[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't like calling it Judeo Christian Priviledge, or Christian Priviledge because of two things:

1) I feel that unfairly targets Christianity (even though they are the biggest offenders and usually when I'm talking about this in a material sense, I'm talking about them) and is an imprecise approach. My problem is not that Christianity has this power and things would be better if instead of Christianity, voodoo had this power, my point is NO ONE should have this power.

But you argue that atheism/skepticism/logic etc should be held above all others, it should have the power.

In a material sense, that means, right now, breaking Christian privilege - yes. But the point is not to then hand off that privilege to another faith and say "do better", the point is to pull the king off the throne, throw his silly hat away, break the throne down to kindling and set it on FIRE. Not put a new, better, more humaine king on the throne, because the problem isn't even necessarily the faith, the problem IS the throne.

But it doesn't operate independently on a throne, like patrirachy doesn't operate independently from racism. Its part of a white supremacist (thus the black church has no real power despite being Christian) sexist (thus feminist/womanist theology has no power) hegemony. White American Christianity is unique in that it incorporates an American creation myth (literally in Mormonism) and merges with nationalism. It wasn't always this way actually. Early colonizers and slavers argued that if PoC were Christian, they'd be equals. Christian slavers and colonizers had to incorporate white supremacy into Christian dogma. Despite not having proper "separation of church and state" laws, this isn't a problem in Canada because we don't have a creation myth and being Christian isn't exactly crucial to our idea of Canadian identity. It was the case, particularly with assimilating the aboriginal, but seems to be part of a shameful, lets-not-talk-about-it past rather than a living present. Nor is this a problem in France or other secular countries. But despite being secular, we still have issues with religious minorities like Muslims because they still threaten our national identity. Like, absolutely oppressive Christian rhetoric has been used in the past, but a new secular "progressive" version has emerged. It didn't change the throne at all.

2) Scientology. No seriously: You talk about persecuted minority faiths? Scientology is a perfect example of how much legal power and social clout comes from being a religion, even a distrusted and hated religion. Scientology actually recently surpassed atheists in certain polls are "most distrusted minority". They still get an insane amount of privilege from being considered a religion. Even though they're largely a hated minority, they're able to use their religious status to silence critics, rake in billions in profits & torture holocaust survivors to near suicide with virtual impunity. Now this isn't the only reason they're able to do this, but it's a damn big reason why, which is why they fought so hard to gain tax-exempt status.

And its funny because most of their figureheads are white rich-as-Solomon celebrities. I think I found where their privileges come from.

3) Iboga/Ibugain. I was on the radio a few months ago with an activist/aboriginal shaman of the Bwiti faith. He was arguing that he and his people should be allowed, in the United States, to take Iboga (currently a a Schedule I-controlled substance). While I agree with him, and don't begrudge his tactic, of appealing to religious privilege in an effort to gain legal access to this substance - It is all things considered NOT a religious right to take this substance - it is a HUMAN right to do so - and to appeal solely on religious grounds is in the long run, inadequate to say the least.

Anthropology 101: Religion is part of culture. Its part of cultural expression. Specifically aboriginal religion has been a big part of anti-colonial rhetoric in the aboriginal community. Sitting Bull was murdered because they feared he might join the Ghost Dance movement. The Wounded Knee Massacre was also in response to the Ghost Dance movement. Eliminating aboriginal religion has been instrumental in trying to assimilate the aboriginal. The "Pan-Indian" (I put quotations because I really hate saying "Indian" in reference to Native Americans) religious movement is in part because those on the East coast really have lost a lot of knowledge of their original religions, and thus lost a big part of their culture. So they borrow from the Lakota and Sioux who didn't succumb to colonialization until much later. Its a huge part of aboriginal identity and history. Its not a cheap ploy to legalize a drug.

While I recognize the realpolitik of the situation, it's important to be precise about these things, because if we are not, we cause problems for ourselves down the road. When you're dealing with oppression - you can't just knock out part of one leg - you've got to flip the whole goddamn table.

Prizing atheism above religion will not solve this, look at violence against Muslims in France, or their attempt at assimilation. Its not different whether its in the name of religion or in the name of secularism or progress. Essentially what can and will happen if enough turn to atheism is that it becomes the new core part of nationalism, xenophobia and racism. Few in the "atheist movement" really deny it because they want it. Dawkins would be pleased as punch if people were ripping niqabs off of women.

I should amend my statement, as It reflects a particular community and a particular means of interacting violently. I know that women are more likely to be the targets of violence, but the type of violent confrontation I was faced with, in the manner I was faced with it, was because I'm a dude. If I'd been a woman in the particular community at that particular school I would have been confronted, probably violently, but it would've been in a different way, and it wouldn't have been as public.

And again, I faced the same thing anyway.

She said people got "argumentative" the confrontations I had went beyond argumentative. Also, I'd hazard a guess that people got argumentative after her conversion because her faith became more visible than her lack of faith.

I'm an atheist, but when I walk down the street nobody knows. They all just assume/don't care.

My skin color or face didnt' change when I became a Buddhist. I didn't start wearing a mala bracelet until a few years ago. In high school, a lot of people were super ignorant about what me being Buddhist meant. Some thought I was Jewish for some reason. All they knew was I didn't share in what they thought was a shared identity. I was just different.

Honestly this kinda reminds me of when goths argue goths exist as a unique oppressed class of people.

If I wore a shirt that had "God" with a circle and a red line through it, it would be a completely different situation. If I got up and talked about God not existing on the subway it would most likely only be a matter of time before I was assaulted - even in NYC.

Was that something you wanted to do? Do you think shamans, voodooists or even Muslims can get away with that?

Actually this is something I wanted to ask: is being able to confront people religion about any moment your idea of atheist freedom? Is not wanting to argue about religion at any time of your choosing oppressing you?