I had a very interesting discussion recently about religion. I won't get into the details because that's not the point I want to relate. It struck me that the only reason I felt free to talk candidly about the subject was because it was with people that I don't see on a regular basis, and am not that close with. (Not that they're not lovely people, I just don't see them that often. Hi kev :) ) Now it's not like this is a very weird thing, it's a sensitive subject to some people, and it's something that people are very respective of others differences about, so it's not exactly something people are comfortable debating. In fact, one of my favorite parts of my last trip to Ireland was when my brother, trying to engage a random guy in conversation, asked him what he thought about George Bush. When the guy answered that he didn't much care, my brother said something along the lines of 'Why don't you care? It's pretty important, he's an asshole.' At that point the bartender came over and shouted at my brother "Hey! No politics and no religion!" Now it's certainly understandable that in a country like Ireland people will be wary of debates along those lines occurring in bars, or anywhere for that matter (see "the troubles"). Still, I really liked that line, and it happens to be a rule that I live by for casual conversation and casual relationships. In fact most everybody does. The problem is that I'm never able to broach the subject with people that I even suspect I have a disagreement with, even if I feel I'm pretty close to the person.
I have a close friend that is the complete opposite. He's told me about several occasions where he's argued with people very close to him about religion. And not because it was forced into conversation but just because he generally feels that these other people could be helped by what he has to tell them. It's weird, I always feel that kind of conversation would create a divide between people that I would never want to deal with, but it doesn't seem to for him. Either way, I'm almost positive that he's got the right idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Even though "No politics and no religion!" wasn't exclaimed to us by anyone when we were in Belfast, it was pretty clear that was one of the understood, unwritten rules of the community. Feelings there are still very raw, after 1,500 people have been killed in that city in the last 30 years in the name of religion. A further illustration of this is the murals you see still on buildings there. One building in particular on the traditionally Catholic side of the town shows a masked man pointing an uzi at the observer. Then you look around and see that the mural is actually strategically placed at the beginning of a long street that runs all the way down, through the Protestant side of town, so that those even a mile away can look back at this mural and not turn away very easily...
I don't think you're crazy for carrying that policy of no debates about religion with friends. Politics is one thing. Although someone might hold certain political principles very dearly in their heart, these topics are daily part of the national discourse on our 24-hour news channels, and when friends have arguments regarding political issues, they are usually able to detach the "person" from the "belief" and once the debate is over, everything is back to normal. Hell, if we weren't so willing to respect each other's views and agree to disagree, I would have made a lot of enemies with all my both hardcore liberal and conervative friends over the years. A person's political beliefs are by and large relatively fickle and transient compared to his/her religious views.
Religion is part of a person's identity in a way political views could never be. The topic is so reliant on the spiritual, and therefore the scientifically unsubstantiated, debates that may flare up could all too easily become construed as personal, whether intentional or unintentional. Two opposite viewpoints may run into an impasse very early on in a debate, because so many fundamental principles that must be accepted in order to have "higher" discussions of religion are themselves up for debate.
I do not consider myself to be of any particular region, and I have never given much of a second thought towards it. However, I know better than to thrust my "non-believer" opinions on to those on the other side of the fence. Nor would I want to. I welcome, and even admire, the community and self-fulfillment that people feel through their spiritual beliefs. If only we as a people could find ways to pull ourselves together anywhere near as successful a way as those who gather in the name of their Lord, whichever Lord that might be.
They just better not want to kill me for my status as a non-beliver. Then we would have a problem.
Religion has probably been the single most lethal cold-blooded killer in the history of man. Maybe that's why we as a people are so hesitant to debate even our close friends. =)
I definitely go out of my way to discuss politics, and I think that's because I feel a responsibility to do so. A democracy is only as strong as the level of involvement of its citizens, and the degree to which they are informed, and that's especially true for the long term survival of a democracy. So, while I definitely don't go out of my way to offend anyone I'm close to who disagrees with me on politics, I'm more concerned with how my interactions with that person will help them to be more informed and involved in the democratic process than I am concerned about whether something I say will offend them.
Not true with religion, and that's probably for a few reasons. One reason is that my religious views are definitely in the minority, other reasons are basically some of what foggynotion said (even though I don't think I have quite the positive a view of religion as expressed by foggynotion).
But yeah, religious discussions do seem to be based on some rather fundamental assumptions that can derail any conversation very early on, and there is really no way to get around that, making discussions on religion often not particularly productive.
Kevin,
I think that you may have misunderstood me. It is not religion itself I admire, regardless of the denomination. But what I DO admire is the ability of religion to draw people together,all in a collective humility and gentleness that you do not see outside of the place of worship. Now, let's not immediately point to the times in history where communal religious zealotry has caused utter atrocities. I am referring to the camaraderie that responsible, stable-minded people find through their church, and how that is a model for us to be able to gather together better, to organize, in the name of some other cause.
Yeah, I think I get what you're saying.
I'm conflicted on that idea. I do admire the positive effect religion can have on people and communities. However, I don't think there is any positive aspect of religion that is never seen outside a place of worship. Communities can come together without religion, although I admit religion has had a strong community-building effect in the past (and might be the strongest single factor in communities coming together in positive ways). Unfortunately this community-building comes at the exclusion of others who are not of that religion. This is fine when everyone is of the same religion, but not fine when religions collide.
So while I do have very negative views towards religion in general and think it has a net-negative effect on the world, I can definitely see the positive aspects. I don't know, maybe I do mostly agree with the way you see religion.
Post a Comment