IBARW 3: Religious Discrimination (plus race, sort of)

[keilexandra]

Today Tonight, I want to talk about the intersection of religion and race in America, in that insidious institution of privilege. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the majority of those who read this will be nominally or devoutly religious. That is, you believe in the existence of a single (or even multiple) higher being(s). And if so, even if you are a racial minority in the United States, you are part of an overwhelming religious majority.

My current default icon for IBARW states, "Do you really not see race?" And the tone of that question applies to every institutional prejudice; no one can be aware of all of them. For example, until coffeeandink 's excellent post today (warning for pregnancy squick), I didn't know about ableism. Now I do, and even if I later forget, the knowledge will sit in the back of my mind. So I write about religion, only tangentially related to race, because awareness aids all kinds of anti-discrimination.

As my friends well know, I am atheist. I also love to argue. You can see where that might lead to untactful conversations, yes? But I ask you to consider the following, some of which is obvious and some of which is hopefully not as obvious.

1. "In God We Trust"--printed on every U.S. bill of currency (and coin?). So who is this collective "we" that trusts in an unspecified god? I certainly trust no god or goddess, seeing as I am convinced of the non-existence of any deity, with perhaps an exception for a deity that has absolutely no interaction with this plane/universe (including creation).

2. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Interesting fact: I consider myself Chinese-Canadian, i.e. not American. However, I know the Pledge of Allegiance by heart because when I moved here in elementary school, it was a (Communist-esque) mandatory daily recitation. Recent rulings have allowed students to omit the italicized clause, but in practical terms, that does nothing but ostracize the rare prescient student who makes such a choice. Why is the U.S. so insecure that it requires (by an unspoken code of ethics, if not by law) its youngest citizens to recite an oath of allegiance? Freedom should also mean the choice to not be loyal to one's country, so long as you don't break any laws.

3. "*sneeze* Bless you!" This seems to be an American quirk, since I don't recall ever being blessed for sneezing in Newfoundland (and this at a school where we said grace every lunchtime). Whether or not the implied "God" is omitted, I still don't understand why you or your deity would wish to bless me. Especially since I'm going to hell as a blasphemer, etc.

4. Christmas and Easter breaks, now renamed to the politically correct Winter and Spring Breaks. I can accept that Christmas has become a commercialized holiday. However, I see no reason to take a week off from school in the middle of spring every year, somewhere in March or April. Jewish people have excused absences for their holidays, but the major Christian holidays are school-wide vacations.

5. And finally, the little things. For instance, I have a wonderful yoga DVD that I love; I even embrace some of its dubious health claims. But in the Closing Prayer is a jarring farewell note of "God bless you." I assume that the viewer may fill in their own god as necessary--while those of us with no such handy filler must simply ignore it. There are so many little things in life that as a minority--whether that involves belief, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else--one learns to ignore in order to survive sane. Because you can't get offended by everything. You can't argue at every single opportunity. In such an outnumbered battle, you can only choose strategic retreats--and strategy dictates sacrifice of the little things.

Privilege is a wide, overarching influence. If you read or participate in IBARW, I know that other bloggers will gladly enlighten you concerning white privilege. But for many of the non-white people: please consider your religious privilege. Barack Obama has faced undeniable prejudice during his Presidential campaign, but I assure you, if Obama or even any old white man were openly atheist, they wouldn't have a chance in hell at winning. I am Asian, Canadian, female, and atheist; I am also lucky enough to be middle-class, educated, able (physically and mentally), and cisgendered. But of the many minorities I belong to, atheism is by far the most dangerous. So I guess I'm saying, think about the privilege that you take for granted, and don't limit your activism to one cause and one week.

<End of infomercial; we now return to our regularly scheduled topic for this week.>

Comments

[yhlee.livejournal.com]

Note--I liked your post, but there's screwy code in there somewhere.

[keilexandra]

Thanks--I'd accidentally typed the brackets in the HTML editor.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I know staunch Republicans who talk as though Bill Clinton was a known and obvious atheist. And I'm astonished at the extent to which "atheist" seems to mean "disagrees with me on social issues" to large swaths of the American population these days. If you point out open and blatant religious behavior on the part of Democratic politicians and political candidates in front of this subset of Republicans, they flat-out do not believe you. It is an article of faith (heh) that these Democrats all must be lying -- and that their Republican counterparts must not be. And yet you're right: one simply could not run for major office as an open atheist. In a lot of areas one could not run for dogcatcher as an open atheist. And that's wrong.

An historical note on "bless you": sneezes were once thought to make a person vulnerable to their soul flying out (into the handkerchief, apparently).

Also, adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance belatedly made it a two-edged sword, because Christ exhorted his followers to "let your yes be yes and your no be no," and not to swear oaths by or to any power on earth or in heaven. So now that "under God" has been added belatedly in, it's no longer applicable to atheists, agnostics, and people with non-monotheistic concepts of the divine -- but it was never applicable to Christians who were following what Christ said to do. Crazy.

[keilexandra]

Re: Republicans; wow. Just, wow.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Obviously it's not all Republicans. But a Republican I love said to me when Columbia exploded, "Aren't you glad we had a man of faith in the White House to pray with us in this tragedy?" I said, "First, no; second, when have we not had?" And then there was an awkward silence, and then we moved on.

[keilexandra]

One more reason I will never be a Republican, although I try my best to respect them (one good friend was an ardent supporter of Mike Huckabee... *headdesk*). But I would be very surprised to find someone who identified with the Republican party and also considered him/herself atheist (agnostic would be stretching it, maybe apathetic-agnostic).

[mycolorfulheart.livejournal.com]

A lot of Republicans agree with the economic standing of the party, and don't really care about the social standing. That's why you'll occasionally see a Republican that's also a member of one minority or another that's completely overlooked by their party.

[lordubiquitous.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bless_you

Yep. Not just Americans.

[keilexandra]

I've never heard of that Chinese superstition. Hrm.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

"Bless you" when you sneeze is a carryover from European superstitions that sneezing made you vulnerable to demonic possessions. In my region of the US, it's pretty common to say, "Geizundheit!" instead of "Bless you," and a lot of people don't even know it's German/Yiddish for "God bless you."

I think that "bless you" for sneezing is kind of like the derivation of "Good-bye" from "God-be-with-you": it's an encoded linguistic history without actual [eta: current] religious significance. But I'm making this distinction because I agree with the religious implications of all of your other examples.

I do think, though, that there's not simply a religious privilege but specifically a *Christian* religious privilege in the West, and I say this as someone who identifies as both Jewish and atheist. And who recognizes that "Jewish" is in fact relatively privileged in the US! But other religions tend to receive the legal protection and sanction of religions only insofar as they resemble Christianity.

One of the things I like to point out, as well, as an example of the ingrained Christian cultural default, is that the weekend is Saturday and Sunday to allow for the Christian Sabbath and a day to prepare for it. This is actively inconvenient for Jews and Muslims, for whom the Sabbath starts at Friday sundown. Predominantly Muslim countries will make arrangements to make Ramadan's daytime fasts easier, whereas Muslims in predominantly Christian countries often have to struggle to make arrangements. Additionally, I know of (recent!) U.S. court cases which have denied recognition to Native American religious ceremonies because the elements of Native American religion did not conform to the court's assumptions of religion -- which were explicitly Christian.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

(I actually think this is related to IBARW and have been planning a post that deals at least tangentially with intersections of Christianity and colonialism, but we'll see if I manage to make it. Anyway! Thank you for posting. It's well worth bringing up.)

[sanguinity]

Oo. I would like to see that post very much.

[keilexandra]

"Bless you" is sort of like the Christmas phenomenon, semi-lessening its impact--but still disconcerting when you hear it all the time and stop to think about its roots. In many ways, the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation--not legally, but culturally.

But other religions tend to receive the legal protection and sanction of religions only insofar as they resemble Christianity.

Exactly. Islam is justified as, "well, they worship the same god, just under a different name," and Hinduism does have one higher god in the pantheon (Brahman?). Whereas Native American and pagan religions are blatantly discriminated against, cf. the U.S. military refusing to recognize the pentagram (I think?) as a religious symbol on tombstones.

[fireriven.livejournal.com]

Note: The U.S. military now allows the pentacle on the tombs of Wiccan soldiers.

[keilexandra]

Yeah, I know--but only when challenged in court, and quite recently.

[fireriven.livejournal.com]

Well, that is how things get changed in this country. And, when it was brought to court, they were granted the right to have the pentacle as a symbol of faith.

I agree that it sucks that it was even denied in the first place... but, when that denial was tested, it was flipped and that's important.

[diatryma.livejournal.com]

A data point: it's been a while since my spring break corresponded to Easter. I'm not sure if my high school's did, but my mom's school gives them Good Friday off and nothing else. College put break in March; the semester ended at the end of April. I don't remember if we got Good Friday off. I think Iowa does the same-- break's in March, Easter's usually not.
My mother's high school in New York has a February break in addition to winter and spring. Energy crisis back in the seventies led to the best-placed break in the history of breaks.

[keilexandra]

Mmm, good to know. My school's spring break always corresponds to Easter, although it varies from week before to week after.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

New York high schools also officially have the Jewish High Holy Days off. But that's New York.

[diatryma.livejournal.com]

I'm from Illinois-- we get Casmir Pulaski Day. I like seeing the regional differences.

I think part of the reason many colleges are moving toward a March break is the move toward a May term. You can't end classes in late April and have a break right there. March is better suited-- everyone has been there a long time, people are starting to get antsy, and if your climate's right everyone will come back and the campus will have bloomed.

[wisdomeagle]

(At least some) New Jersey schools, too.

[sanguinity]

I'm glad to see this; I was toying with doing a post about atheism and race (or actually, racism in the atheist movement).

[keilexandra]

Please do! It's a different topic from what I addressed. (And send me the link!)

[sanguinity]

Posted!
http://sanguinity.livejournal.com/442559.html

[mycolorfulheart.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this post. I am a Christian, and it sickens me when politicians talk about their faith. Getting elected should be about competency, but in America it's not. My parents have said things like, "I'm voting for him because he's a Christian," or, "They're attacking him in a national ad because he's a Christian." To which I reply -- THEY'RE ALL CHRISTIANS!

[keilexandra]

Yep--they're all Christians. Whether this is good or bad, is a different point.

well...

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

But of the many minorities I belong to, atheism is by far the most dangerous.

I dont disagree that there's a lot of stuff about privilege and religion in the US, I kind of feel like there is conflation of Judeo-Christian religion in this post with *all* religions, and... not so much in practice.


I assure you, if Obama or even any old white man were openly atheist, they wouldn't have a chance in hell at winning.

If Obama was a priest (or just a practitioner) of an African based traditional religion would that really be any different?

Re: well...

[keilexandra]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I do think that Obama practicing an African-based traditional religion would be -less- harmful than a declaration of atheism. Because freedom of religion is an engrained principle, and he would at least get a majority of the liberal vote; however, I have many hardcore liberal friends who simply would never vote for an atheist.

Judeo-Christian religion is obviously the most privileged, but I contend that in that social hierarchy, all other "minority" religions are privileged over open atheism. (Closet atheism/agnosticism is another matter entirely; the policy is akin to "don't ask, don't tell.")

Re: well...

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

but I contend that in that social hierarchy, all other "minority" religions are privileged over open atheism.

You say that as if ATRs are considered to be valid religious practices...

Because freedom of religion is an engrained principle,

Uh huh...

Re: well...

[keilexandra]

I say that freedom of religion is an engrained principle of the liberal mind. And ATRs are either valid religions or "silly superstitions" or "spirituality"--all of which is less threatening to the ruling Christian majority than a direct rejection of their god. (Not all atheists deconvert or reject exactly one higher deity, of course, but most do simply by virtue of the fact that most of the world's popular religions are monotheistic, where Hinduism counts as both mono- and polytheistic.)