If a drinking game had been made out of Republicans calling America “exceptional” at the RNC, the hospitals would have been full of people with alcohol poisoning this week. Unfortunately, and a bit embarrassingly, what these exceptional Americans don’t seem to realize is that the term “American exceptionalism” actually comes from an insult to America, not a compliment.
Category Archives: Essays
ESSAY: Madison S. Hughes / “Religious Privilege: A Nonconscious Ideology”
By Madison S. Hughes (07.19.2012)
Religious Privilege: A Nonconscious Ideology
History is paved with the pervasiveness of religious privilege, and in contemporary United States the zeitgeist of religious privilege, especially Christian privilege, is at an historical zenith. Religious privilege has so saturated our society that it is the status quo. To pronounce discontent with this implicit entitlement would be the equivalent of a flailing fish expressing oneself on the bank of the River Styx. A mere mention of the existence of religious privilege ignites a cry of war on “religious freedom” from those of the privileged religious right. Religious privilege is pandemic, and its correlative problems, which range from group divisiveness to genocidal death, are plethoric. In a constitutionally secular society like the United States the privileging of any specific ideology is a threat to its democratic principles, and a trail littered with the crumbs of religious privilege ultimately leads to a theocracy not a democracy. Religious privilege is pervasive and problematic. The first step of problem solving is to identify the problem that the privileging of religion represents, which is that the privileging of any ideology in a democratic society undermines the bedrock of democracy itself. This paper will take the axiomatical first step of problem solving, the ability to identify the problem, and consider a few of the spectres haunting our secular society.
In a predominantly nonreflective consumer culture, of which one may easily argue we are part, it is intellectually undemanding to understand how the existence of religious privilege, and its negative corollary impact, escapes “folks.” In Lewis Schlosser’s 2003 article “Christian Privilege: Breaking a Sacred Taboo,” published in the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, he explains:
One possible explanation for the existence of Christian privilege is the notion of a “nonconscious ideology” (Bem & Bem, 1970, p. 89). Bem and Bem first defined the concept of a nonconscious ideology to describe how implicit beliefs and attitudes are used to maintain the status quo in terms of gender inequality. They used the analogy of a fish and its environment to illustrate their concept of nonconscious ideology. A fish does not know its environment is wet, because that is all it knows and all it has ever experienced. The fish has no idea that anything else exists besides water because it has never had to think about any other possibilities. (Schlosser 47)
The nonreflective folks that constitute the majority of contemporary society are too busy chasing the shiny objects of their next desires to reflect long enough to recognize the nonconscious ideology of religious privilege, for most folk have no idea that anything else exists; however, some salient spectres are not so translucent.
Religious Privilege may be used as a defense to circumvent one’s civic “duty” to country. Richard Dawkins addresses this in his “Undeserved Respect” section of his book The God Delusion:
By far the easiest grounds for gaining conscientious objector status in wartime are religious. You can be a brilliant moral philosopher with a prizewinning doctoral thesis expounding the evils of war, and still be given a hard time by a draft board evaluating your claim to be a conscientious objector. Yet if you say that one or both of your parents is a Quaker you sail through like a breeze, no matter how illiterate you may be on the theory of pacifism or, indeed, Quakerism itself. (Dawkins 21)
Interestingly, it is worth noting that the Republican politician, Richard Milhous Nixon was a Quaker. Although he never saw combat, he did serve in the United States Navy, and did not claim conscientious objector status, but as a Quaker he well could have. Had he done so, this would not have disqualified him from later becoming the 37th President of the United States, and as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military sending 21,041 non-conscientious objectors to their ultimate deaths in Vietnam (Wiener). Religious privilege is not limited only to those threatened by death on the battlefield, no, it is also reserved for those whose health is threatened here in the Community Colleges of California.
There are various fee waiver programs available to college students. One such program offered in California Community Colleges is the Board of Governor’s Fee Waiver Program (BOGW). This is primarily awarded to those that can prove a financial need based on low-income—not religious privilege. “For eligible California residents, the Board of Governors (BOG) Fee Waiver permits enrollment [tuition] fees to be waived” (BOG). Another fee waiver program available to California Community Colleges students is the Health Fee waiver. “However, provisions in the Education Code . . . exempt students from the health fee who depend exclusively upon prayer for healing in accordance with the teachings of a bona fide religious sect, denomination, or organization” [emphasis added] (Bruckman). To be clear, a struggling college student, in whatever dire circumstance they may be bound, may live with constant hunger pangs wondering from where the next meal is going to come, but because they do not depend exclusively upon prayer for healing must pay a Health Fee. However, this struggling college student’s wealthy classmate, who is not burdened with such unfortunate circumstance, that claims to depend exclusively upon prayer for healing would have his/her Health Fee waived. This is pure, in-your-face religious privilege, and if one were to demand a revocation of such blatant injustice the reactive cry of a “war on religious freedom” would be as predictable as Roman Catholic Bill O’Reilly’s annual cry of the “war on Christmas” coupled with his simultaneous silence on the pandemic of predator priests raping children.
Child rape is considered such a vile act that even among prisoners child rapists are often segregated from the general population for protection of their lives. However, child rape is no so reviled when committed by a Catholic Priest. In fact, religious privilege acts a refuge for the priesthood with total disregard to their victims. In his book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens implicitly addresses how we, as a nonconscious ideological society, euphemistically allow religious privilege to label Catholic Priests guilty of child rape instead as child abusers:
Again, how shall we reckon the harm done by dirty old men and hysterical spinsters, appointed as clerical guardians to supervise the innocent in orphanages and schools? The Roman Catholic Church in particular is having to answer this question in the most painful of ways, by calculating the monetary value of child abuse in terms of compensation. Billions of dollars have already been awarded, but there is no price put on the generations of boys and girls who were introduced to sex in the most alarming and disgusting ways by those whom they and their parents trusted. “Child abuse” is really a silly and pathetic euphemism for what has been going on: we are talking about the systematic rape and torture of children, positively aided and abetted by a hierarchy which knowingly moved the grossest offenders to parishes where they would be safer. (Hitchens 227)
The fourth estate of our nonconscious ideological society extends its religious privilege not only euphemistically, but quantitatively as well. Recently, this was evident in the national media’s asymmetrical coverage of the “child abuse” verdicts of former Penn State college football coach Jerry Sandusky and U.S. Catholic Priest Monsignor William Lynn.
On Friday, June 22, 2012, Jerry Sandusky, now a household name to many, was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual molestation. A July 16, 2012 Google search of “Jerry Sandusky verdict” yielded a News results total of 9,780, and “Coach Jerry Sandusky verdict” yielded 30,100 News results. A three-fold increase in News results was realized when Jerry Sandusky’s secular title “Coach” was added. Hold that thought.
On that same day, within hours of each other, in a landmark clergy-abuse trial Monsignor William Lynn, a name not even recognized by most fundamental Catholics, was convicted of child endangerment making him the first U.S. church official branded a felon for covering up abuse claims. A July 16, 2012 Google search of “William Lynn verdict” yielded a News results total of 1,540, and “Monsignor William Lynn verdict” yielded 1,440 News results. Not only did the overall News results decline, but also noticeable was that the News results total decreased when William Lynn’s “religious” title “Monsignor” was prefixed to his name.
Religious privilege is cancerous to a secular society. The nonconscious ideology of religious privilege has no place in a democracy, and absolutely no place in a secular society. We have shown how religious privilege can rear its ugly head anywhere from the highest office in the land to the battlefields on which our parents, spouses, and siblings give their lives. Currently, out of undeserved and unjustified “respect” for religious privilege, we are giving credence to the concept of superstition trumping science in the form of prayer for healing to exempt students from paying a health fee in our institutions of higher learning. Finally, and most disturbingly, history has shown that the pandemic of Catholic Priests raping our innocent children reassure religious privilege regarding persecution and prosecution for the heinous serial child rape crimes for which they have committed, and will no doubt continue to commit. Religious privileges must be identified, and not allowed to become a nonconscious ideology.
Works Cited
“BOG Fee Waiver.” CCCApply. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2012. Web. 15 July 2012.
Bruckman, Steve. Implementation of AB 982 (Laird). Digital image. California Community College Chancellor’s Office. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 July 2012.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.
Hitchens, Christopher. “Is Religion Child Abuse.” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. 1st ed. New York: Twelve, 2007. 227-28. Print.
Schlosser, Lewis Z. “Christian Privilege: Breaking a Sacred Taboo.” Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 31.January (2003): 44-51. Http://wiki.uiowa.edu/download/attachments/39006632/Christian+Privilege.pdf. University of Iowa Wiki Service. Web. June-July 2012.
Wiener, Jon. “Was Nixon Worse?” Truthdig. Zuade Kaufman, 11 Dec. 2006. Web. 15 July 2012.
EDUCATION: PZ Myers / “Woe is U.S. Academics”
Have you been following Doonesbury for the past few weeks? It’s been all about the progressive destruction of the American university, as the old model is replaced by the for-profit university, a hideous scheme in which state and federal support for higher education gets siphoned off to support lousy schools that grind through massive numbers of students, offering low tuition, flexible hours, and a fast-track to a degree…and with abysmal retention rates, low success, marginally qualified ‘faculty’, and an education that is worth less than you paid for it. These are the colleges you see advertised on cheesy commercials on television, in which some guy proudly testifies about getting his fancy diploma working only a few hours a week at night over two years, and never having to step away from his computer to do it.
ATHEISM: Mano Singham / “Casual Mentions of Atheism”
Once people start mentioning being an atheist casually, as merely one facet of their lives and not their defining characteristic, you know that it has become mainstream.
In fact, it has reached a stage that I get surprised only when I hear writers and artists and other intellectuals mention that they are religious, even mildly so. I do not explicitly seek out atheist writers, so the fact that I encounter so few religious ones must mean something. At the very least, it may signify that the intellectual class as a whole is abandoning religion.
BOOK EXCERPT: Craig Brown / “J.D. Salinger’s Letter To Ernest Hemingway”
The following is an excerpt from “Hello Goodbye Hello” [Simon & Schuster,26.95]:
J.D. Salinger seeks out Ernest Hemingway The Ritz Hotel, 15 place Vendôme, Paris Late August 1944.
The twenty-five-year-old Jerry Salinger is experiencing a terrible war. Of the 3,080 men of the 12th US Infantry who disembarked with him at Normandy on D-Day, only a third are still alive.
His regiment is the first to enter Paris. They are mobbed by happy crowds. Salinger’s job as an officer in the Counter-Intelligence Corps entails weeding out and interrogating Nazi collaborators. As they go through Paris, he and a fellow officer arrest a collaborator, but a crowd wrests their prisoner away and beats him to death.
Salinger has heard that Ernest Hemingway is in town. A writer himself, with a growing reputation for his short stories, he is determined to seek out America’s most famous living novelist. He feels sure he will find him at the Ritz, so he drives the jeep there. Sure enough, Hemingway is installed in the small bar, already bragging that he alone liberated Paris in general and the Ritz in particular.
POETRY: “From Sage to Philistine”
By Madison S. Hughes (04.11.2009)
Chomsky, Vidal, Vonnegut and Zinn
Sages of generations past.
How will their prodigious wits last?With Philistines of today
As far as the eye can see.
Oh sad, how sad, can this truly be?
RELIGIOUS PARODY: Neal Starkman / “Devils at the Door”
As soon as I opened the door and saw the two men standing there, each with a backpack, one holding a book and the other a magazine, I knew I should have ignored the knock. But it was a slow afternoon, so I thought I’d play along.
Of course, based on their age, their clothing, and their general demeanor, I could tell immediately who they were. Who else but scientists would be in their 60s, wear lab coats on a beautiful spring day, and crack nary a smile? I slightly raised my eyebrows, letting them know I was open to their pitch but warning them that my patience was limited.
“Good afternoon, sir,” said one of the men, without smiling. “We’d like to talk to you about something that’s important to all of us – especially these days.”
“And what might that be?” I said, not moving from the doorway.
“The value of science, of rationality, and of the pursuit of truth. The absolutely essential quality of asking questions wherever the answers might lead. And the resistance to supernatural dogma.”
“I see,” I said. “And why is this important to me?”
h/t: Planet Atheism
h/t: Mike Daniels
XENOPHOBIC BIGOTRY: Robert Reich / “Excluding Outsiders or Coming Together for the Common Good: What’s the True Meaning of Patriotism?”
[R]egressives have no interest in preserving or protecting our system of government. To the contrary, they show every sign of wanting to be rid of it.
In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America.
The GOP’s highest-ranking member of Congress has said his “number one aim” is to unseat President Obama. For more than three years congressional Republicans have marched in lockstep, determined to do just that. They have brooked no compromise.
They couldn’t care less if they mangle our government in pursuit of their partisan aims. Senate Republicans have used the filibuster more frequently in this Congress than in any congress in history.
[…]
So when regressives talk about “preserving and protecting” the nation, be warned: They mean securing our borders, not securing our society.
CHRISTIAN PRIVILEGE: Austin Cline / Atheist Bigotry: Are Atheists Bigots for Generalizing About Religious Theists?
One complaint made about some atheist activists is that they are in fact anti-religious and anti-theistic bigots who are just expressing their personal bigotry, not arguing on behalf of atheists’ rights and liberty. There is a legitimate point to be made here, in that generalizing about an entire class of people for the actions of only some members is technically incorrect. What’s missing, though, is an appreciation for how the “silent” majority perpetuate and benefit from injustice.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this particular disagreement is not in the least bit new. Liberation and civil rights movements in the past have recognized that there is always a “silent” majority in privileged classes who do not actively oppress or discriminate, but at the same time help perpetuate and benefit from injustice precisely through their silence and inaction. They may not intend this and they may not even be conscious it, but this does not alter their complicity and it is because of this complicity that generalizations are made.
[…]
Generalizations made by a despised and discriminated-against minority cannot harm a privileged and powerful class — this is true whether it’s atheists generalizing about Christians, feminists generalizing about men, gays generalizing about straights, blacks generalizing about whites, etc. Those members of a privileged class who are supposedly giving the rest a bad name are, however, causing real harm to others. Some of that harm is even due to their generalizations about despised and excluded minorities which are made precisely to ensure that the marginalized remain powerless.
When other members of a privileged class — the ones who insist that they “aren’t like that” — expend more resources and worry over the former than the latter, then they are tacitly abetting and complicit in the harm being caused. Atheist generalizations about Christians or religious theists do not lead to any religious believers being excluded from power, being denied equality, or being forced into a second-class status.
Related articles
- To a Theist Parent, from an Atheist Child (alwaysquestionauthority.com)
- Pastor John Hagee is a Bigot (atheistrev.com)
- Mistakes, Lies, and Prejudices (atheistethicist.blogspot.com)
HEALTH CARE: Socialized Medicine: Why Everyone Should Share the Costs / Al Stefanelli
“A society will be judged by how it cares for it’s weakest members.”
Understand, I do not begrudge anyone from earning a profit, nor do I have anything personally against the entrepreneurial spirit. We should all do what we can to better ourselves. However, I am of the position that health care is not a privilege, but a right. As well, I reason that we are all morally obligated to ensure that each of us has access to it. That the United States does not have a national health care program is a major moral failure, and what we have in place is little more than a venue for unethical profiteers within the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
[…]
The United States needs a tax-payer funded (single-payer) national health care system. Totally and completely socialized and incurring no costs to anyone beyond what their taxes pay. Those who cannot pay due to disability, unemployment or other circumstances beyond their control should have the same access as those who do.
In my opinion, putting a dollar ahead of the health and welfare of a human being is immoral. National or Socialized medicine should be a no-brainer.
[…]
There should never be any individual who’s life is less important than a number on a profit and loss ledger.






