Religious Discrimination

Throughout history, people have been ignored, scrutinized, shamed, threatened, and persecuted for practicing a religion other than whatever happened to be the dominant religion in their region at that time. Even today, where outright, obvious persecution is less common, it can be very lonely to have a religious background different from the "mainstream" religious culture of an area. 

In the contemporary United States, Christianity is the dominant religion. As such, many Americans, even those who do not actively practice Christian worship as adults, have been exposed to Christian teachings, dogma, and traditions from a young age. But many others, particularly those whose families immigrated from areas of the world where Christianity is not the dominant religion, do not have this same upbringing (nor want it for their own children). America is a diverse nation, and every religion is represented in its population.

These non-Christian Americans lack religious privilege - their religion and cultural traditions are not seen as standard, their religious holidays are not observed at their places of work, and their government representatives are likely not people who subscribe to their religion. At best, these Americans may have to occasionally explain their holidays to Christian-Americans who are not familiar with any traditions other than their own, and may face minor discrimination, like insensitive comments or erasure of their religion or cultural experiences from mainstream media. At worst, these Americans may experience or witness verbal or physical threats, slurs and hate speech, intimidation, or violence - simply for daring to practice a religion (or look like someone who might practice a religion) other than Christianity.

There is a reason we have words like Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - but no comparable word to describe prevalent anti-Christian sentiment. Contrary to what some right-wing news programs insist (*cough* Fox News *cough*), this type of systematic religious discrimination does not happen to Christians in America. Any slights that American Christians think they see directed towards their religion are only evidence of a loss of some of the privileges Christianity and Christians have had in America - and a loss of privilege is not the same thing as discrimination. A loss of privilege is in fact necessary for discrimination to be eradicated; all religions cannot be seen as equal when Christianity still holds privileges over American culture, media, and government that other religions do not have access to. (For more on Christian Privilege in America, visit this previous blog post I wrote in 2015.) 

What I'm about to say is going to sound controversial to a lot of people, but it's one of my fervent beliefs: Christianity is not inherently better or more true than any other religion, and does not deserve preferential treatment or privilege - in America, or anywhere else.

If I said a similar statement about white people, or heterosexuals, or men, there would be a lot less controversy. We've progressed enough as a society for most of us to realize that men are not inherently better than women, that people with light skin tones are not inherently better than people with more melanin, and that people with a heterosexual orientation are not inherently better than people who don't identify as heterosexual. This same line of reasoning, however, does not often enough continue into the discussion of religion - and I have a couple theories as to why.

First, it is a requirement of the Christian belief system to insist that there is only One Truth, and they are the only religion that has discovered it. They are not necessarily the only religion that does this, but neither is this mutual exclusivity clause a characteristic of all religions. There are some, especially polytheistic religions (those with multiple gods) or systems that emphasize a general spirituality, which allow for the possibility that multiple religions or ways of practicing spirituality are equally valid. 

Christians believe in only one god - their capital-G God, somehow split into a Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet also one, indivisible entity - and that believing in this God is the only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the glorified afterlife, upon earthly death. Some Christians might allow that it is possible for adherents of other religions to lead a somewhat moral life (many religions have similar teachings for how to conduct oneself on earth, after all), but even if someone were to lead a moral, good life and be easily classified as a "good person," they would not be rewarded after death, according to traditional Christianity. 

It's therefore not much of a stretch for Christians to insist that their religion is inherently better, and truer, than any other religion - because only Christians will get to go to Heaven - and that they thusly deserve special privileges, or are at the very least are entitled to a sense of superiority. They can try to claim religious freedom when they look down on or discriminate against people of other religions, because it is part of their religious belief system to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. And then it becomes sticky. How can we ask Christians to give up their privilege and be more tolerant of other religions, if their religion discourages or forbids it? To them, it seems to be an act of intolerance against their religion to ask them to do so. Many Christians do not want to give up their privilege, and indeed don't think they are in the wrong at all - and it's hard to change if you don't want to. Furthermore, it's hard for outsiders to speak out against such religious egotism - especially if one is concerned about looking hypocritical.

Many Christians don't see it that way, of course. They frame their attitudes towards those of other religions differently - as genuine concern, driven by love and compassion. A Christian might argue that they want everyone to have access to the same privileges Christians do - both the earthly privileges of being a Christian in America and the "afterlife" privilege bestowed on all Christians worldwide who believe in God and Jesus. In a perfect world, they would convert everyone to Christianity so that everyone would be equal. In fact, there would be no distinction between a "privileged group" and "non-privileged group" at all if everyone belonged in the "privileged group." 

The only problem is that this utopian vision supposes that religion is a choice. And if religion is a choice, and there are so many advantages to being a Christian (from the Christian's viewpoint), how do we account for all the millions of people who haven't chosen to convert? Maybe some of them don't know about Christianity yet - and so the Christian's response is to send missionaries around the world, to witness to strangers, to make connections and forge friendships, and try to teach and persuade them. This will convert some. But not all. 

So then what do Christians do? What do they do with those who know Christian teachings, have attended church, have debated religion with friends and family and clergy, and yet still choose not to believe? Or those who immigrate to America, where Christianity is the dominant religion, and refuse to assimilate to it? Or those who are apathetic about questions of religion and spirituality altogether, and won't even listen, partake in discussions, or entertain the possibility of adopting Christian beliefs?

Christians start judging these people, these non-Christians who know about Christianity and yet persist in their previous lifestyle anyway. Christians see such non-Christians as either too stubborn to change, or morally corrupt and having too much fun "sinning" to change. They say, "I tried to show them the truth, but those heathens wouldn't listen." They say, "if they insist on defying me and defying God, then they deserve what they get, and I am not at fault." They wash their hands of their impending discrimination, claiming that deep down they want these non-Christians to change and that they tried to help them, as if those things somehow excuse them from the religious egotism that will soon follow. 

I'm generalizing, obviously. Not all Christians go through the above train of thought, and not all Christians are intolerant of all non-Christians. But many do, and many are - especially the Christians with power and authority, like clergy, politicians, and radio/television personalities. What's worse is that the many Christians who do and say these things would be supported by their churches and Biblical texts if they did. To be Christian is to believe in God (and only a very specific God at that, which includes belief in Jesus) and to think you are superior to those who don't believe. 

I also don't mean to suggest only Christians fall prey to this line of thinking, or that only Christians discriminate against those subscribing to other religions. I'm only singling Christianity out this post because it's the one I'm most familiar with (having grown up in a Christian family and believing in God for the entirety of my childhood and the majority of my adolescence), and because it's the dominant religion in America. In the United States, more often than not, those who discriminate against people from other religions are Christians.

So the first theory for why religious discrimination persists is the very construct of religions - at least those, like Christianity, who insist that there is only one "Right Way" to live and to believe.

The second theory, which I already touched on (because it really does go hand in hand with the first), is that we often view someone else's religion as a choice, but our own religious beliefs as a part of us: something not easily changed, something that we have little choice in. 

Many of us can't imagine subscribing to a different religion than what we grew up with, and to those who go about doing so, it's not an easy process. It involves a lot of self-reflection, and possible psychological, spiritual, emotional, and/or familial upheaval. It involves redefining who we are and who we want to be, through looking at the sorts of questions philosophers have struggled with for millennia: our purpose here on earth, the presence of evil, and the best way to live morally. Our religious beliefs are often at the very core of who we are - and yet, for some religious people, their first instinct when presented with someone belonging to a different religion, or to no religion at all, is to question "why not mine"? That is, "what is it about this person that prevents them from choosing to convert to my religion instead?" Converting to a different religion might not be an "easy" choice to make - but it is technically possible.

The fact that we see religion as a choice is so important, and I think contributes a great deal to why religious discrimination is still so prevalent - in America and throughout the world.

Things like race and sex are very obviously thrust upon people without their consent. People cannot choose what sex they were born as, or what their skin color is; such things are determined by genetics and chromosomes, over which we have no control. Of course, this fact didn't stop discrimination against people for these things in the past (or to this day) - but for many contemporary Americans, this is precisely the reason they try not to be racist or sexist against those of other races or genders. 

Race and sex are also things that are not easily changed. With advancements in biology, changing one's sex from the one assigned at birth is a lot easier than it used to be - but it still comes with a host of expenses that not everyone can afford, and is often difficult to obtain for other reasons, as well (not least because transgendered individuals also face discrimination). Changing one's race is even more difficult, though some people are able to successfully "pass" as someone from a different race.

In recent decades, sexual orientation has been added to this category of "relatively non-changeable identities that are assigned at birth". As more studies suggest that sexual orientation may also be (at least partly) determined by genetics, so too have more and more Americans pushed for equal treatment for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. (I've written about this before - check out this previous post (also from 2015) for my opinions on searching for a "gay gene")

It doesn't seem fair to judge someone based on something they can't help; they didn't choose to be part of a group of people traditionally discriminated against, and would theoretically have chosen to be born into the group of people with privilege, if they had been given the choice. They therefore don't deserve to be blamed or shamed or discriminated against; if anything, they deserve pity and/or additional aid to raise their station to those of the people with privilege. 

But there's a problem with this line of thinking (well, actually a few problems, but I'm only going to focus on one right now). If we agree as a society that we shouldn't judge people for something they can't control, this apparently gives many people the justification to argue that we can judge people for things they can control - the things they choose to do. 

And if we're judging other people's actions... It hardly matters what genes they do or don't have, does it? We can claim we're discriminating against black people not because they are black, but because they "act" black. ("If you're afraid for your children's safety, maybe stop letting them listen to rap music that glorifies violence.") We can justify discriminating against women if we insist we're not doing it because of their inherent biology, but because of their choices. ("If you didn't want to be assaulted, maybe you shouldn't have dressed in such a short skirt.") And we can argue that homophobia is fine - as long as it's gay sex, gay relationships, and gay marriage we're complaining about, and not gay people in and of themselves.

This is precisely what those who are insistent on discriminating against gay people argue, to this day. They will not be deterred by scientific evidence of a gay gene; they will assert that people can still choose which sexual acts they engage in, regardless of genetic inclinations. They will take a gay child and say, "this child might be born gay, but they don't have to act gay," and they will send them to conversion therapy in the hopes of teaching them proper, more socially acceptable behaviors.

(Never mind that many of these people are the same people that argue "boys will be boys." Heterosexual men are given a pass to let their sexual urges overcome their powers of higher reasoning and self-control, because they are in the privileged group. But that's another conversation.)

The thing is, these people are right - it seems contradictory, but we really are born with certain characteristics that our outside our control AND have the ability to make choices and help direct the trajectories of our lives. But what these people forget is this: 1) These choices are only theoretical, and a lot harder to make and maintain in practice, and 2) It's not really much of a "choice" at all, really, if someone is shamed, threatened, coerced, or encouraged into making it - if the "choice" comes from the outside, rather than from within.

Put another way, they suppose that all choices are available to everyone (even though they're not), and that all choices are similar enough to each other to be interchangeable (for someone else, of course - but not for them). They might say: "Just have sex with someone of the opposite gender instead of someone of the same gender. It's not so different. You can do it; you can change." Or: "Just pray to a different god. It's practically the same anyway, just more correct." But ask them to change, and get a completely different response.

A gay person can try to be in a heterosexual relationship, or no relationship; they can try (and many do) to suppress their true desires. But that doesn't mean they want to, and it doesn't mean they make that choice willingly. They feel trapped or coerced into doing things that make them unhappy or that don't feel natural to them - all because certain behaviors have attached shame in our society, while others (those performed by privileged groups) are considered acceptable.

Religion is the same way; to a lesser extent, so is class. Theoretically, we have at least some control over what religion we subscribe to (or whether we subscribe to any religion at all), or how much money we have. We can do things to try to raise our income (such as getting a college degree, or studying a specific field with plentiful high-paying jobs, or working longer hours, or prioritizing work over family, or choosing not to have children), and we can convert to another religion, or step away from religion altogether. But that doesn't mean that those choices are equally available to everyone, or that they are easy to make.

Many people forget how fickle choices can be. They ask: Why can't poor people just choose to move up in the world, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps? Why can't homosexual individuals just choose to suppress those desires and forge heterosexual relationships, or opt for celibacy? Why can't non-Christians just convert to Christianity? If it would make their lives easier to be a part of the privileged group, why don't they choose to do so?

They neglect to see the bigger picture. Especially where social class is concerned, there are a lot of things that can get in the way and prevent choice. Which fields have plentiful high-paying jobs might change between when you enter a program and when you finish it. Some people don't have the money to pay for college, or the time to devote to studying a new line of work. Career and education opportunities, not to mention birth control, are not equally accessible to everyone. It might seem like a choice to those who have all these choices available to them - but to others, there's only ever one option they can see, one path they can take.

Because this is supposed to be a post about religion, let me focus on just that from here on out.

We theoretically have the ability to choose whatever beliefs we want. We can buy in to the prepackaged belief systems of any number of major religions, or even pick and choose, building our own personal beliefs. But our willingness and ease in doing so depends on how we were raised, what different religious/spiritual options (or non-options) we've been exposed to, how open we (and often, our families) are to the idea of changing something as crucial to our self-definition as what we believe in, and the resources we have available to us.

Still. Even if religion was 100% our own personal choice, with no outside influence from our families and cultural traditions - why does that make it suddenly acceptable to discriminate against others based on this choice? We make choices and form preferences every day, on a great multitude of things, and don't pass moral judgment on people based on other decisions. Some people like the color blue, or watching sci-fi movies, or eating tacos; others hate blue, sci-fi movies, and tacos - but we're all willing to recognize that both of those groups of people are people of equal value, who deserve equal treatment and respect.

Maybe it has to do with how we define ourselves. Most of us don't prioritize a love of Mexican food as a defining characteristic about ourselves - but we might say "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Atheist" as a top-five descriptor of our core persona. (Perhaps this would also explain why people get so up-in-arms about sexual orientation. Though "gay" or "straight" might not necessarily be part of someone's go-to self-description, relationships with others very well could be. We define ourselves as "husband"; "wife"; "mother"; "father"; "brother"; "sister"; etc. - meaning that who we choose to love and nurture relationships with is also part of our core being.)

This can't be the only reason, however - because another very common way to define who we are as a person is what we do for a living. And while we might form opinions about someone's interests, priorities, or wealth/social class once we learn their occupation or field of study, we don't tend to dehumanize them or cast moral judgment on their life choices simply for having a different job than we do. It would be beyond arrogance to assume that just because you love being a doctor, and are good at being a doctor, and earn a good living as a doctor, that everybody else should be a doctor, too - and yet, that is precisely what many religious people do about religion.

We make choices all the time, and often give great thought into them, especially if they're Big Choices, like where to live, who to marry, what profession to pursue, what college to attend, or whether or not to start a family. We might even form pro-con lists, weighing the consequences to determine which is the best choice. But we do this for ourselves - not for other people. We're looking for what the best choice is for OUR lives - based on our goals, what we hope our lives will turn out to be, our preferences, and our gut reactions. We don't presume that just because a choice is the objectively right choice for us, it must also be the right choice for everyone else.

And here's where it comes full circle and taps back into theory number one. Many people separate out religion as not only a choice but a choice where there is only one "right choice" FOR EVERYONE - because that is precisely what their religion demands. Christians have to judge non-Christians as misguided, ignorant, unfortunate, pitiable, stubborn, and/or morally bankrupt - because if they didn't, what would that mean for their own beliefs? If it's okay for Stranger A to not believe in Jesus and still be a good person - wouldn't it also have to be okay for Christians to change their mind and no longer believe? If all religions (or following no religion at all) are equally valid life choices, then the pillars of Christianity would collapse. Christians are counting on the fact that there is only One Truth, and they (and only they) believe in it; they can't ignore this aspect of their religion, because it is at the core of what their religion is.

And then, consider that Christianity is not the only religion that thinks it is the rightest, truest religion. Furthermore, no one can definitively prove one way or another which religion is the rightest and truest. That's kind of the point of religion. You believe in it on faith. It can't be physically proven here on earth, but some feel it, and know in their hearts that it must be. So now we have competing religions, each one arguing that they are right and all others are wrong, and they are justified in discriminating against those who don't believe what they believe. This is how wars break out.

You can insist that it comes from "a place of love" all you want, but it will always come across as arrogant to the people you are talking to. You are still asserting that something is undeniably true which no one can actually prove, and then getting angry, personally offended, frustrated, or harshly judgmental when you come across someone who lives a different life than you and doesn't see things the same way you do.

It is human nature to see everything through our own lens of experience. What else can we do? We know what we know; we know what we've lived. But there is a difference to not understanding someone else's point of view and refusing to listen, a difference between not understanding someone else's point of view and assuming their point of view has no value, simply because it is outside the realm of your understanding.

For these and so many other reasons, it doesn't make sense to shame people for their choices. (Unless, of course, their choices are hurting someone else - murder, for example, is not an appropriate choice no matter who you are.) As long as someone's pursuit of happiness does not infringe on someone else's, one sort of behavior should not be condemned while another is praised. "Different strokes for different folks," right? We all have different preferences; there should be nothing wrong with following them.

So getting back to that controversial statement I made. "Christianity is not inherently better or more true than any other religion, and does not deserve preferential treatment or privilege - in America, or anywhere else."

Perhaps you disagree with the first half of that sentence and insist that Christianity is better and more true than any other religion. It's your prerogative to believe that, just as it's mine not to. But hopefully the second half of my claim doesn't sound quite as controversial. We should not afford privileges to any group nor shame or discriminate against people, on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, or ability. Period.

It doesn't matter whether someone was born into a Christian household and raised Christian, or whether they were not brought up as Christian but converted later in life, or whether they were born into a Christian family but then stepped away from their family's religion, or whether they are not Christian, have never been Christian, have no interest in Christianity, and would never choose to subscribe to that religion - regardless of their religion, or even a choice to be completely non-religious, everyone should be treated equally. We are all human, and as such, all deserve respect.

Let me repeat myself. It doesn't matter if someone belongs to or identifies with a group by choice or by birth. We are all human, and as such, all deserve respect.