Don’t talk about politics or religion
It’s a rule of thumb for polite conversation that most of us had drilled into us as children, here in the US. Don’t talk about politics, and don’t talk about religion. You’ll only start an argument.
Maybe that’s true. After all, merely by saying “I am a member of such-and-such political party,” you are implying that you think its platform and philosophy are superior to the platforms and philosophies of all other political parties. If you didn’t think that was the case, you’d be a member of a different party. And by saying, “I am such-and-such religion,” you are saying that there is a certain set of statements about reality that you believe to be true. That means that other people, who don’t think that set of statements is true, are wrong in their beliefs. You don’t even have to say it outright. You just have to let it be known. Maybe someone spotted a bumper sticker on your car, a pendant on your necklace, a logo on your t-shirt. You can say that you think we should “coexist,” that we should be tolerant and all get along. Those are worthy ideals. But you have to face the fact that if you every commit to any opinion, you’re effectively telling everyone who doesn’t share it that they’re wrong, which doesn’t come across as very “tolerant.”
But that’s okay! I actually think we should be talking about politics and religion more freely. The discord is still happening, when the very existence of Democrats is an implicit affront to Republicans and vice versa, and when religious (or irreligious) groups rally support from within by directing anger at the mere presence of other groups. I think that by stifling conversation, we’re only silencing the argument, not really stopping it. No one gains anything from that.
I really wish I could remember the details of this story, because it made a real impression on me, but sadly I can only offer vagueness. At any rate: I read a news story once about an election happening in another country, quite possibly a country relatively new to the whole “election” thing. The focus of the story was on how the citizens were all eagerly arguing with each other about which candidates to support, all over the place. It was not a taboo topic in the least. And that’s an exciting thing to see, because it means that people are engaged in their democracy, they care about the outcome of the election. Most importantly (to me), they don’t see the election as rooting for their own team, but as a search for the best possible candidates. They’d prefer to get the right people into office, even if it means changing their minds.
Well, I’m sorry that anecdote came across as completely made up; I promise you it’s not. (If anyone remembers reading something like that – or experienced something like that! – and could help me figure out details, leave a comment. I’d bet there are plenty of countries this could apply to, but I only read a news story about one of them.) My point is that when we disagree and argue about it, it may feel a little uncomfortable and unpleasant at the time, but there are major benefits in the long run. After all, what’s more important: that your political party control a majority of seats in the legislature, or that the legislature is as full as possible of thoughtful people who have the best interests of the country in mind? Sure, you’d hope those things are the same, but you have to recognize the possibility that they’re not always. And what if there is one particular deity (or set of deities) who really wants you to live your life in a very specific way or else. Wouldn’t it be good to figure out which deity/deities it was, as soon as possible? (Alternatively, what if there are no deities like that? Wouldn’t you want to figure that out before spending your entire life obsessed with made-up rules and nonexistent judgment?)
“Sure, Z,” I can hear you saying. “I guess it would be great if we could all have these calm, reasoned debates. But how? I’m sure of my beliefs, and you’re sure of yours – we’ll never work it out!” It does seem daunting. What I do is, I try to keep a bit of agnosticism in my attitude. Perhaps it doesn’t come across that way… maybe it’d be better to call it best guess-ism. I feel strongly about my beliefs, having reflected on them and examined them before actively calling them my own, but I try to remember that they only reflect my current best guess. At any time, I could come into new information that might lead me to change my mind – to make a new, better guess. I welcome arguments because they’re the primary way I might get that new information.
I’d like to live in a society where more people had an attitude like that. But I’m open to debate about even that belief!
Comments
5 Responses to “Don’t talk about politics or religion”
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
sandeep on Thoughts on religious tolerance
bruce on Alternative medicine: worth a try?
Mike on Think before you speak
Zychan on What is Acts 29?
Emily on Grad students, 1…
One thing I have advocated as a way of making political discourse more civil is to stop labeling people as Democrats or Republicans and to start labeling our positions on various issues. For example, if you brought up immigration I might say, “I’m fairly liberal on immigration,” and then we could discuss my views on guest worker programs, etc. Now of course there is no guarantee that conversation would not be heated if you were more conservative (or even more liberal) on that same topic…but at least there isn’t the assumption that would be made if I said, “I’m a Republican,” and you had to fill in the blanks.
In my experience most people have a real diversity of thought when you drill down on various issues. Myself I am conservative on most things, libertarian on a few and liberal on a few more. I only reluctantly tell people I am a Republican because they automatically assume I am conservative across the board. And this isn’t just the opposition. Fellow Republicans will assume the same thing. In some respects they get even more offended when they find out that not all of my positions line up with the party platform.
Is the point of your blog just to make blanket statements so that you can bait people into arguing with you, and then call the ensuing exchange a “debate?” I have to say, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Nor does such a tactic tend to foster friendly, enriching dialog.
Also: See here.
Emily K: That book looks very interesting. I admit I don’t understand right now how it is possible for one person to be “right” and another person to be “not wrong” while they make two mutually exclusive statements about the facts of reality. Clearly there is some other way of thinking about this situation which I am completely unfamiliar with. It’s an intriguing perspective, and I’ll see if I can track down this book to read it.
I don’t intend to bait people into arguing with me (although, like I said above, I welcome people who disagree to make their disagreement clear). I didn’t think that statement you quoted above was hugely controversial, basically for the reason I explained in the above paragraph, and I’m sorry that my posts make you so unhappy. (I hope you go / have gone back to that earlier thread to read my apology there… I really don’t intend to offend my readers.) I mean, look, I don’t think everyone in the world should be forced to read everything on this site. I assume that people who think everything I say is offensive will just choose not to visit. That’s pretty much how the internet works.
Look, I don’t see religions and spiritual paths as an “either/or” method for understanding reality. That type of thinking is what a fundamentalist uses. But most of the people i know – nearly all, in fact – are not fundamentalists. They have either the same or a similar way of thought that I do:
Religions are like clothes. Clothes serve different purposes. They change the way you look, can give you a form of identity, and protect you from the elements. Religion serves purposes: Among them are to give a sense of community, create a common moral code, and explain (or attempt to explain) difficult questions.
But of course, not all clothes are made for all people, nor are they preferred by all people. There’s more than one way to stay warm. Shirts come with different collars. Pants can be flared or straight; tailored for men or for women.
Just because I prefer to wear pants and never ever dresses doesn’t mean a girl who hates wearing pants is “wrong.” My opinion does not trump theirs because it is a personal preference. That’s how I feel about religions.
Now, you could counter by saying, “But religions say they have the right answer to the ‘Big Unanswered Questions.’ And several religions say they are the only path.’” I could say “I don’t believe that about my religion, though. And subsequently be accused of being a “cafeteria Jew.” But I don’t mind. I am not a fundamentalist and I don’t hold the Bible up to being some kind of idol. And IMHO, that term should really only be applied to those who pick and choose which verses they will follow for themselves while endorsing all of the verses in their entirety for everyone else.
Most pagan religions are very adaptable, since their pantheons tend to be quite flexible. The Báha’i faith believes in a universal revelation, and sees as valid the revelations proclaimed by several other religions.
In the end, It’s possible that a question can have many different answers. And I cannot be certain that when we die, everyone will experience the same thing. What if we all each experience what we believe will happen? We don’t know. As for science, well, I believe that science could answer “how” while religion could try to answer “why” (philosophically speaking). As in, why do good things happen to bad people and vice versa. And what exactly is a “bad person?” That sort of thing. I really don’t think that ethics, philosophy, spirituality, and religion are as divided as some might think they are.
Again, this is my opinion. It is valid only for me and no one else.
I think I understand where you’re coming from. It sounds like you see religious beliefs as something you choose because they are good for you and make you happy, without taking a position on the truth of those beliefs (e.g., does God exist? is there an afterlife? did such and such story really happen?) as a factual matter. I respect that a lot, and I have no problem with that version of religion. In fact, I actually think it sounds like a stronger version of that kind of “best guess-ism” that I was talking about in my post.
I suspect the disagreement we’re having is really based in semantics. When I’m arguing against “religion,” I mean religion that states that its stories about God and so forth are actual fact. I think almost all religions are defined that way by their leaders, even if not all the people following them think of it that way. I think the people who do see their religions as representing actual facts are what you’re calling “fundamentalists,” and I think that term as you use it refers to a very significant number of people (though definitely not everyone). I’m sorry that what I wrote came across as an over-generalization.