There is a saying that is said by people who say: "There are three topics that should be avoided: Sports, Politics, and Religion". I share this view while in casual social interactions, since people often possess strong, emotional viewpoints on these topics, and what might start as a friendly sharing of ideas can easily become a personal feud when ideas clash.
- Barça fan: Oh yeah, Barça kicked Real's ass so hard on Saturday! 5-0! Can you believe Real Madrid still calls themselves a professional team?
- 2nd Barça fan: It's like, why do they even keep embarrassing themselves? They just can't compete.
- Real fan: You weren't as confident last season. Where were you when Real beat Barça seven times in a row?
- Barça fan: You mean the time when the referee was completely bought off?
- Real fan: Fuck bought off! Didn't you watch the games? We crushed Barça's defense every single time, it wasn't even a challenge! And don't start with "bought off" when this game's referee was Messi's uncle!
- 2nd Barça fan: You don't know what you're talking about, dude. So the referee caused a 5-0? Give me a break!
etc
And politics, oh man. More taxes, less taxes, rich taxes, healthcare, down with the government, support our troops, stop the war, social security, you're a communist, you're a spoiled brat, dirty immigrants steal our jobs, this country was created by immigrants, blah blah blah blah blah.
Potentially endless. And what happens when in fact the discussion does end? Did any one side persuade the other? Did they "win"? Ok, say say one side left the other side speechless, so they "won" the discussion. What they did "win"? Money? A Chevy? Resentment from the other side, maybe. And certainly not a change relevant to the issue. Will shouting harder for one team make them win? The sports fans say "We won!". Yeah, you played REALLY well that time, fans. Way to watch that TV.
Will "proving" a political argument's validity apply it to the current government? In Congress, maybe. Not at Jean's birthday party, or at your local bar. Hence, the aforementioned saying.
I've left religion purposely out from the previous paragraphs because it is the topic I want to address the most.
I know people from a variety of religious beliefs. Thinking of the people I know and have known, I can say I know several people in, and am a close friend of at least 1 person belonging to, various major belief groups:
- Evangelism
- Catholicism
- Hinduism
- Buddhism
- Islam
- Baha'i
- Atheism
- Agnosticism
Sorry Jews. I just don't know you, I guess. Except for Seinfeld and the gang.
I assume you are familiar with the basic stereotypes. Evangelism and Catholicism both like Jesus BUT they disagree on the Virgin's sanctity. Hinduism and Buddhism like non-violence and karma BUT they don't like the other's divine hierarchy. Islam and Baha'i disagree on their prophets' validity, and Atheism and Agnosticism differ because one disbelieves divinity and the other one pleads the fifth.
I came onto this subject because two of my friends, both quite relevant in my current context, belong to differing religious standpoints. Alice belongs to Islam, and Beth belongs to Baha'i. I didn't know much about either a few months ago. I knew that Baha'i had cool temples around the world, was very small, and came from somewhere in the Middle East. I also knew the basic things about Islam: Muhammad, Qur'an, beards, veils, no pork, prayer towards Mecca 5 times a day, women discrimination, and also from the Middle East. But now I've talked to both Alice and Beth, and I've learned what the inside perspective is on both. Apparently, they don't like each other that much. Baha'i arose from Islam because of a guy, who said he was a divine prophet. Some people agreed and became Baha'i. Islam didn't agree, and kicked them out. (I am grossly over-summarizing). Hence, discomfort.
I didn't know there was discomfort between the two at all. I thought "Hey, they're both from the Middle East, they've got lots of apostrophes in their names. Lots of desert, similar traditions, they should share some good things. Good times". So when Alice and I were figuring out where to go for a drive, I proposed we go see the Baha'i temple here in Chicago.
Because I think it is architecturally so cool.
And then the response surprised me:
"Baha'i is a cult, a stray group of people who are using Islam. I don't want to go there."
The attitude change in the conversation was striking, so I left it at that. She proposed we go to a Muslim center instead. And we did.
Later I spoke to Beth, and told her that I had a friend, Alice, who was Muslim. I told her about her reaction to the proposal of visiting the temple, and she said "Yes, there is discomfort between our beliefs. Probably us meeting is not such a good idea".
From my point of view, I know both Alice and Beth. They are both good people. They are both educated, they like to think for themselves, about their beliefs, and in my opinion, they both attempt to do good in their lives, both for themselves and for others.
So why wouldn't they want to meet? What impedes them? They can't meet because their CULTURES clash? So not only the potential relationship between them two, but between pretty much all pairs between Baha'i and Muslim people, the cartesian product of their sets, is somehow eliminated? All these possibilities, ruled out, because they don't like each other? It seems so restricting!
That's why Romeo and Juliet didn't make it, and why the Butter Battle kept on going. Wouldn't it have been awesome if Romeo and Juliet had made it? (They wouldn't have been as famous, though. Happier...)
I don't want to keep writing about what religions should or should not do, or whether they make sense, or whether there is a God... it's been talked about A LOT. However, I want to express a conception about conversations and information exchange in general, and its potential application to religions and society in general.
Imagine Beta and Psi have a conversation, each with his/her own ideas, experiences, and beliefs. Beta's set of conceptions is β, and Psi's set of conceptions is ψ. Between them, they will have ideas they agree upon, ideas they disagree upon, and each of them will have ideas that the other one has no knowledge of or standpoint about. Call the relationship between Beta and Psi λ.
It should be evident by experience and logic that exchanging agreements will tend to have a positive impact on λ, while exchanging disagreements will tend to have a negative impact on λ. Exchanging other ideas could lead either way, depending on how the newcomer interprets the idea based on his current experience.
So my proposal is: if you have a conversation, find your agreements, enjoy them, learn from each other's viewpoints, continue as long as you find harmony. When disagreed-upon ideas rise (and they will), do not delve too much into them, and do not take the other's opinion to personal offense. They have not had your experiences as much as you have not had theirs, so do not assume or enforce what they should or shouldn't think, do, or believe. Discuss disagreements only inasmuch as the conversation maintains a positive influence on λ. Do you feel offended? Are you starting to dislike your conversation partner? Change the topic. Stop. If they have an idea that works for them, why do you want to replace it with your own?
Discomfort tends to separation, separation tends to competition, and competition leads to violence. History shows this phenomenon, and it is observable in any human interaction you might observe: children in a playground, high school groups, employees in a workplace, neighbor relations, countries, religions. It even seems that we, human beings, statistically and psychologically, are meant to segregate, regardless of the reason. Distinct groups are formed, and when they meet at some point, instead of mixing in like red and blue paint to form purple, they tend to keep away, repel, and sometimes attack, like... something else. Oil and water? Something.
So keep away from uncomfortable disagreements, enjoy your similarities. Chill. For a very long time now, human beings have been born and raised into a world where pride and cultural separation are dominant, and where competition is praised and fueled with emotion, not only because of Darwin's and Adam Smith's theories, but just for the heck of it, because "that's how we do it!"
If a Jew and a Catholic were to converse and to follow the proposed rule (to keep away from uncomfortable topics), they would find their commonalities. If they were then to go talk to a Muslim using the same rule, they would find the commonalities between all three. If they subsequently then went ahead and talked with a Christian, a Hindu, a Baha'i, a Buddhist, and a Taoist in the same manner, they would end up with a small, common set of ideas which they ALL share.
And my impression is that these ideas would go along the lines of "Be good. Do good". And that matters such as what is God called, what is God like, how old the Earth is, should penises be circumcised, was that guy really holy, did that woman have sex, was Buddha really God, is that book fake, are cows sacred, are pigs dirty, do we reincarnate, did Adam and Eve exist, and what the best soccer team is could be left to each person to decide, without a need for imposing or enforcing your opinion on anyone else. So there would be a lot of diversity on opinions and combinations of these throughout the world. Kinda exactly like in our current world, but without the enforcing, imposition, or the violence. The change would merely depend on people's attitude.
Disclaimer: I mean offense or ill repute to no person, culture, or belief system. And I got the image from Google Images. And I completely made up the soccer conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment