"Bush is stupid" is always a great way to start a conversation. Seriously... bold, definitive statements are the doorway from which we can expand our knowledge base and increase in wisdom.
"Bush is stupid" began one family member as we sat digesting the huge Thanksgiving meal that took place a few hours earlier.
Alright, I thought. So we're going down this road, recognizing that the other party knew he was 'tweaking' me with this harsh phraseology.
"What proof do you have to support this claim?", I asked as the conversation continued.
"This adminstration is completely corrupt", continued my loved one's diatribe.
Certain that this statement was not proof of his assertion, I began getting irritated.
As it would turn out, there was no substantive proof. I may as well have been listening to Al Franken at that moment. The statement was nothing more than opinion based on feeling, something all-too-common in a "someone has to be blamed for the world's ills and I read it in the newspaper mentality" of our point the finger microwave culture. It was just a general sense of "Everyone knows Bush is an idiot. What kind of moron are you to NOT know that?"
(As an aside, while I do not approve of everything the President has done and have my own complaints, I most certainly do not think he is an idiot. On the contrary, I believe the history books (if they are unbiased) are going to show that Bush's presidency was a key turning point in the advancement of America and a new wave of freedom for third-world countries. But that's another blog entry...)
Anyhow, the conversation took a sudden turn as the finger turned on me (not THAT finger, but it may as well have been...). Allow me to paraphrase the accusations that followed.
"You don't know sh*t!"
That was it, more or less.
Having briefly touched on politics, as it were, the topic of God was inevitably introduced (though not by me). I was accused of being "smug" and having an attitude that I "had all the answers". And while I don't pretend to have ALL the answers, I believe I have enough of them to be "secure", but not "smug".
I didn't know it was a sin to have peace in your life.
But it is if the person you are dealing with does not have peace. You see, human nature is to defend our belief system with our very life. Encountering someone who's beliefs are contrary to our own can elicit a 'fight or flight' response. If someone is not secure with where they are philosophically or spiritually, it is just a short leap to project these feelings of insecurity on someone else. There is no other reason to attack someone for their beliefs. Note that there is a HUGE difference between attacking someone for their beliefs and opposing the belief system itself. One approach attempts to analyze the belief rationally while the other seeks to denigrate the individual.
In other words, "Since I don't have the answers, you can't have the answers. If you have the answers, that means I am missing something. And it is too painful and/or difficult to admit that I am missing something. It is much easier to convince myself that you don't know sh*t."
And so the story goes... which is really a shame because it doesn't have to be this way.
Religion and politics. The two taboos of social conversation.
But why is this so?
This entry is not about the specific conflict between myself and a family member (who I love very much, and who has since apologized...) Rather, it is to address the question of WHY religion and politics are taboo dinner table topics. In a world packed with human beings, you would think that these topics would be of greatest interest, especially to discuss with those we love.
Religion tells us who we are and defines us beyond the brief blip in our physical existance, and politics (though rightly given a bad name in many contexts) allow us to express how best to live out our lives for the private and public good.
So why are people so intimidated? Why are religion and politics the starting point for so many arguments and heated disagreements?
One reason has already been stated. If one party in a discussion is threatened by the belief system of another, no rational discourse can occur. By making these discussions personal, emotions supplant reason and logic. Frequently, reason and logic are not even allowed a place at the table. In other words, don't confuse me with the facts.
You will see this time and again in family systems where children are raised a certain way and not provided with reasons WHY they are being raised that way. It is blind faith at its very worst. ie: We vote democrat because our family has always voted democrat. Or, we go to such and such church because my Grandparents went to such and such church. That might be fine for a child, but when we become adults I believe we are responsible for finding our way. If it turns out that what our parents taught us is accurate, it will stand up under scrutiny. But if under further analysis their teachings or philosophy collapse, we must allow them to succumb to gravity and begin down our own path to enlightenment.
This heinous error is one reason that many people really don't know exactly what they believe or WHY they believe it. It is adherance to a system based on little more than loyalty or tradition.
It reminds me of a story that M tells, and that I just read again in Harv Ecker's "Inside the Millionaire Mind"...
A young lady is preparing a ham for her family, cuts it in two, and puts it in a pan. She realizes that she does this, but isn't quite sure why. So she calls her mother and asks, "Mom, how come you cut the ham in two before you put it in the pan?" Mom says, "That's the way Grandma always did it". So the young lady goes to her grandmother and asks, "Grandma, why do you cut the ham in two before putting it in the pan?" Grandma replies, "Because my pan wasn't big enough."
At one time, cutting the ham in two served a purpose. Continuing to cut the ham in two when the reason for doing so was gone (the young lady's pan was plenty big!) was nothing more than blind following. Unfortunately, many people find their identity in tradition rather than truth... in duplicating what has been done before at the behest of breaking their own ground.
Another reason religion and politics don't make for good discourse between family and friends is that most statements can and SHOULD be backed up with substantive evidence. To say that religion and politics are mere matters of opinion is unenlightened foolishness. There are reasons behind belief systems. They do not come out of a vacuum. And if a point is worth making, it is worth making well. But rather than discuss, people tend to dig their heals in and attempt to solidify their positions through any means possible. We mock what we do not understand. We deny that which challenges our foundations. As a result, personal growth doesn't take place. Instead, we tell ourselves lies in order to reinforce whatever it is we want to believe.
My challenge to myself and to others is to continually stretch ourselves beyond that which we think we know. I am learning more about religion and politics all the time. I most certainly don't know it all, but I have experienced a great deal of peace in learning what I DO know. I attempt to communicate with people who know more than I do and glean whatever wisdom I can from them.
In discussions with one individual, I was told about a brief conversation they had with their spiritual leader. When asked about knowing the truth, the leader told this person, "No one can know the truth"
At which point I silently questioned the wisdom of following a spiritual leader who doesn't know where he himself is going...
It's Del.icio.us!
Furl It!
November 27, 2005 11:37 AM
Joel -- Thanks for this, I often appreciate your "take" on many subjects and your ability to clearly state your point of view. This item was one in which I am in full agreement. Keep on blogging, I'd miss it if you stopped.
November 27, 2005 02:37 PM
Joel,
Since you are someone who has described Sandra Day O'Connor as a witch, it seems to me that perhaps you, too, are defensive about your own beliefs. Your attack on Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't about issues, it was very mean, personal, and petty.
November 27, 2005 06:13 PM
Glad to see that two of my favorite people are still around! I know it takes controversy to bring Patriot and Joel out of their shells... maybe I should do it more often?
Joel, my comment about Sandra Day O' C was metaphorical. Of course she isn't a REAL witch, otherwise she would melt if water was tossed on her. ;-)
And the reason I stated so was BECAUSE of her stand on the issues. While I don't know if she is an evil person (I'm sure her family and friends love her), I know that her supreme court decisions have been destructive to the cause of freedom and millions of lives.
I'm eager for Judge Alito to get on the court and find out if he is a real conservative. The end of the abortion holocaust in America may be approaching.
I am not defensive about my beliefs. I am confident. So I will defend them, which is different. I don't need anyone else to believe what I believe in order to support what I believe. I encourage debate and discussion in a forum where it can be constructive. I typically don't do it in a forum such as this becase it is uncommon to find people who are truly eager to dialogue. So I just use my blog to say what I want to say... after all, it's my blog.
Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving :-)
Joel C.
November 28, 2005 12:44 AM
That was a wonderful article... this is the first time I've ever been on a blog website and the first time I've ever read your stuff, but I really appreciate it. I found it while researching arbonne. Anyway, My father, like your family member, also loves to make irrationally bold comments such as "Bush is an idiot" to which only about 1% of the family agrees, but if the other 99% dare to put out a rebuttal we get an earful (I have been the recipient of this earful many times). I just want to understand why it is politically correct for liberals to express their opinions but not for conservatives?
November 28, 2005 12:11 PM
Joel,
My point was that there is no difference between people who say "Bush is an idiot" and those who say "Sandra Day O'Connor is a witch."
I don't think you were being metaphorical. If I described you as the "anti-Christ" are you seriously claiming that you would consider my label of you purely metaphorical?
You have huge double standards. You accepted an ad that asked if Leonardo DiCaprio is g*y. So I put up a humorous comment in response asking if you are g*y. You quickly deleted it. That tells me you ask of others what you won't demand of yourself. Why were you willing to run that ad in the first place?
I used to read your blog regularly -- now just once every week to three weeks probably. So your relative apologized to you. Great! But you've said far worse about people you dislike than "Bush is an idiot."
November 29, 2005 04:23 PM
1. Hey, Bush IS an idiot!
He is also arrogant, hard-headed and narrow-minded. (We know more about Dubya here in the lone star state than the rest of the country. We were glad to get rid of him as govenor so he would stop mocking people he executed.)
2. I agree with Joel Thomas, that your blog has exhibited a great double standard. And to claim that you prefer not to "debate" anyone on your blog because no one wants to "dialogue" in such a forum is a weak excuse.
You set the standard for the forum. If people react harshly to your posts, it is because your (political) posts are harsh. [As a naturalist, business posts don't interest me at all.]
3. The reason relatives should not discuss politics and religion at family gatherings is that the setting is supposed to be one of a gathering of support. Why turn it into a debate? There are other times when you can discuss these subjects with relatives. Just don't involve people who would rather not have to experience such hostilities.
You could have let it go when your loved one made such a blunt statement. But instead, you had to challenge and perpetuate the circumstance. Let it go...
4. Lastly, your comment on the spiritual leader of one friend...Obviously, you know little about such matters. Those who are the most learned realize that there is much that can never be known. "The more I learn, the less I know." Sounds contradictory, doesn't it. But that's philosophy! Contemplate, don't demand to be right. The most enlightened people have no need to be "right" because they know there is no such thing.
You questioned the wisdom of following a spiritual leader who happens to be very wise. One who recognizes that "Truth" with a capital T can never be known, is wise beyond words.
Maybe some day you will get there. Looking forward to it.
PS Why did my post fail due to questionable content, specifically the name of the state where I live?????
November 29, 2005 05:29 PM
Hey Joel T... If you said I was the anti-Christ, I would most definitely assume you were being metaphorical! If not, I'd have to assume that you were an absolute nutcase. I don't believe that to be true.
As for the rest, we'll just agree to disagree as I don't see it productive to debate. But for the record, the ads you see on the site are Google Ads. They automatically post whatever ads they believe are contextually relevant every time a page is loaded. I have no control over that. So, yes, if you call me names in my house, you will be deleted.
And June, thank you for coming and posting your opinion. While I disagree with the foolishness in just about everything you say, I will allow you to come to my virtual house and be rude if you so choose. I delete posts for various reasons, but none of those reasons surfaced in your post.
Best regards,
Joel
November 29, 2005 10:35 PM
June,
I have to ask... are you right about there being no such thing as "right"?
As to your comments on Truth... I KNOW there is Truth. God tells us there is and how we can find it. "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (Jn.8:31b-32). God gets even more specific. "Jesus said, 'I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.'" (Jn.14:6)I am confident that God is right about this.
November 30, 2005 01:07 PM
My question was why did the message I received after clicking on "post" say it contained "questionable content: [State's name]”.
I am not repeating the state's name because I don't want to get the same problem. I thought the name of my state was a decent word, but you may have some other reason for preventing state names from being posted...or maybe it was just a quirk.
As to Carol's question if I am right about there being no such thing as "right"...Does it really matter if I am right? Or if you are right? What are we supposed to do? Start throwing punches to determine who is “right”? Or maybe you want me to throw back some other scriptures that counter the ones you threw at me. THAT is foolishness!
There are numerous religions on this planet that are based upon the “Truth”. But unfortunately, many people believe that their religion is the only “true” religion. What a waste of energy and human lives that have been lost in religious wars. For example, when Martin Luther began the Reformation in 1517, it began a deadly religious war between Christians that lasted 100 years. I hope we have progressed beyond such foolishness. But sometimes I have real cause to doubt it.
I hope you receive comfort from your biblical quotes. But knowing there is a truth and knowing what that truth is are two different things. One does not need to “know”, but one needs to have “faith” (Faith=belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence). Consult your minister and chances are, if s/he is a real theologian and not some huckster, s/he will tell you the same thing…that the ultimate “Truth” is unknowable. Even the Christians say the same thing.
November 30, 2005 01:10 PM
Here is the message I received with the letter s removed from the state's name...
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: Texa-
Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.
December 1, 2005 08:10 AM
GOD, AND JESUS, ARE ONE AND THE SAME. JESUS, TEACHES ME THAT I CAN NOT HARM ANYONE MENTALLY, OR PHYSICALY, OR DO HARM TO MY SELF. JUDGE, SIT IN JUDGEMENT, OR PASS JUDGMENT ON MY FELLOW MAN. EPHRIAM
December 12, 2005 03:02 PM
Whether ultimate "truth" or "rightness" is possible in this life is open to question and doubt. But surely the desire to move in that direction is laudible. Denying truth exists or refusing to test one's views through honest discussion doesn't move one along that path.
I think part of the problem is in definitions over just what "right" means to different people. "Fair" is another term with almost infinitely flexible meanings, depending upon who's using it and what they want.
But seeking truth without honesty seems impossible to me, and those who BS their way through political discussions (and there are many) aren't seeking truth. They're just out to "win". Arguing politics with most people most of the time is probably a waste of breath. But, every once in a great while, somebody actually listens and thinks about something differently....
July 7, 2008 10:08 AM
In France they have written in the constitution that Religion and politics shall be treated separately and not mix them together, I think it is a great idea!