Writing About Talking, Part Three: Religion

There is a lot to say about whether people should or should not talk about religion in company. Yahoo! Answers contributors said not to, unless you know the company really well. An opinion I've already agreed with - as far as manners are concerned, it's more polite not to potentially agitate, offend, and otherwise ruin a party by broadcasting one's beliefs.

But CW would say anyone can say whatever they like and if someone else get's offended, it's their responsibility; you can't go through life worrying if you're going to offend someone.

Which I also agree with. So the answer must lie in the middle. And I think Matthew Warner at Fallible Blogma had a good argument: maybe if we talked more about religion, we'd be better equipped to handle passionate disagreements politely. Although I think his assertion this this adage has resulted in "generation illiterate of politics and ignorant of religion" is harsh; I always thought this advice was attributed to Ben Franklin, am I wrong? I do think, however, that this policy has made it harder for us to talk when it's important to talk - without talking, how can we hope to understand different beliefs from our own and find a way for them to coexist peacefully?

Then, Randy Cohen at the New York Times took a different twist in an article posted last Fall. He was covering the Vatican's invitation to Anglicans "uncomfortable with female priests and openly gay bishops" to rejoin the Catholic church. He was dissatisfied, to put it mildly, that mainstream media didn't "castigate the Vatican’s invitation to misogyny and homophobia".

But then, when has the mainstream media been good for anything?

I like some of what Cohen had to say, particularly the Federal government's mixed policies regarding what religions can and cannot be held accountable for. But he says that a church, like any other major organization, ought to be "subject to moral scrutiny, whether the group is the Boy Scouts or Nascar or the Roman Catholic Church".

But he forgets: who's morality are we scruitenizing them under? What makes that moral scruitny more acceptable?

I can understand where he's coming from. I don't think it's right to forbid women to hold positions equal to men or to hate homosexuals, but that doesn't make it ok to tell a whole group of people they're wrong. If they adhere to beliefs and ideas that are unpopular, they'll lose their strength, as Catholics are in the US (please note - I don't agree with the perspective of this author, but the statistics are compelling) and as numerous. religions. have in the past.

Although critizing an organization or belief isn't the same as having contempt for it, as he said, I would suggest there is a difference between critisim and questioning or discussion, which is always my aim with conversations about religion. I want to understand someone else's point of view, and why they think that, and talk about what makes our perspectives different or similar. That's fascinating. But I don't think anyone has any right to critisize.

Conversation Topics for Polite Company

Sometimes I think there must be some kind of cosmic order in the world, God perhaps, because I will hear about the same thing happening in three different scenarios with no link between them what so ever. I say three because as I'm writing this, I'm thinking about the saying celebrities die in threes, which I first heard back when Princess Diana died and have been spookily fascinated with it ever since.

Rationally, I know people just die and things just happen based on zillions of random factors that no one can understand completely. And I understand it seems like there's a cosmic force behind it for the same reason we see patterns in the clouds and shapes in random designs. The human brain likes to MAKE the information its taking in make sense.

The thing that I heard about a bunch of times recently in totally unconnected ways isn't even that big of a deal: a few separate groups of people I know were talking about politics on Facebook with complete strangers. Some of those groups got in fights. Everything is ok now, but it made me think of that Ben Franklin quote my moom drilled into my head when she would send me over other people's houses and wanted me to be able to make friends:

Don't talk about sex, politics, or religion with company. Or something like that.

I suppose the trouble is those are close to the most interesting topics people can talk about. Sex obviously is a very interesting topic, but really, it's largely an extension of the other two. The reason Ben and my mom said not to talk about these things (well not the sex one since I was eight years old I think) is that they:

• reflect deeply held personal beliefs,
• often fall along strict divisions with little or no compromise,
• and others' opinions may seem entirely irrational to you.
  

BJ reminded me that people tend to think they are anonymous online and that their online persona is different from their "IRL" persona. Which is true, but on Facebook, an image of YOUR face is right next to the words you're typing. And in these cases, it was all young people that I don't think have that kind of separation - they are all online all the time and have been for most of their lives.

Is it a general trend towards polarization in this country? People fee more strongly about what's going on in politics? Is it because religion, politics, and sex are so .tightly .linked .sometimes, and more often today? I'm not sure. I think one factor is that it's easy to type something; much easier than say something to a person's face. But maybe that's for me, talking about this stuff with someone at all is a significant step in my relationship with them and that is less and less the normal behavior.

The big idea here? The way people form relationships online is different from the way they formed relationships without the Internet. We all have to make our own rules. It's bound to be messy at times, but as long as everyone keeps talking, things will work out.

My mom taught me that too!