\”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…