On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

[continued]

So, once you take away the potential for human rights abuses under cover of religion, what is the nature of religious privilege that Katrin is defending?

The obvious issue I can see is the economic one. In various European countries, special privileges are granted to established churches : subsidies; salaries of clergy paid by the state; taxes collected on behalf of churches; and most importantly, fiscal advantages.

In 1995, France decided the Church of Scientology was not a recognised religion. This affected their tax status, severely impacting their business model. This is clearly religious persecution : it's plain that most members of that church believe in the doctrines; surely it's neither provable nor material whether the hierarchy is merely in it for the money? (I'm quite sure that there are cardinals who don't believe in God; and after all, it's a matter of individual conscience...)

Recognition of a religion in France is the exclusive prerogative of the Minister of the Interior. This is entirely arbitrary, of course; but how could an "objective" mechanism for recognition of religions work?

The treatment of the church of scientology is religious persecution because of differential treatment of religions in France. This can be remedied by treating all constituted religious groups as friendly societies = non-profit organisations (though the granting of non-profit status should be subject to audit : Scientology is taxed as a business in France, probably justifiably).

The main visible consequence of this in France would be the liquidation of a large amount of under-used prime urban real estate (because the Catholic church would be unable or unwilling to pay the property taxes etc). This would require the state to pre-empt a lot of this property, on grounds of historical conservation.

Here we get to another aspect of religious persecution in France (your mileage may vary in your respective countries). It is objectively obvious that adherents of Catholicism, the historically hegemonic religion (and to a lesser extent, adherents of historic French Protestantism and of Judaism, intermittently persecuted in the past) have a great deal of religious privilege, in that they have at their disposal a huge array of magnificent places of worship (for Catholics, it's literally hard to be out of walking distance of one). Whereas adherents of other creeds have no such privilege.

For Moslems, they face all sorts of systematic obstruction to building mosques. For evangelical Protestant congregations, which are often predominantly poor immigrants, the need to finance their places of worship themselves leads to frequent health and safety problems (buildings overloaded, floors collapsing...)

The obvious solution, to me, is to accord a limited and even-handed form of religious privilege : those historically religious buildings which are state property (mostly those acquired from the Catholic church) should be put at the disposal of religious congregations, stricly for religious practice [no moneychanging hands in the temple!] in proportion to the number of actual churchgoers who turn up (thus finessing the delicate question of census of religious beliefs, which is forbidden in France).

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 05:48:53 AM EST

Re: Religious privilege (4.00 / 3)

When you talk about "the nature of religious privilege that Katrin is defending", are you referring to earlier discussion? Because the only religious privilege discussed in the diary (if any) is to wear clothes deviating from current local fashion. Furthermore, to me it seems that Katrin isn't talking about a universal right/privilege of religious people, but one specifically of religious minorities, as a defence against a persecution that singles out their religious practice while ignoring parallel practices of a majority (or larger or older minority) religion.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 06:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 1)

I'm specifically referring to her apparent disagreement with Jake's statement :

When "but my religion says" is an argument that carries more weight than "but the rules of our LARP are," then you have religious privilege.

I'm trying to explore the parameters of that disagreement. In past discussions, I haven't managed to get a clear idea of what exemptions, concessions or privileges Katrin believes should be extended, relative to agreed or imposed societal ethical norms, to individual citizens or groups on grounds of religious belief or identification.

I would like to clarify this somewhat before going on to the question of dress. Insofar as I have been routinely accused of religious intolerance or worse in past discussions, I prefer to be prudent in this one.

Personally I see some degree of religious privilege as inevitable, for historical and cultural reasons, and perhaps even desirable, but only on condition of a level playing field. I'm sure Jake will disagree with me, and assert the right for congregations of LARPers to claim a church building for their practices.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 07:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 0)

Most of the churches would have to be maintained anyway, as they are buildings of historical, cultural and architectural significance, quite apart from their doctrinal use. Demolishing, or neglecting, historical sites just because they are sites of historical religious practice is Not Cool.

Given that the building is there anyway, it would be downright petty to not let people use it. I'll even argue that religious groups have a seniority claim on the time slots usually used for their religious observance.

What annoys me is when religious groups demand exclusivity in their access to these buildings. I see no reason a publicly owned church (and the buildings in question are mostly churches) should only be used for Sunday mass and Saturday choir practice. Why not open it to Muslim Friday prayers, Jewish Sabbaths and rock concerts on Thursdays? Does death metal music from a Thursday concert really linger in the walls and give off disturbing miasmas that disrupt Sunday masses?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 6th, 2014 at 04:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 1)

eurogreen:

First, the obvious strawman : "atheist privilege". I'm pretty sure nobody among us calls for this ...

I am not sure of that, and that is why I am asking. So, obviously not a strawman.

eurogreen:

... (I'm not sure if such a thing has ever existed.

And what has that to do with my question?

eurogreen:

Likewise, I'm sure nobody here espouses religious persecution either.

For the reasons given above I am not sure of that. And since you don't give any arguments to accompany your statement, that hasn't changed.
eurogreen:

From the point of view of someone who advocates religious privilege,

And who is that? Me?

eurogreen:

About "beliefs and ethical norms". It is imperative to seperate the two concepts.

Is that an order from the privileged position that you claim so cavalierly?

eurogreen:

Beliefs are a private matter; that is the beginning and end of it for me.

But not for me. But, since you claim atheist privilege, that won't interest you.

eurogreen:

Katrin comes down clearly on the side of religious privilege through her rejection of equal status between religious groups and role-players.

Are you talking about me and my position?

eurogreen:

Sequestration, genital mutilation of minors, paedophilia, mind control (a few examples) are not specific to religious groups

But for general propaganda purpose and to bring heat into the discussion it is a good idea to bring them up, or why else do you do that?

eurogreen:

So, once you take away the potential for human rights abuses under cover of religion, what is the nature of religious privilege that Katrin is defending?

You are a troll.

by Katrin on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 08:15:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (4.00 / 2)

First, the obvious strawman : "atheist privilege". I'm pretty sure nobody among us calls for this ...
I am not sure of that, and that is why I am asking.

Katrin, since you brought this up yourself, what would "atheist privilege" be?

Saying "I should have special rights because I am an atheist"?

Where does that exist and who asks for it?

Enjoying implicit advantages for not being religious, and being unaware of those advantages and insensitive to the disadvantages experienced by religious people?

Where in Europe right now are "religious people" a discriminated or disadvantaged minority?

Islamophobia doesn't count, that's not blanket "religious people". And, if anything, what we still have in large parts of Europe is mainstream religion privilege. If you don't belong to the main religion of the country in question you find yourself at a disadvantage. Of course, as mainstream religion privilege is eroded, the privileged claim persecution.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 08:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 0)

Migeru:

Saying "I should have special rights because I am an atheist"?
Where does that exist and who asks for it?

In the wild it exists in an alliance with Islamophobes, and that is the dangerous variant. On ET there seems to be a variant aggressive against all religion and against anyone (even only occasionally!) arguing from a religously informed point.

Migeru:

And, if anything, what we still have in large parts of Europe is mainstream religion privilege. If you don't belong to the main religion of the country in question you find yourself at a disadvantage.

I agree with that. These mainstream or majority religions aren't monolithic blocks though. It is a bit funny to get treated as if all church members had the same political opinions (and then I am not even a member, but hey...)

by Katrin on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 09:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (4.00 / 3)

[ET Moderation Technology™]

Katrin, no personal insults or attacks will stand. Debate and criticize just the arguments eurogreen provides, or don't respond at all. I'll let your comment stand, but further commentary with personally directed assaults will be removed as swift as the gnomes can reach their pickaxes.

eurogreen, it's common courtesy around here to not troll-rate comments from people you argument with. That's were madness lies. Please no more troll-rating of Katrin - NB that doesn't limit you to give positive ratings if so warranted.

Everyone, please respect the debating decorum at ET, this topic is inflammatory enough on its own.

by Bjinse on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 0)

Yes, that rating was my angry reaction at being called a troll (among other things). I am old enough to know not to hit the button in anger, and I apologise.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 0)

If you really find that unfair, I apologise too, but then explain how it is not trolling to accuse me I was against equal status for all or that I was advocating religious privilege. I find these baseless accusations extremely unfair.

by Katrin on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 01:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 1)

Well, you know the solution to that. Explaining your position clearly when asked rather than insulting someone who is genuinely interested in learning and discussing it.

eurogreen:

Freedom of religion is a combination of two basic freedoms : the freedom of belief and the freedom of association. Anything else accorded in the name of religion is religious privilege. Katrin comes down clearly on the side of religious privilege through her rejection of equal status between religious groups and role-players. We need to examine what this distinction means to her in practice.

It seems you felt insulted by this paragraph, no doubt because I misinterpreted your unclear position. Again, I invite you to clarify why you think that beliefs and ethical norms informed by religion merit more respect or consideration in the public sphere than the rules of a game. If that is indeed what you think.

Your subsequent posts have made certain things clearer : in answer to Migeru, you agree that established religions in Europe benefit from religious privilege, and you don't seem to be in favour of it, as far as I can tell (or guess).

[And I couldn't find the bit where I accused you of being against equal status to all, so I won't try to respond to that]

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 03:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religious privilege (none / 0)

eurogreen:

Well, you know the solution to that. Explaining your position clearly when asked rather than insulting someone who is genuinely interested in learning and discussing it.

Ah. It would help if next time you don't understand my position, you ask, instead of putting words into my mouth. I am amazed by the idea that groups (any groups, not only religious ones) that develop and practice certain ethical norms and philosophies and participate in the public debate should have the same status as groups playing games. And it is insulting to hear that anything else was demanding "religious privilege". How many people have you hopping in the woodlands, eh?

by Katrin on Mon Feb 3rd, 2014 at 06:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh I see. Ideas have become deformed. (none / 1)

Katrin:

I am amazed by the idea that groups (any groups, not only religious ones) that develop and practice certain ethical norms and philosophies and participate in the public debate should have the same status as groups playing games. And it is insulting to hear that anything else was demanding "religious privilege". How many people have you hopping in the woodlands, eh?

You're actually shifting the goalposts.

What you are claiming to reply to is this , from Jake :
European Tribune - On Minority Rights and on Beliefs

You of course have a right to practice a religion. You also have a right to go to the local woodlands and LARP on the weekends.
When those two rights have roughly the same status, you have religious freedom.

Not the same thing. Can you see that?

What Jake is saying is that the right to practise a religion is, rightly, protected. So is the right to LARP in the woods. Both are subject to restrictions and caveats (health, safety, respect of other people's rights, etc).

What Jake is saying is that any supplementary rights or protections, accorded to a religious organisation and not accorded to a LARP association, or accorded to people who claim to be acting out of religious motivation and not to other people, constitute religious privilege.

This seems to me to be a fair, unbiased definition of what religious privilege is. Where you, I or Jake may disagree about is the degree to which religious privilege is legitimate, in general or in a particular situation.

We may also disagree as to what constitutes religious privilege in particular cases.

May I request a dispassionate reply as to whether these definitions are OK with you? Then perhaps we can have a more productive discussion?

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 4th, 2014 at 05:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dispassionate enough? (none / 0)

What Jake is saying is that he won't find anything to compare with religion but a ridiculous game. If you say a church or other religious group must not have more status or political clout than a NGO or trade union or whatever organisations participate in the political sphere and roughly represent as many people, that's perfectly okay with me (and anything else would be religious privilege). It is not what I get to hear here on ET, because this wouldn't ridicule religion, and it wouldn't hurt. Any idea why it is a tad difficult for me to reply dispassionately to all this?

by Katrin on Tue Feb 4th, 2014 at 09:39:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dispassionate enough? (none / 1)

Katrin:

If you say a church or other religious group must not have more status or political clout than a NGO or trade union or whatever organisations participate in the political sphere and roughly represent as many people, that's perfectly okay with me (and anything else would be religious privilege).

HOORAY!! Did it really hurt to spit it out? We could have saved a couple of days' unconstructive invective.

Any idea why it is a tad difficult for me to reply dispassionately to all this?

Because people get emotive about religion?

OK, I'm being flippant, but the use of reductio ad absurdam, as in Jake's example, is a valid rhetorical technique, and it's really a shame you take it so personally.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 4th, 2014 at 10:01:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Top Diaries

Recent Diaries

Occasional Series