At The Debate Link, I found a reference to this quote from Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz.1
In the U.S., Christian, like white, is an unmarked category in need of marking. Christianness, a majority, dominant culture, is not only about religious practice and belief, any more than Jewishness is. As racism names the system that normalizes, honors and rewards whiteness, we need a word for what normalizes, honors and rewards Christianity. Jews designate the assumption of Christianity-as-norm, the erasure of Jews, as “anti-Semitic.” In fact, the erasure and marginalization of non-Christians is not just denigrating to Jews. We need a catchier term than Christian hegemony, to help make stark the cultural war against all non-Christians.
Christianism? Awkward, stark, and kind of crude – maybe a sign that something’s being pushed. Sexism once sounded stark and kind of crude. Such a term would help contextualize Jewish experience as an experience of marginality shared with other non-Christians. Especially in this time of rising Christian fundamentalism, as school prayer attracts support from “moderates,” the contextualization is critical for progressive Jews, compelling us to seek allies among Muslims and other religious minorities.
I’ve been longing for just this word for quite a while. I’d add that this should include not only religious minorities, but atheists and agnostics too. (Although we have to remember that the categories overlap; a Jewish atheist may have a different relationship to Christianism than a Catholic atheist, although either may be harmed by Christianism.)
- From “Jews in the U.S.: The Rising Cost of Whiteness,” in Names We Call Home: Autobiography on Racial Identity (1995), edited by Becky Thompson & Sangeeta Tyagi. [↩]
I agree we need a word; I’m not sure “Christianism” is the right one. Much as I hate it, “Islamist” has become the code name for fundamentalist Muslim suicide bomber fanatics. “Christianism” sounds like code for the same thing but with a different religion. I don’t think that’s what you’re aiming at.
If I were Christian, I’d be annoyed to see the name of my religion being mangled and used to describe something nasty.
Yeah, I’m Christian and would be a bit annoyed. I think it would be too easy to confuse things like the above statment “either may be harmed by Christianism” with the similar-sounding “either may be harmed by Christianity“, which would have an entirely different meaning.
There doesn’t seem to be a standard way of naming these systems. “Racism” and “sexism” are based on ways of describing people (by race and sex, respectively). This is different from naming the system based on the name of a particular descriptive category itself (e.g. “heterosexism” or “ableism”).
One problem that I have with “Christianism,” and I remember thinking this when I first read a copy of Kaye/Kantrowitz’ piece, is that it would only apply in places where “Christian” is the unmarked category; in theory we would need other words–Jewishism, Islamism, Buddhistism–to use in places where some other group is unmarked. In contrast, terms like racism, sexism–and even ableism and heterosexism–can be used anywhere, even if the specific content of the word (i.e., racism between Blacks and Latinos) changes. That being said, though, the discussion that coining a word like Christianism is inevitably going to start is a very necessary one. What umbrella term could be used to label the religious/cultural hegemony that Christianism is supposed to name in its specific manifestation in the US (and probably in most of the West)? Got me. And I have to run.
As a Catholic Atheist in the UK I feel that my experience of the world isn’t really made greatly worse by the dominant culture being Christian – after all my cultural upbringing is Christian, I know how to blend in with it if I want to. I know what it is that I am arguing about when I argue about it. I can discuss Christmas traditions with people and so forth. I think that a person raised in a different faith entirely would have a very different experience.
Perhaps being in the UK somewhat minimises the difficulty of “being an atheist” compared to being in the US (the average religious position here is a lot more wishy-washy than I understand it to be in the US).
When we teach the various “isms” in my middle school, which happens to have Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, we refer to it as faithism. Works for us!
Oh yeah, a few atheists lurking about there too (including me!).
How about “christianormativity”, to match “heteronormativity”?
The phrase I think is best is “Christian supremacy” and the associated “Christian supremacist.”
I find that “creationism” is a workable stand-in. It’s not a perfectly accurate term, since there are non-Christian creationists and moderate creationists, but the term seemed to take hold after the Kansas controversy and has stuck a bit, and does a good job of distinguishing Christianity and Christian-fundamentalism-as-a-political-movement.
The traditional word for this is “Sectarianism”, and the Christian in question is a “sectarian Christian”. It is most often used in the context of Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and Lebanon (e.g. sectarian violence).
SiF, do you mean by creationism a belief that God created the world and the species in it as they now exist or close thereto, and that the theory of evolution is wrong and contradicts Christian belief? I’m quite skeptical of whether that describes the majority of Christians in the U.S. But then, I’m an Episcopalian, left-of-center as these things go. I do know that it is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (the largest single Christian denomination in the U.S.) that there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity. I also have to wonder how much of this is a religious issue and how much of it is the ridiculously shitty way that science is taught in the public schools.
Oh, I know that a massive share (possibly majority) of Christians aren’t creationists – that’s my point. The ones who can handle the idea that Genesis may not be the literal truth don’t tend to be the politicized ones.
Agreed that this “ism” should be named, and I’m attracted to the “faithism” suggestion for a few reasons. As it’s been said above, there’s a need to name it using broad language – to describe whatever religion is dominant in a system. Although there’s no rule for naming “isms”, the root words in racism, sexism, classism, etc. don’t describe the supremacy, but the basis on which persecution is based. It also recognizes what needs affirming if the social critique is going to be effective. Also, “Christian supremacy” can be one issue within faithism, which gives analyses a little more room to move.
This is a great idea, but, seconding Bjartmarr at #1, I’ve often heard “Christianism” used as the direct parallel for “Islamism,” referring to Christian fundamentalism that seeks to create a theocracy. I like “christonormativity” (or something similar, per Jenny D at #7), because, like heteronormativity, it’s about the assumption that one group is the generic, the default. My experiences of people’s assumptions about what it means to be non-heterosexual and non-Christian have always seemed similar. I’ve had about the same number of acquaintances ask me incredibly ignorant questions about Judaism as have asked me incredibly ignorant questions about queer people.
SiF, I think “creationism” is precisely the wrong word to use here. We’re talking about the system that privileges Christianity and Christian culture — the privilege covers all Christians, fully including those who are not fundamentalists and/or not politicized. If anything, those moderate folks are the heart of the system. They’re the majority.
And plenty of non-Christian religious people are creationists.
Christianism.
If it pisses off Christians, who gives a shit?
Nothing else is as accurate (creationism, faithism, etc.) since we’re not talking about faith or adherence to a creationist philisophy. No, we’re talking about Christianism, which matches up nicely with the christian holidays and notices and public square postings and yadda yadda.
“Christonormativity” is, I think, the only substitute suggested here which is really compatible with the meaning of “Christianism” described in the quote. I’m not sure what I think about it, though. On the one hand, it’s meaning is somewhat self-evident, which is good. On the other hand, it’s an even longer and more academic-sounding word than “Christianism” is.
“Faithism” and “creationism” miss the boat for exactly the reasons described by Daisy in comment #15.
“Christian supremicism” seems too strong a term, to me.
Richard raises a really great point. But I can’t think of an alternative word — “faithism” comes close, but it implies that it’s only about people who have faith. Maybe this is something which needs cultural particulars included in the word.
Amp wrote:
You may be right, but what about something like “religious [and you can insert your religion of choice] chauvinism.” I don’t think I completely like it, since chauvinism does not quite get at the unmarked quality of whichever religion we are talking about–at least not given the current conventions for naming and thinking about such phenomenon–but it at least provides a starting point for moving the discussion forward and gets at the fact that there is/would be a formal commonality between and among “Christianism,” “Jewishism,” “Islamism,” etc.
Christianisme is the French word for Christianity, it is pronounced the exact same as Christianism without the e at the end.
There would be confusion in bilingual places or where a significant portion are French-speakers.
Amp, you are right. Using the term of faithism doesn’t address the privilege inherent in being a Christian in many countries–the US being the most egregious in treating Christianity as the norm. I think that one can differentiate between a position that your faith is better than any other faith (faithism) and the assumption that one particular faith is the norm (privilege? chauvinism?). I think many fundamentalist Christians are guilty of faithism, while our society in general is guilty of Christian privileging.
Is that even a verb? I thought not.
“The ones who can handle the idea that Genesis may not be the literal truth don’t tend to be the politicized ones.”
There’s plenty of left-wing Christian blogs out there. There were plenty of Christians marching and agitating against Proposition 8 in California. There’s lots of politicized Christians who can handle the idea that Genesis is not necessarily the literal truth.
In fact, that last sentence describes me. The way I explain it (and my pastor has actually asked me to deliver a sermon on the subject in 2009) is to take a look at cosmology’s explanation of the sequence of events that outline the creation of the universe, Earth and mankind and then put them into language and concepts that could be readily understood by Iron Age humans. That pretty much matches up with Genesis. Both creation stories in Genesis, in fact (yeah, there’s two).
“the US being the most egregious in treating Christianity as the norm.”
allison, I’d like to see you support that assertion with actual facts.
Off the top of my head, Poland probably far outstrips the U.S. in treating not only Christianity in general but a specific denomination (Roman Catholicism) in particular as the norm. Consider how restrictive their laws are regarding abortion and homosexuality compared to ours are. Ireland would be another. And that’s without actually doing any research into the matter. Tell me how you support your statement?
Naath, can you explain what a Catholic Atheist is?
As racism names the system that normalizes, honors and rewards whiteness,
This discussion starts from a false premise. Racism is not a system. Certainly a system can be racist or have racist properties. But racism is the concept that one race is superior to another. An additional error in the above is to presume that racism is specifically linked to a particular race. Racism is race neutral – it doesn’t matter what the race is that is being deemed superior or inferior. An Asian thinking that their race is superior to Caucasians is as racist as a Caucasian thinking that their race is superior to those of African heritage, or those of African heritage who hate Koreans because of their race.
On being a progressive Christian –
My experience of it is actually that it’s very akin to being bisexual (which I also am), in that it is more of a mix (some of the same traits as Christian normativity, some of the same traits as being atheist/agnostic) and that I have the same ping-pong experience of being accepted “in the norm” by the majority so long as I repress part of myself and accepted as an outsider so long as I repress a different part of myself.
Not saying it’s anything like the experience of being non-Christian (an experience I have had in the past when living in a very bible-beltish area of the Midwest as a half-Jewish Unitarian girl — my family actually took my to church to protect me from teasing!). And the element of choice is also a huge difference — I do not choose to be bisexual, but I choose to be a progressive Christian. Anyhow, just pointing out that it’s a bit more of an interesting category than I think it gets credit for.
i wasn’t sure if i agreed with the premise of this post, until i remembered something that’s been bugging me recently: the way people talk so glibly about the “new testament” vs “old testament” god, as they do in the description of the new Day the Earth Stood Still and Thor films, assuming that the old testament god is a grumpy old man and the new one is a happy loving jesus.
they forget that the “old testament” is the whole bible for jews (and samaritans, and a few other groups), and that denigrating the “old testament god” is implicitly insulting their entire religion. and they also assume a christianist narrative which isn’t true anyway- most of the graphic descriptions of hellfire come in the new testament (revelations), while the old testament has many parts in which god is described as a loving, nurturing, all-forgiving parent.
RonF,
Although I think it’s a horrible problem because it leads to discussions like this one, the reality is that “racism” has multiple meanings in the progressive sphere. One meaning is systemic. Other meanings are literalist, like your proposed definition. Annoying though it may be (why not think of a new term instead of using an existing term in a completely different, conflicting, way? The only predictable result of the confusion is your post and my response) it is what it is, and I think you know that.
RonF, would you settle for ““the US being one of the most egregious in treating Christianity as the norm.”?
I agree that Poland and Ireland do use religion far more than the US does in developing public policy and that Catholicism is far more dominant as a religion in both those countries than most other Christian faiths are in the US . I think, however, that the US has a strong cultural bias towards assuming Christianity is the norm. We seem to casually assume the celebration of Christian-based holidays, the praying of Christian-based prayers and the following of Christian-based tenets as being what everyone does.
Beside, I wanted to use “egregious”. ;-)
“they forget that the “old testament” is the whole bible for jews (and samaritans, and a few other groups), and that denigrating the “old testament god” is implicitly insulting their entire religion”
Well, based on today’s morality of the West, the old testament God condoned murder and massacre and killed innocents himself. Not exactly something people in general would celebrate. I have no doubt there’s more enlightening teachings in the old testament than just the bad highlights however. And Christianity in general tends to just skim-read the old testament.
Schala: yes, but you can find equally nasty or nastier bits in the Christiany parts of the Bible if you want to. And many ‘Christian’ faithists do.
allison, it is certainly a general presumption in the U.S. that any given person is Christian. Mainly because it’s a very good bet; according to the graphs shown by Amp in today’s post, ~80% of Americans claim to be Christian.
So it’s hardly mysterious that we should assume that just about everyone is going to celebrate Christian-based holidays. What else would you do? Nobody’s going to show up on Christmas anyway, so why wouldn’t you schedule it as a public holiday?
Our society is Christian by what in an election would be considered landslide proportions. The people who founded it were Christians. Our laws are based in an ethic heavily influenced by Christian ideals and principles. Christianity is assumed to be the norm in the U.S. because Christianity is the norm.
RonF: you’re very right, Christianity is the statistical norm. Acknowledging that, though, is different from persistently marginalizing people who aren’t the majority.
I think I’ve told this story on the internet before, so forgive me if I repeat myself… In a freshman seminar of mine, I made some passing comment about Judaism. My professor asked if anyone else was Jewish. No one was. The mere fact that I was the only Jewish person there is one thing. The way my classmates stared at me is another. The way they then asked me ridiculous questions and spoke bastardized Yiddish to me is yet another.
And just a few weeks ago in class, someone said something about how we, as college students I suppose, were more intelligent than the average person. I protested: “I don’t think that’s fair. I think I’m a normal person.” One of my classmates interrupted me in total shock: “You think you’re normal?”
“Uh, yeah.”
“But you’re a girl with short hair! That’s not normal!”
I assume “girl with short hair” is a polite code for “dyke,” but lets take his statement at face value. Yeah, statistically, most women in the US have long hair — I’m not the haircut norm. Acknowledging that fact, though, is a totally different matter from what he did, which was, more or less, tell me I’m a freak and make me seriously question how safe I am amongst my peers.
My point: walking around assuming most women you’ll meet will have long hair is very reasonable, a safe bet. That’s not the same as making short-haired women feel like freaks, or being rude to them because they’re a deviation from the statistical norm, or telling them most women have long hair ergo they’re not real women (see: people’s ideas of what a “real American” is).
Getting back to christonormativity specifically: it’s one thing to live in a country where people say “Merry Christmas” to one another all December like that’s the only winter holiday. It’s quite another to live in a country where non-Christians face a very real barrier toward holding public office because of voters’ prejudices.
Hm. You may not be willing to provide details, but I wonder what college you went to and where it is. Hell, where I went to school (MIT) applying the word “normal” to one of your classmates would be taken as a gross insult. We reveled in being freaks, and from what I see that hasn’t changed much. I do question, though, how you got from finding that they thought you weren’t normal because you had short hair to thinking that your safety was threatened. Seems a bit of a stretch.
So: if you belong to a society with norms, and everyone does, then non-conformance has a price. Always has, always will. Consider the cost to your social position in the vast majority of the U.S. if you hold and publicly express the view that blacks are inferior to whites and should all be shipped off to Africa or locked up or enslaved. People would think that was an awful thing to say and would ostracize that person. They’d be right, for my money, but what they would be doing is marginalizing someone because of a failure to conform to the norm. So it’s not always wrong.
I don’t think it’s possible to have a society that doesn’t have norms. I don’t think it’s possible for a society to not extract a price for not conforming to norms. What a society does have to do is to determine how important the various norms are, minimize the price for not conforming to less important norms (e.g., hair length) and maximize the price for not conforming to more important norms (e.g., don’t beat up your spouse). I like long hair on women, myself. For that matter I liked long hair on me when I could grow it, but THOSE days are long past. In any case, for someone to make you feel like a freak because you had short hair was quite uncalled for and calls that person’s attitude towards that norm into question.
Things like “I don’t trust someone to hold elective office if they don’t believe in God” is not something you can legislate away. You can try persuasion, but as long as almost everyone in the U.S. professes some kind of religion I doubt that this is going to change anytime soon. Just how much does that marginalize people? And is that worth the benefit to society by adopting that norm?
RonF,
I’m still in college and would prefer not to provide details. It’s an art school, so yeah, people revel in being weirdos — but that’s weirdos in relation to the people the school culture deems uncool and boring, not in relation to each other. As for the safety thing, I don’t feel unsafe on a daily basis and I’m sure my classmate means me no harm. But in that moment, when I’d been singled out as “not normal” (between his tone and his follow up comments, it was clear he considered himself, as a short-haired heterosexual male, to be normal), I did feel unsafe. My classmates nodded along with him and my professor did nothing. Standing out as the sole freak can be a very dangerous thing. The scariness passed, but it was a disturbing class period.
I think you’re right on to note that all societies have norms and that they serve an important function. Any disagreement I have with you is not about whether we have norms, nor about whether we should have norms, but about what our norms should be. “Don’t beat your spouse” is a useful norm. “Take care of your children” is a useful norm. “Help and protect those who are weaker than you” is a useful norm. “Don’t be a Muslim” is not a useful norm. “Don’t be gay” is not a useful norm. “Don’t be an atheist” is not a useful norm. The useful norms all serve important purposes by discouraging violence and encouraging compassion and responsibility. The norms that aren’t useful don’t do that — they just marginalize people and, at their worst, actually undermine useful norms by giving people excuses to be unfair and cruel.
I agree that sometimes it’s appropriate to marginalize people — frothing racists, child abusers, embezzling politicians. Not agnostics, gay people, or people with unusual hairdos. The former group is being ostracized for harming or intending to harm innocent people. The latter is being ostracized for no good reason.
Things like “I don’t trust someone to hold elective office if they don’t believe in God” is not something you can legislate away.
I agree that it’s not something that can or should be legislated away, but that’s doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. Also, I didn’t say that atheists face barriers towards elected office, I said that the much broader category of non-Christians does. Atheists are members of that category and face some of the most severe penalties, but theists of many stripes (Muslims, Hindus, Jews) also face serious barriers. (Just as note: I think it’s very clear that the degree of bias varies a lot from group to group. Muslims are much worse of than Jews, for example.)
And is that worth the benefit to society by adopting that norm?
I’m not sure if I’m reading you correctly here, so feel free to disregard this if I’m not: What do you see as the benefits to our society of having “don’t be an atheist” as a social norm? Since there’s no evidence that atheists are less moral than religious people, I don’t see any.
“Hell, where I went to school (MIT) applying the word “normal” to one of your classmates would be taken as a gross insult. We reveled in being freaks, and from what I see that hasn’t changed much.”
Same where I work, where we’re videogame testers and roughly all of us are hardcore gamers or close to it. Calling me normal would be an insult. I’m probably a statistical impossibility anyways.
I’ll repeat that it was clear that by “girl with short hair” my classmate meant “(out) lesbian.”
“You’re normal” in the sense of “you’re uncool” is not the same as “lesbians are not normal people.” Whether or not I’m “normal” in the hipster sense (which I’m not, because of my clothes, taste in music, etc) is distinct from whether my sexual orientation and gender presentation disqualify me from being “a normal person” — a phrase that, IME, is about distinguishing between good citizens and criminals, between perverts and healthy people.
Also, moderators, I apologize for starting this giant tangent. Please let us know if you’d like the conversation to turn back to the topic of Christianism/christonormativity.
I don’t like my faith being used as a dirty word, a synonym for oppression.
It would be like using the word “manism” instead of “sexism”…
DaisyDH, if you’re straight, do you object to the word “heterocentrism”?
I don’t think it’s using it as a “dirty word,” any more than “white supremacist” is using “white” as a dirty word.
I do appreciate that discussing these matters can make even genuinely nice and sympathetic Christians uncomfortable. But I do think they nonetheless need to be discussed. Christianity is the “default assumption” in our culture, and that has an effect on everyone who is somehow not Christian. There needs to be a word for it.
I would suggest that we write the word christianism with a lower case ‘c’ as a way of distinguishing it from Christianity, so that the assumption of the christian norm and the social, cultural and political phenomena that devolve from that assumption are not equated with, even though they are related to, the religion as practiced by people who are Christian.
My son–he’s 10–has made it a point around this time of year for the past three or four years to point out all of the ways that Jewish culture is marginalized by christianism. Some examples (and I am not saying he is right in each of these cases; I am just pointing out what he has noticed):
1. When he was 7 or 8, he declined to buy his teacher, whom he adored and who adored him, a holiday gift (and that’s what we called it when we suggested it) because, as he put it, “no one in school recognizes my holiday (Chanuka); why should I give a gift for theirs (Christmas)?” He was perfectly willing to buy her a gift at the end of the academic year, or on her birthday if he had known when it was.
2. While all his friends wish each other merry Christmas, even those who know he is Jewish do not wish him happy Chanuka. At least some do not know that Jews, as a general rule, don’t celebrate Christmas.
3. In a class presentation on holiday safety, the fireman who came to tell them about how to be safe with Christmas trees said nothing about the need for safety when it came to lighting a menorah, despite the fact that the menorah involves actual flames.
4. At his after-school program, the menorah they have put on display is a very cheap, white plastic piece of work with fake flames that don’t even light up. The Christmas tree, on the other hand, is a real tree with real ornaments.
5. The way advertisers often change their ads to reflect the holiday season inevitably involves Christmas imagery, music, ideas, etc. and almost never includes Chanuka.
And there are more. Whether or not there is or should be something that can be done in each of these cases is not the point. My point is simply that christianism is an obvious phenomenon, even to a 10-year-old.
Amp, there’s a reason we say “white supremacist” instead of “whiteist”. It’s more descriptive, you understand what the term means the first time you hear it (as opposed to having to have it explained to you), and it’s not subtly insulting to white people.
If Muslims told you that they didn’t like having the word “Islamist” used to describe suicide bombers, then you wouldn’t use it, right? (Even if you were living somewhere where Muslims aren’t oppressed, you still wouldn’t, right?) It’s just basic respect.
Perhaps we could use the term “fatoid” to describe disgusting slobs who smell bad. Without any offense to actual fat people of course. We could even capitalize it, “Fatoid”, to make it super-duper-crystal-clear that we’re not being offensive to fat people.
There’s also a practical side to the matter. If you insist on using “Christianism” outside of the crowd of people who already agree with you, then you’re going to spend more time discussing nomenclature than you are discussing the phenomenon itself. Not that that seems to bother this crowd much…
I’ve seen some good suggestions here; “Christonormativity” or your original “Christian hegemony” both describe the phenomenon pretty well.
Christianity is the “default assumption” in our culture, and that has an effect on everyone who is somehow not Christian. There needs to be a word for it.
Amp, I agree with this, but the problem with “christianism” is whose Christianity is being referred to. I’m not thinking about the “One True Christian” argument—I’m thinking more along the lines of how the word “Christian” is used in the United States (especially in the midwest) as synonymous with “Protestant” (especially non-denominational Protestant). As in, one person saying, “I’m a Catholic”, with another responding, “Oh, I’m not. I’m a Christian.”
It’s not mere religious parsing. It refers to entrenched ethnic and class divisions, also. Where I live, to get a job with the City, one used to have to be a member (or in the case of women, one’s father or husband had to be a member) of the (all-Protestant) Masonic Lodge. Now, old timers in my Local bitch about how getting a job with the City requires “a vowel at the end of your name”. And yeah, people make note of the fact the mayor is Catholic. Those divisions still mean something in many regions of the U.S., and it has fuck-all to do with anything religious.
The Christian culture that is promoted as normal in the U.S. isn’t Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox. I don’t know that you can come up with a word that refers to the concept you’re looking for here, that breaks out the Christian from the ethnic and class markers that are indelibly intertwined with it—at least in the U.S.
Major Protestant holidays are the only ones standard on the calendar—Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox holy days of obligation are not U.S. holidays. Somehow, I don’t think “Christianism” cuts it. It doesn’t recognize that non-Protestant Christians are “othered” as if they practice a different religion entirely.
Actually, La Lubu, I think you’re missing the point.
The christianism that is being addressed is one which reflects through the whole country: in the placement of national holidays, in days off, in which
It is certainly true that there are christian sects which differ widely from each other. but the differences do not generally show up in the high-level elements of christianism as it’s being discussed here. Whether you’re a protestant kid or a catholic kid, you can sing the messiah in chorus without wondering whether you’re breaking your faith by doing so. (personally, i always used to mouth the word ‘jesus’ and ‘god’ and hoped nobody would notice and ask why.) Whether you’re a protestant or a catholic, you are included in easter, and christmas, and so on. you may be of a sect which doesn’t put crucifixes everywhere, but you’re not actually offended by having to see them on the door of your public library in April. And so on.
So while there is certainly inter-christian ‘othering’, it’s not the issue here, any more than the dispute between orthodox, conservative, and reform jews is the issue.
LaLubu:
I’m thinking more along the lines of how the word “Christian” is used in the United States (especially in the midwest) as synonymous with “Protestant” (especially non-denominational Protestant). As in, one person saying, “I’m a Catholic”, with another responding, “Oh, I’m not. I’m a Christian.”
Especially in the Midwest? I live in the Midwest. I live in the Chicago area, and that’s as Midwest as it gets. And around here Roman Catholicism is the default. When I was sitting with my wife’s relatives and they started talking about where they had lived in the city they identified the geographic areas not by neighborhood names or street names but by parish. Someone asked me where I went to school and I answered with the name of my college. They looked confused. My wife’s cousin explained that they were asking what Catholic High School I had gone to. The comings and goings and prounouncements of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago are given the same emphasis and status in the news media as those of the Governor of Illinois or the Mayor of Chicago, and his name is as well known even to non-Catholics.
In the entire 40 years I have lived in this area I have met exactly one person who expressed the attitude you noted.
Sailorman: I’m curious as to why you would sing the Messiah and not say the words “Jesus” and “God”. Have I missed something here?
I’ll be singing that either Sunday or Monday night, BTW. The LaSalle Bank of Chicago sponsors a Do-It-Yourself Messiah downtown every year. They rent out the Civic Opera Center, hire a conductor and 4 soloists, bring on a 80-piece orchestra, and then fling open the doors and fill the place up for free. The audience is the chorus, all 3500 of us. We warm up a bit (often people sing Christmas Carols, in 4-part harmony, while we’re waiting), the conductor comes out and runs through a few parts briefly, and then the orchestra starts. The soloists are always marvelous. After we’re done we give ourselves an encore, the Hallelujah Chorus (which, alone among all the choruses, the soloists also sing). Then my wife and I go out for deep-dish pizza at Malnati’s. Christmas has always been about music to me, my whole life. I can’t imagine Christmas without music, without singing.
Those of you who are interested in incongruities of standard gender roles might be interested in the fact that every other year the Alto part is sung by a Counter-Tenor – a male. Usually if you close your eyes you can’t tell the difference (he’ll sing it as a “head” voice) and it’s historically valid, but I confess I find it disconcerting. It seems unbalanced to me, somehow, even though they sound fine.
Personally? I was a student in a chorus–I’m a musician–and the choral director chose the work.
My options were to
1) leave chorus
2) sing something praising a false god that i affirmatively reject; or
3) avoid some of the more problematic parts.
I chose #3.
This is a common problem in public and putatively-secular private schools alike.
My experience is that people’s christianism tends to keep them from seeing the problem in the first place, and even when it is explained christianism blinds them to why this type of thing is even a problem at all. For which I proffer a made-to-order hypothetical:
An experimental anti-Messiah has been written with identical scoring, changing only the words to glorify Satan and the death/falisity of Jesus. All the “in” choral directors are choosing it for the holiday. Artistic purity requires that it be sung near christmas, instead of the messiah.
Would you have any problem with performance in the public schools? Would you expect children to feel comfortable singing it? Would you feel sympathy if a christian child were torn between the desire to sing in the school chorus and a desire not to sign things which severely conflicted with her beliefs?
The usual answer?
“That wouldn’t be OK. but there’s nothing wrong with the messiah.”
Ladeez and gentlemen of the jury, i present Christianism, Exhibit A.
Ron F, while I grew up in Seattle, my mother’s family is from the Mid-West and my dad’s family is straight up Southern Baptist. Both sides of the family refer to Protestants as “Christian” and make the distinction that Catholics are not “Christian”. Maybe in areas of the country with a large Catholic presence that’s not the case, but there are a number of Protestant dominant areas where Catholics are not considered “Christian” and are treated as other. I can remember my mom talking about how her mother opposed the election of JFK due to the fact that he wasn’t Christian.
Incidentally, I like christonormativity over christianism. It seems more descriptive and much easier to explain to someone not familiar with the term.
I’m not in the Midwest, but I noticed a confusion over the terms Catholic/Protestant/Christian as well because I did data entry on a survey. A significant (but not large) number of people did not choose “Catholic” or “Protestant” as their religion, but instead wrote in “Christian”. I always assumed that they were a member of a Protestant sect (but unaware that their sect was Protestant), but maybe there was something else going on there.
My understanding, and I would like to know if this is accurate, is that Christianity is the only one of the three Abrahamic religions to contain the tenet that it is the only way to get into heaven/to earn salvation/achieve grace/etc. (I recognize that I may be stating this simplistically and there are deep and serious doctrinal differences between and among Christian sects about just what that belief entails, both in theory and in practice, but I am trying to state this here in the way that it would apply/be applied to non-Christians. I also recognize that there are many Christians who do not accept this tenet and I assume that there are probably churches out there that teach explicitly against it. I am asking here about a tenet contained within the tradition, not about individual beliefs and practices.)
Judaism does not contain this belief; nor, as far as I know, does Islam. (It is true that both Judaism and Islam designate certain kinds of religions as heathen and explicitly bar the followers of those faiths from heaven/grace/etc., but that is not the same thing as claiming that Judaism or Islam is the only way.)
Also, as far as I know–and here, too, I want to know if my understanding is correct–Christians (from the medieval Catholic Church to current evangelical ones) are the only ones who have sent missionaries throughout the world with the explicit purpose of trying to make the people of the world all of their faith by eliminating the belief in and practice of non-Christian faiths.
Again, as far as I know, Judaism does not include any impulse towards proselytizing, and while my knowledge of Islam here is fuzzy, I do note that you don’t find, and have never found, Muslim missionaries in the world the way you do Christian missionaries. (And please do not start talking about jihad as a holy war to spread Islam unless you really know what you are talking about. I don’t know much about it except that it is not as simple and straightforward as that statement makes it sound.)
I sort of identify with phrase “Catholic atheist,” although not the “Catholic” part. I personally don’t practice religion, but the religion I don’t practice is Judaism; I see organized religion (and Christian hegemony) through a Jewish lens (and of course my pseudonym reflects my Jewish background). I rather like the term “faithism,” but I also think “Christianormativity” is a distinct and important concept. When a man knows he can’t mention his “boyfriend” or “husband” but worries even saying “partner” will mark him as Other, that’s not homophobia (or, perhaps, orientationism), that’s heteronormativity. Similarly, “we’re all singing ‘Silent Night’ at the Christmas party” is not (overtly) faithist (much less anti-Semitic), but it is Christianormitive.
However, “faithist” is probably my second choice for the concept it describes, because the word should apply to atheists too. My first choice is a word that doesn’t exist: “-ist” attached to some hypothetical term for the frequently religion-based notion of “this is my Us” that is the unspoken basic tenet of not only pretty much every religion, or at least organized religion, but also of atheism, and perhaps agnosticism—whatever you might put down for “religion” when filling out a form*.
Of course, even “Christianormitivity” is overly broad, since the “default” is really just Protestants, and a fairly narrow band of Protestants at that**. But it’s probably a reasonable compromise between precision and conciseness.
*Offhand only two of my Facebook “friends” have a religion other than “agnostic” or “atheist” listed.
**I posted that before I saw comment 40
RonF:
People like that are generally at least a little obnoxious. Generalizations are notorious for having exceptions, of course.
Daisy Bond
Hm. In my observation, Jews are generally seen as a type of Christian, so within Christianormativity’s embrace. This perpetuates the fifth column stereotype to an extent—we’re seen as Christians, even if we don’t say we are, but aren’t, and cognitive dissonance pisses people off—but it also protects us from direct attack, since after all we’re almost like Christians. Muslims, meanwhile, are (stereotypically) indifferenty to the Bible and don’t call their deity “God” (at a progressive school in multicultural Brooklyn, I was never taught that Allah is nothing more alien than the word “God” in Arabic). Buddhists don’t even have a deity non-specialist Westerners can find. Atheists don’t even have a religion (and so ostensibly no basis for morality). In practice I think there are a number of nested categories, and the contexts where bias is evident are different for different levels.
RJN:
I don’t think the great Christian world gets that we actually do these things. It’s all part of us being like Christians. At best, Jews are defined by what we don’t do. I’m sure Muslims and atheists get “Happy Hannukah!”
RJN (different comment):
I believe that’s also a tenet of Islam. In addition, one conceptualization of Judaism (stated extremely simplistically, a rabbi would quibble with just about every word I’m using) is that all people (or at least all good people) go to heaven, but if you’re born Jewish you go to the Jewish part downtown, and the rules for what constitutes “good” are stricter.
Bjartmarr wrote:
Yes, because the parallel you’re making here is perfect. Thin people are just as justified in being disgusted by the very sight of me as Richard’s son is to be bothered by the stuff listed in comment #38. The case for “fat people are all slobs” is as well supported, factually, as the case for “the US is Christian normative.” For these reasons, the comparison is apt and was logical to bring up in this thread.
I’ve certainly run into white people offended by the concept of “white supremism,” men offended by the concept of “male privilege,” cis people offended by the very concept of “cisgendered” and “cis privilege,” and straights offended by “heterosexism” and “heteronormativity.” By your rational, since the term “Fatoid” is offensive, I should now agree that all those other terms are offensive and should be replaced.
But of course, your rational is inane. There are legitimate vs. illegitimate cases to be made; since the case for “christianism” has some base legitimacy, it can’t rightly be compared to “Fatoid.” (Also, the suffix “oid” refers to a particular individual and is rarely used, while coining words, except to coin insults, and so is more of a direct attack than “ism,” which frequently refers to a larger phenomenon.)
The truth is, any “ism” word offends at least some members of the dominant “ism” in question. That, in and of itself, can’t establish that a word is too offensive to ever be used.
The awkward thing is, I am persuaded by others in this thread that “christianism” is problematic, and some alternative like “christian-centric” or “christian-normative” would be better. But I’m worried that if I concede that now, the result will be to inadvertently send readers of this thread the message that dubious comparisons to anti-fat bigotry are an effective technique. That would be unfortunate.
Hershele:
That, or some version thereof, is what I learned when I was in yeshiva. Regarding Islam, I am not so sure, and I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer. What I understand is that Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as “religiously valid,” in that each grew out of a true divine revelation, and I know of nowhere, at least in mainstream Islam, where it says that Jews or Christians will go to hell for being Jews and Christians. In fact, I found in the book What Everyone Needs To Know About Islam a section which suggests that Muslims do not believe that non-believers automatically go to hell. I can’t cut and paste, but it’s here.
Even though I am not entirely convinced that what I am going to say is accurate, I am, in the interests of pushing this discussion, going to argue for “christianism” on the grounds that, as far as I know, no other religious group has actively pursued the worldwide goal of eliminating all other faiths in the systematic way that Christians have, and I am going to suggest that what has been called here christonormativity, or whatever, devolves from this central goal. I recognize that, historically, not all Christian sects have been as active in pursuit of this goal as others, and that some were far more active in the past than now, and that there are Christian sects which do not pursue this goal. I also recognize that the methods used to pursue this goal have varied through the centuries and that those methods have ranged from the violent and deadly to the respectful and polite, but even when the methods are respectful and polite, the goal those methods are deployed to reach remains the same.
I realize that this claim is likely to offend some people and will make some others very uncomfortable, but what would we say about any other group with a similar goal? And I think that discomfort is necessary. In the same way that combating sexism, if one is male, means dealing with the discomfort that one belongs to a group that has systematically and systemically oppressed women, even if one rejects the ideology of that oppression with all one’s being, it seems to me that fighting christianism, if one is Christian, means or should mean wrestling with the discomfort that one belongs to a group that has historically attempted, and in some cases still attempts, to eliminate all non-Christian faiths from the face of the earth.
I am always amazed when people are shocked, shocked!, when non-Christians are offended by Christian missionary work. I remember when the Taliban sentenced to death some people who were accused of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. People in the US were horrified. I certainly don’t agree that those people should have been put to death–and I want to be clear that, once they were freed, we learned that the Taliban had been correct; they were in Afghanistan as missionaries–but how would you respond if a group of people were infiltrating your community in an attempt to wipe out the beliefs and values central to your community’s identity? What would you do if, no matter how many times you asked them to stop, they didn’t stop?
Muslims do believe in propagating their faith, but, as far as I know, there is nothing that corresponds in the Muslim community to the missionary work that is so ubiquitous in the history of Christianity. More to the point, there is a difference between believing one’s faith (Islam) ought to be spread and believing that people who do not convert to your faith are an obstacle that needs to be overcome in order for the promise of your faith to be fulfilled, which not a few Christian sects have believed at various times in history. The first belief says it would be better if all people were Muslim; the second says it is necessary for all people to be Christian.
Two disclaimers:
1. As I said above, I am making this argument to push the discussion; I am not entirely certain that I am accurate and I am certainly willing to be proven wrong.
2. Nothing I have written here should be construed as my trying to deny the very good and important work that Christians and Christian organizations have done in the world; or that there are not individual Christians, individual churches, and sects within Christianity that actively oppose, for all kinds of reasons and in all kinds of ways, what I am calling christianism. Please note, however, that were I, on this blog, writing about sexism, racism, ableism or any of the other “isms” we discuss, I would not need to make this second disclaimer about the privileged group under discussion.
Hershele,
In my observation, Jews are generally seen as a type of Christian, so within Christianormativity’s embrace. This perpetuates the fifth column stereotype to an extent—we’re seen as Christians, even if we don’t say we are, but aren’t, and cognitive dissonance pisses people off—but it also protects us from direct attack, since after all we’re almost like Christians. Muslims, meanwhile, are (stereotypically) indifferenty to the Bible and don’t call their deity “God” (at a progressive school in multicultural Brooklyn, I was never taught that Allah is nothing more alien than the word “God” in Arabic).
I completely agree that Muslims are much more othered by christonormativity than Jews, but regarding Jews being seen as “a type of Christian” — really?! I won’t argue with your experience, of course, but mine has not been that at all. I’ve had several Christians ask me if Jews “pray to God,” and similarly bizarre questions that indicate a complete and total ignorance of not just Judaism but their own religion. Among marginally more enlightened Christians, I’ve usually encountered that idea that Jews are partially okay due to the common Abrahamic God (an idea that, as you mentioned, is not extended to Muslims), but always coupled with bemusement as to why Jews don’t just convert, the incredibly patronizing attitude that Judaism is an imperfect or undeveloped Christianity, and absolutely no idea why someone would care about her culture and want to preserve it (or, for that matter, no real idea that Jews have a culture).
I have had a few experiences that line up with your assertion — door-to-door missionaries have sometimes left me in peace. But those are the minority, and very much tainted by the fact that, in one memorable exchange, they left after asking, “So there’s a Jewish church here?”
(I’ve also encountered plenty of wonderful, intelligent Christians, for the record.)
Um… there’s no way to beat around the bush, so I’ll just say that I think your obervations are extraordinarily far off the mark. There are religions which are perhaps more non-christian than Judaism* but that doesn’t make Judaism christian.
*See, e.g., discussions about our “judeo-christian heritage”
know of nowhere, at least in mainstream Islam, where it says that Jews or Christians will go to hell for being Jews and Christians.
Well, I can only speak for Catholicism but I’m pretty sure that most mainstream Christian denominations don’t believe that Muslims or Jews will go to hell just for being Muslim or Jewish. Saying that Christianity is the only path to salvation does not mean that all other paths lead to damnation; they just don’t lead all the way. For example, Buddhism and Catholicism are ultimately irreconcilable. However, the only things that will damn you is sin and it is not a sin to be ignorant of Christianity. Although it’s a bit more complicated, it basically boils down to: if you are a good person you will be saved, if you are a bad person you will be damned. So if the path analogy is apt, Christianity is the google maps version of the quickest route; Judaism and Islam the scenic drives; and Hinduism and Buddhism, you entered in the wrong spelling and it wants you to go to Montana instead of heaven. But none of them will take you into Secaucus.
I’m also a little puzzled, Richard, by your belief that Muslim and Christian missions are/were fundamentally different. How to you believe the rapid spread of Islam across Middle East and Northern Africa at the expense of existing religions is different than Christian missions? Nor do I understand the difference between seeking converts explicitly to convert the entire world and seeking converts without explicitly to convert the entire world, since presumably if you think your faith is correct and it involves an edict to convince others, your ultimate goal is convince everybody. Now, I don’t actually know much about Islamic missionaries, nor do I know much about the way those missionary movements have changed. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can jump in to see if your impressions are correct.
Amp,
My comparison was a poor one. Sorry.
But “Christianism” is a lot more comparable to “whitism” and “maleism” than it is to “white supremacism” and “male privelege”; all three of the former don’t really make it clear what is being referred to, and imply to the uninitiated that the problem is the very fact of being Christian, white, or male. The latter two make it much clearer that the problem is the supremacism and the privelege, as does Christian-normativity.
How about “heterosexism?” That seems a lot like Christianism, semantically.
I have taken the Wikipedia definition for heterosexism and modified it to fit. See what you think:
Original Wikipedia definition for “Heterosexism”:
Heterosexism is a term that applies to attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that everyone is heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the norm and therefore superior. People of any sexual orientation can hold such attitudes. As a predisposition toward heterosexuals and heterosexuality, heterosexism has been described as being “encoded into and characteristic of the major social, cultural, and economic institutions of our society.”
Slightly modified definition for “Christianism”:
Christianism is a term that applies to attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of the Christian faith and practices. It can include the presumption that everyone is Christian or that Christian beliefs and/or practices are the norm and therefore superior. People of any religion can hold such attitudes. As a predisposition toward christian teachings, viewpoints, and beliefs, christianism has been described as being “encoded into and characteristic of the major social, cultural, and economic institutions of our society.”
I’ve seen some good suggestions here; “Christonormativity” or your original “Christian hegemony” both describe the phenomenon pretty well.
Well then, why don’t we take this new set of rules Mr. Isaac Newton’s given us and call it “experimental philosophy”? I’m sure that will catch on.
In the entire 40 years I have lived in this area I have met exactly one person who expressed the attitude you noted.
All that tells me Ron, is that you seldom get south of I-80. ;-)
Seriously—I know it’s different in Chicago; most of my extended family lives either in or around Chicago or Joliet. For what it’s worth, the same dynamic you describe is operative for St. Louis also. There are a relative handful of major metropolitan areas in the midwest where that is true. Everywhere else, the attitude is that Catholics are some sort of “weird” version of Christianity-that-isn’t-really-Christianity. Common myths? Catholics pray to “everyone except God”; Catholics are sinning by calling priests “Father”, since it says in the Bible not to call any man “father”; Catholics don’t read the Bible, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation, yadda yadda.
The christianism that is being addressed is one which reflects through the whole country: in the placement of national holidays, in days off, in which
Sailorman, looks like part of your comment was erased. I just wanted to point out that formal, recognized holidays in the official U.S. calendar were scheduled to accommodate Protestant holidays, not Catholic or Orthodox ones. Catholic and Orthodox Christians who want to celebrate their religious holidays are going to be taking time off from work just like the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. And for most folks in the U.S., that means taking a cut in pay, since most people don’t have paid vacation time. Not all Christians enjoy the same privileges.
And that relates to the tribal divisions i spoke of earlier. Christmas became a national holiday in the U.S. in 1870. Now, think about that. Why then, if this nation was supposedly founded as a “christian” nation? (which of course, it wasn’t. it was founded as a secular nation by Deists, but you’d never know that listening to Christian chauvinists who think that “happy holidays” is a insult directed toward them. but I digress….) I think that, and other public, official displays of Christianity grew in direct proportion to the number of immigrants coming in whose religious practices were markedly different from the dominant, Protestant mainstream. It has nothing to do with religion, per se, and everything to do with the use of religious expression as a territorial marker.
I think “Christian normativity” or “Christian chauvinism” is less likely to obscure the concept.
Michael,
First, thanks for your response. It’s given me some things to think about, not the least about the accuracy of the language in which I couched some of what I wrote. You also wrote:
This is not quite an accurate paraphrase of what I wrote:
There does seem to me a difference, at the very least in the urgency with which one pursues the conversion of non-believers, though I think there are other differences as well, between desiring the world to be of your faith and believing that if the world is not of your faith then your faith–in the case of Christians, the second coming–will not be realized fully.
Unfortunately, I am being called away.
Michael said:
Well, liberal Catholicism maybe believes something like that, and so may liberal Protestant groups (although I question what “don’t lead all the way means”?–I suspect the ones who follow your line of thought are not really that sure about heaven or hell, and not really focused there, as a result). But it’s definitely NOT been the historical belief of the Church that what faith you follow is trivial, cf. the Crusades and the forced conversions in the New World. And this liberal theology is certainly not true of most conservative Catholics and evangelicals today who are the most visible wings of the Church in American political life today, and have thereby entered the mainstream of public life.
My brother and sister-in-law who are evangelical Christians firmly believe that there’s only one way to interpret the key verse from John: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light; no one comes to the Father but by Me.” Many mainstream Christians take that verse to mean that all those other ways will wind you up in hell; there’s no other place. (Protestants have never had purgatory as an option, which might make a difference, I suppose…but my gut says that’s not really what’s at stake here.)
Moreover, though you state, ” it is not a sin to be ignorant of Christianity.” Most non-Christians are not “ignorant” of Christianity: they know of it, and do not accept it: i.e., they REJECT it. THAT is the unforgiveable sin, to many Christianists (the word is regularly used on, e.g., Andrew Sullivan’s blog, by the way).
Indeed, even as a mainstream Lutheran growing up I had the following verse from Ephesians drilled into me: “For by GRACE you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not works, lest any man should boast.” Being a “good person”–as you suggest–implies someone who does good work in the world. In the mainstream Lutheran faith I grew up in, works would never help you get to heaven. Only God’s Grace.
All that ultimately matters for, I’d say, most devout, conservative Christians today is belief in the correct deity. There’s no “third option” beyond 1) being saved/being with God after death or 2) being damned/winding up in hell. It’s either/or to most Christians. Even most mainstream US Christians: they may be uncomfortable saying it aloud and to someone’s face, but they finally do believe that faith in Christ is the bedrock. My college roommate, also a mainstream ELCA Lutheran said, simply, “I just believe Jews are a lost cause.” i.e., doomed to hell. She didn’t just “make up” that idea on her own. She got it from the Church.
I am still a Christian, married to an atheist, and I like what R. J. Newman said, above:
I think the word christianist works just fine. I say: deal with it. I am perceived as white and check that category when it’s appropriate: it’s ok for me to have to deal with the term “white supremacist” and work hard to avoid reinforcing the logic of white supremacy. It’s okay for me, as someone who benefits from marriage, to deal with “heterosexist.” So I can also deal with christianist. It may keep me on my toes, and that’s really the point.
Really? My wife’s Catholic by birth, and her family celebrates christmas and easter, for example–those being two of the biggies. I suppose the schools aren’t closed on Ash Wednesday, but at least two major holidays involving christ (birth and resurrection) seem as Catholic as they are Protestant.
catholics may have religious practices which are different from the majority and which are obviously different from protestantism. But at heart, they get to share in the country’s acceptance of the whole Christ-as-God thing.
If “white supremacy” is taken in its literal meaning and that discussed by bell hooks, I think “Christan supremacy” is a good analogue. “White supremacy” has gotten sort of an excessively bad name because the label “white supremacist” generally is assigned only to neo-Nazis and other folks getting tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and is not considered appropriate for folks like the authors of The Bell Curve, despite their arguing that whites on average were of superior intelligence to blacks.
As I recall, bell hooks said that white supremacy need not call for segregation or any other legal discrimination against non-whites; it simply holds Whiteness, in its multifarious guises (genetic, aesthetic, cultural, etc.) to be superior to non-Whiteness. Tons of people with mainstream politics believe this (see, e.g., John Derbyshire and others at National Review). There’s no reason for Pat Buchanan or Mark Steyn to be troubled by low birthrates among Caucasians and high birthrates among non-Caucasians except to the extent that being Caucasian is superior to being non-Caucasian.
Saying “white supremacy” is bad doesn’t mean that being white is bad — only that being white is no better than being anything else.
Similarly, most Christian supremacists don’t believe that non-Christians ought to be discriminated against in schooling, employment, etc. Rather, they believe that Christianity is a better religion than others and therefore it’s important to maintain Christian traditions in our society, including through legal enforcement of Christian norms.
The problem with this analogy, however, is that while most decent people recognize that no race is better than another, and that this recognition is in our general interest because we can’t pick or change races, it seems fundamental to religious belief to think that one’s religion IS the right, better, gonna-get-to-heaven religion. Why convert from one religion to another unless the second religion is better than the first? Why support missionary activity if the heathen’s beliefs are just as good as believing that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Light?
Islam and Christianity are fundamentally missionary religions (as opposed to faiths like Judaism and Hinduism), and a social disapproval of believing one’s religion to be better than others’ religion would discriminate against those faiths particularly.
RJN, I’m basing what I said about Islam on the fact that Islam is a proselytizing religion. Not all religions that claim to be the only way to eternal bliss (or the only escape from eternal torment) seek converts, but those that don’t (including those versions of Christianity on the far ecumenical end of the scale) seldom do so. Judaism and Chistianity are scertainly seen as “imperfect forms” of Islam (as opposed to, e.g., Zoroastrianism), but they’re not considered on a par with it. I don’t see in Christianity any sense that the presence of non-Christians is an obstacle to eternal bliss for Christians.
Daisy Bond:
That’s actually what I meant by “a type of Christian.” As Catholics are the Christians who worship the Pope, Jews are the Christians who don’t have the New Testament (I am aware that the Pope is not worshipped; I’m trying to describe the thoughts of someone who is chooosing not to think about the subject very hard). Jews are Other when such a person puts his or her mind to it, but Muslims and Hindus and atheists don’t even get a friendly greeting at the mailbox (and Pagans get anonymous nasty letters).
That ignorance is totally foreign to me, but again, Brooklyn upbringing.
That’s precisely the sort of thing I meant. I doubt they’d ask anbout a “Muslim church.”
Sailorman:
Well, my point is that the “Judeo-Christian heritage” is actually Christian. People who recognize how distinct Judaism is from Christianity would describe very, very few things as “Judeo-Christian.”
PG:
That, of course, is why converts (and born-again Christians are essentially converts) frequently emphasize their religiosity. It’s why many visible Christians are supremacists—the same factors that drive them to be visible about it drive them to be supremacists. It’s not why even the laxest Christians tend to assume the way mainstream Protestants do things is the way everyone does them.
Rick Warren told a Jewish woman she was going to hell because of her faith.
Christianism/Christianist is already in use by Andrew Sullivan, for those who wish to have Christianity imposed politically (like Dominionism).
Here’s a article in Time on the subject:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html
I think the term Christian-normativity is the easiest to understand and has fewer bad connotations.
Tangentially (but a tangent others here have been on): Tate Ostropoler likes religious Christmas carols (he also likes “Santa Got Run Over by a Reindeer,” but photographic evidence I’m related to him is too strong to deny). I’m not quite sure how he deals with the “our Savior” stuff.
Popo,
Christian-normativity doesn’t quite reach the aspect of the phenomenon that not only “normalizes,” but also “honors and rewards” being Christian. For example, some federal courts have said that it’s OK to have a policy of having ONLY representatives from monotheistic faiths lead a civic prayer.
Christian-normativity would be simply omitting to invite representatives of other faiths because it doesn’t really occur to the people in charge. In contrast, this policy became articulated and litigated when members of non-monotheistic religions said, “Hey, we’d like to be included,” and the county said, “No, you’re not allowed.”
Someone who is white-normative, for example, figures she’s covered the bases of hair care if she has out the products that she uses: Pert Plus shampoo, conditioner and a hairbrush. It just doesn’t occur to her that maybe people of other ethnicities have other hair care needs. In contrast, someone who is white-supremacist thinks that non-white-person hair is inferior to white-person hair.
Obviously, the two can go together: quite often the person who ends up being something-supremacist originally was just something-normative, when she didn’t know that there was more out there than what she knew as the norm.
oh,
Under standard Christian theology, which says that only those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can follow Him to heaven, and that the only alternative to heaven is hell, it’s entirely reasonable for Warren to tell a Jew (who isn’t for Jesus) that she’s going to hell. This is what I find absurd about people who live in a majority Christian country getting het up about Warren’s remarks in particular — what do you think the rest of Christians believe? This is why the religious conservative blogs were going into an analysis about how Obama isn’t really a Christian within the standard theology, because he doesn’t think all the non-believers are going to hell. I don’t know as much about Islam, but the same convert-or-burn concept seems to be at work there.
*I* think that people can be Christians and Muslims without consigning the rest of us to hell, but the texts of the religions don’t agree with me on that. One reason I like Hinduism despite being an agnostic: y’all don’t have to believe any of it because you’re in the karmic cycle whether you believe it or not, and we all get plenty of rides on the carousel instead of just a heaven/hell binary.
The problem is that a lot of Christians try to have it both ways. “All Christians go to Heaven and everyone else goes to Hell” contradicts “good people go to Heaven and evil people go to Hell.” In principle, telling someone they’re going to hell is only unkind if you believe salvation is through works alone.
“good people go to Heaven and evil people go to Hell”
That’s a pretty infantile version of Christianity. What Christian over the age of 15 do you know who believes that? Even the annoying, self-righteous Christian kids in high school who tried to “save” people knew very well that redemption was not through works (alone) — they sincerely believed that if they didn’t get me to church, they wouldn’t see me in the afterlife. (From my perspective, it wasn’t like we were hanging out in *this* life, so I didn’t see what difference it made.)
Hi,
As an admitted Christian, one thing I would like to point out is part of the problem that has driven a lot is probably the doctrine of hell itself, which causes a lot of fear driven policies. There are actually a number of universalism sites on Christianity, such as
http://www.christianuniversalist.org/ and http://www.tentmaker.org/ that state the case the doctrine of hell that is commonly known is entirely wrong. This link contains an every elaborate discussion on the theological problems of hell itself http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/hell_test.html
Also, there are a number of missionaries who primary work was to help poor instead of preaching, such as Sister Emmanuelle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%93ur_Emmanuelle
Actually from a personal I am quite confused in knowing what to actually fully believe when it comes down to most values.
For example, I subscribe to the major tenants of the faith in the existence of God, that God is love, God is Good, God is just, God is holy, and Jesus Christ is the son of God.
Of course just in the description it I come to the conclusion because I am infinitely smaller that God, I have know idea what these attributes truly mean. For example, I consider from what I read that Sister Emmanuel is many, many times better than I am yet by comparison God is way greater than Sister Emmanuel. For this reason even though the bible deals with God, we actually know virtually nothing about God. Of course, this presents a number of problems for myself and others, such as.
Why do we suffer? There is a number of canned responses e.g. you reap what you sow (it is caused by sin, etc,) but you can actually use the bible to refute this common answer by the story of Job. The purpose/problem of suffering is not fully known. In fact one of the books of the bible called Ecclesiastes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes seems to outline a very existential out look on life.
What I do know it is all what you ultimately believe in. Of course, except for some very rudimentary things many things I am unsure of most of them.
I don’t know any Christian who claims that’s doctrine. But how many people would cite his Catholicism as the reason Hitler is presumably in hell?
I’m not talking about what people mean when they say “you’re going to hell,” but what people hear when it’s said to them.
That said, I refer you to comment 54, though he acknowledges it’s oversimplified.
Harold Hussey,
I have heard of doctrines of Christianity that are skeptical of hell, but those seem to be decidedly in the minority and are deemed heretical by most other Christians. This American Life recently re-ran its story on what happened with a mega-church pastor who began to preach that the King James Bible mistranslated and mistook the existence of hell.
Hershele,
I don’t know where Michael at 54 thinks Montana is, or for that matter how the “scenic route” eventually will get you to heaven if you never accept Jesus as Savior.
Trackback:
Feminists on High Horses, pt. 2
I know I am putting this in two threads, but it relates to both. Check out this NY Time Op-Ed on what people in the US say the believe about who gets to go to heaven.
Took a look at that Pew survey story.
I belong to the Episcopal Church, which is about as “liberal” as it gets in Christianity. And even they make it real clear that it is faith, not works, that one’s salvation is dependent on. If people call themselves Christians and yet don’t understand that I’d have to say that either they’re not going to church much or they’re not listening while they’re there
Or, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Anabaptists, and Unitarians, they find the concept of a ‘loving’ god who condemns people to hell for not worshiping him a contradiction that fails their basic moral principles of good and rightness.
Some who see this contradiction stop believing in hell. Some who see it stop believing that members of other religions are damned. Some do both.
—Myca
Myca,
But most people don’t belong to those denominations of Christianity; most belong to the mainline or evangelical churches. And those churches do all teach “That whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” I suppose a Christian charitably could believe that those who don’t accept Christ as Savior don’t actually go to *hell* — Jesus doesn’t say much about the non-believers going somewhere fiery — just that this life is all there is for them, and then they perish. I honestly can’t figure out how Christians can say that no, wait, Jesus didn’t mean he was THE way, the truth, the light — he just meant he was A way, truth and light, and YMMV.
I don’t think that most Christians understand their own Bibles. (Fair enough; I find the various Vedic texts quite confusing.) Although, in a kind of legal realist vein of argument, one could say that Christianity isn’t what the New Testament says or what theologians write; it is what the majority of Christians believe. If the majority of Christians think that belief in Christ isn’t necessary for salvation, then I guess it’s no longer what Christianity means.
I’d say its more about following the way Jesus lived (compassionate, understanding etc) than believing in him as the son of God. You don’t need to be member of any religion or denomination to believe that compassion, understanding is worthy. At least I think that way, and was raised Catholic. I see no contradiction, and don’t like those Creation Museum-builders who take the Bible literally.
Oh, certainly. I wasn’t arguing that some huge percentage of Americans are Unitarian, I was saying that the same disconnect between what they know to be right and what their religion teaches that lead to those other religions plays a part here.
I think in general, people will do what they believe to be right, and then pretend that that’s what their religion says. Witness, for example, how many pseudo-Christians seem to have no problem with obscene wealth, and ‘screw-the-poor’ policies, in direct conflict with what Jesus had to say.
I think this is just more of that . . . only, this time, I like the result.
I think it would be great if more people would do as my girlfriend did, in realizing the conflict between their religion and what they know to be right and moral and rejecting the religion rather than rationalizing the conflict away, but I’ll take what I can get.
Agreed 100%.
—Myca
If people call themselves Christians and yet don’t understand that I’d have to say that either they’re not going to church much or they’re not listening while they’re there
Or they don’t agree with what they hear at the social club, any more then Pakistanis who claim they want sharia law actually vote for sharia law.
Yes, politicized Christians are such trouble makers. Politicized Christians like Martin Luther King. Politicized Christians like Oscar Romero. Politicized Christians like Dorothy Day. Politicized Christians like Desmond Tutu. Politicized Christians like Frank Brennan. Politicized Christians like Carlos Felipe Ximines Belo (who, co-incidentally, won the Nobel peace prize.) Politicized Christians like Abbe Pierre. Politicized Christians like Martin Weimoller. Politicized Christians like Maximillian Kolbe. Politicized Christians like Elizabeth Fry. Politicized Christians like Leo Tolstoy. Politicized Christians like Jesse Jackson. Politicized Christians like Barack Obama. Politicized Christians like Al Sharpton. Politicized Christians like William Wilberforce. Politicized Christians like Edward Said.
As a Christian, what I and my fellow Christians really need to do is actually READ THE F***ING BIBLE AND SEE THAT NOTHING IN IT JUSTIFIES OPPRESSION OF THE POOR, RACISM OR CULTURAL HEGEMONY. What we need is MORE politicized Christians like those on the list above.
Christianism is real, evil and dangerous. It’s also diametrically opposed to any form of Christianity which has anything to do with Christ, IMO.
What non-Christians do about Christianism isn’t up to me, though I can try to be an ally. But realising there is a Christian Left out there which is-more-or-less on your side would probably make things better for everyone.