argument.

[yallerdawg]

8. Covered in kindergarten, too!

But that was a long, long, long time ago - before the internet was invented!

[guillaumeb]

10. Even before Al Gore?

[Eko]

11. Woah!! Name calling!

That is name calling to you? SMH.

[guillaumeb]

13. No, name calling is calling other people insulting things.

[Eko]

40. and calling some privileged

is name calling? Is calling someone racist also name calling?

[guillaumeb]

47. That depends.

Some people make arguments that appear to be based on racial animus. Describing those arguments as such is not name calling.

[Major Nikon]

39. Ranks right up there with getting fed to the lions if you think about it

The ways in which Christians are persecuted in America is completely out of control. They are being forced to bake cakes, provide abortions, and watch Teletubbies. Only now can we truly understand what Jesus went through on the cross.

[Mariana]

42. You forgot the worst of the worst.

Sometimes, in December, people say Happy Holidays to them.

[Eko]

9. I would say what counts

is how each society takes steps to not only realize the privilege but to negate it. But that's just me.

[guillaumeb]

12. An excellent answer.

Now, how can it be implemented? Can there truly be a neutral, privilege blind society?

[Eko]

14. Its already being implemented here in the US.

[guillaumeb]

15. Perhaps, but the progress is proceeding at a glacial pace.

And resistance to that progress is significant and not limited to the older generations.

[Eko]

17. What do you mean perhaps?

And then you argue it is moving slowly, by doing so you agree it is happening. It is being implemented here already.

[guillaumeb]

18. Very slowly, and with much resistance.

[Eko]

20. If its happening very slowly and with much resistance

its happening, so its not "perhaps" at all.

[guillaumeb]

21. Time will be the proof.

I never thought in the 1960s that unions would be as weak as they are in 2018. But they are.

[Eko]

23. No,

you dont get to say perhaps and then be critical of its pace. Example.
Me-There is a turtle in that race.
You-Perhaps, but its going slow.
I cant believe I have to explain how this is wrong.

[guillaumeb]

24. Time will be the proof, and the judge.

[Eko]

26. No,

Words, meanings, logic have all been the proof you just cant admit that you uttered a single, wrong, word, and take it back.

[guillaumeb]

34. It was an expression of an opinion.

An opinion that you might not share.

[Eko]

36. Sure,

its your opinion that something might or might not exist and you can comment on its performance at the same time. lol. Whatever floats your boat.

[yallerdawg]

16. ???

I'd say 'the privileged' (I call them assholes) just took over!

THEY are certainly implementing something!

[Eko]

19. Deflection.

[yallerdawg]

22. I just refuted YOUR argument.

Actually, YOU are deflecting. And so it goes...

[Eko]

25. They call that one

the "Jr High argument".
or
"Im not, you are!"

[yallerdawg]

27. And...

so it goes...

[Eko]

28. Yes

the only privileged people in this country are the ones running the government. Right? Is that what you are saying? There are no other?

[Eko]

29. George Soros

isn't privileged? I'm sure that will come as a shock to him. Hillary Clinton isnt? I believe there is a video of her refuting that. https://www.nbcnews.com/video/hillary-clinton-we-white-americans-need-to-recognize-our-privilege-727176259735
I could keep going.

[yallerdawg]

30. You lost me.

We have a Republican executive branch, we have a Republican majority Congress, most State offices and legislatures are Republican.

George Soros and Hillary Clinton lost.

The privileged (assholes) won!

[Eko]

31. Since Soros and Clinton lost

They are not privileged?
Here is one of Soros houses.

Of course he is not privileged.

[yallerdawg]

32. I have no idea what you are going on about.

Rich, prosperous, wealthy, affluent, advantaged is all synonymous with the word privileged.

Guess who's in charge?

This has nothing to do with "Christian privilege" as we are "discussing."

[Eko]

33. I saw eight different types of privileges in the op

with christian privilege only being one of them. Also, the vice president is very christian as are most of this administration.

[guillaumeb]

35. You are not the only one.

[Eko]

37. Who's in charge

are by a far majority Christians, what percentage of other or no religion are in charge in this administration?

[Eko]

38. Ill give the answer.

0%, so that argument does you no good whatsoever.

[edhopper]

50. Jared, Ivanka, Cohen (for over a year), Mnuchin...

So some non-Christians.

Not to say it isn't driven by a far right Christian agenda.

[marylandblue]

52. Also Nikki Haley is a Sikh, or at least her family is

But she serves the Christian right agenda.

[Mariana]

57. Nikki Haley is a Christian.

Haley was raised in the religion of Sikh but converted to Christianity in her 20s. In an interview with the New York Times, Haley said she and her husband, "chose Christianity because of the way we wanted to live our life and raise our children."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/28/us/nikki-haley-fast-facts/index.html

Interesting statement on why she "chose" Christianity. It implies she didn't become a Christian because she believes Christianity is true, but because it was beneficial to herself and her family to be Christian.

[marylandblue]

58. Well she got the beneficial part right. nt

[Mariana]

59. In South Carolina? Yes indeed. nt.

[Lordquinton]

43. I thought there would be talk about religious privilege?

Seems like it's exactly the opposite.

[Voltaire2]

44. No it was an explanation for why religious privilege

if it even exists should be ignored. The op is a classic example of using whatabouts to dismiss ones own privileged status.

[Mariana]

45. I wouldn't go so far as to call the OP an explanation

because it doesn't explain anything. It's just a list. You can try to infer what he meant by posting that list, but you'll be guessing. The only thing that is clear is that the OP's title doesn't reflect the content of the post in any way.

[guillaumeb]

49. Privilege is ubiquitous.

Only what is privileged changes.

[marylandblue]

51. No, a lot more changes than that

and even more.changes are possible.

[Major Nikon]

53. So be sure not to miss an opportunity to conflate them all

All you need to do when the subject comes up is point out those that don't have it could be living in the developing world and eating out of dumpsters. They will no doubt feel better about their disadvantages from that point forward and you are completely relieved of any social responsibility of your own advantages.

[Voltaire2]

54. It is almost as if this were a scripted

example of “privilege splaining”.

[guillaumeb]

56. Much here seems scripted to me and others.

Speaking of explanations and such.

[Lordquinton]

70. We could set the clock by how predictible you are

Would be funny if it weren't sad.

[guillaumeb]

73. Consider that I just made the same response to you.

[Major Nikon]

60. A very poor one

[guillaumeb]

55. Do not miss an opportunity to follow the 11th.

[Major Nikon]

61. Color me guilty of arbitrarily violating an arbitrary standard

... of which you created and are evidently the only one qualified to judge.

I’ll be sure to put myself on report.

[Lordquinton]

69. Even if such a thing existed

This doesn't even "violate" it.

Jeeze, can't even keep the definitions of your made up rules correct.

[guillaumeb]

48. Considering that I stated that it does exist,

I fail to see your point.

[trotsky]

66. You did say it, but instead of discussing it, you dismissed it.

By saying "what about..."

#Whataboutism

[guillaumeb]

72. Noting that it is comon to every culture

is noting a fact of human existence.

[trotsky]

75. The freaking title of your post was "One Christian talking about religious privilege."

And here you finally admit you didn't talk about it at all.

Jesus fucking Christ, gil. I can't believe you're for real.

[guillaumeb]

76. I am a Christian,

and only one Christian, and I talked about Christian privilege as a subset of privilege in general.

So yes, I did talk about it.

[trotsky]

77. Bullshit.

No one is fooled, gil.

You didn't talk about religious privilege AT ALL. You immediately launched into deflection, as usual.

[guillaumeb]

78. So speaks the decider.

But you are incorrect in your assertion.

[trotsky]

79. Then dialog with me and prove me wrong.

Bet you can't.

[guillaumeb]

80. The post was a personal opinion.

Talking about the fact that privilege is a constant of human society. So of course there is privilege in religious groups and in countries with religious citizens.

[trotsky]

81. But you didn't talk about religious privilege.

You deflected to talk about privilege in general, as you just admitted. Again.

You lose. Again.

Now insult me and have your last word, gil. You need it more than I do.

[guillaumeb]

82. Reread what I posted.

[trotsky]

65. YES! Exactly. n/t

[Lordquinton]

68. Feel like neo in the matrix when it comes to deflecting logical fallacies

[trotsky]

63. It's 100% classic gil.

Pure whataboutism. Can't just admit the privilege he enjoys in the common environment we share - he has to say "what about the privilege of..." and go on and on.

[Lordquinton]

67. Yep, it's pure reframing

Something he is so quick to accuse others of, yet is the prime party.

[trotsky]

62. #Whataboutism n/t

[guillaumeb]

71. I expected as much.

Or, as little.

[trotsky]

74. You get what you give.

Since you give little to nothing, guess what?

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. Thanks for the Christosplanation.

?1