“Why is it that we would be comfortable not discussing two of the most important things in our existence – our freedom (politics) and our purpose (religion)? Kind of strange isn’t it?” Part of it IS that we were taught not to. And then THAT myth just perpetuates. So then your operative word of having “thoughtful” discussions rarely happens because we are frozen with those old limiting beliefs.

Thank you for saying that it is OK and even right to do so.

Glad somebody wrote about it.

I can say very similar things about discussions and relationships I have with many of my good friends with whom I passionately disagree. When I wrote this I wasn’t basing it on theory. I was basing it on experience.

I think maybe you’re looking at the wrong measuring stick. I’m not saying people’s minds are necessarily totally changed on their fundamental position. But I can definitely say I come away understanding the other person’s point of view a lot better. And I can definitely say that I’m much less likely to sum up that person’s belief as stupid or unthoughtful. And I definitely come away understanding a little bit more about why that person disagrees with me in the first place.

And if I was acting with any ill-prejudice I can guarantee you it’s been exposed and I embarrassed for holding such. And if I was being completely illogical there’s a good chance that’s been pointed out to me now causing me to rethink it a lot more.

And on the flip side, I can’t begin to count the conversations I’ve had with people on a topic like religion where it caused each of us to think about a particular point more deeply than we’ve ever thought about it before.

I’m fairly sure you can say the same. I hardly think that’s a waste of time. Those are all good things. We need more of it…not less.

Funny, you just summed up why I think they say politics and religion shouldn’t be discussed. Think about the last time you had a politcal discussion. How many of your own ‘misguided passions’ were cleared up in your conversation? Did either party come to an ‘ultimate truth’?

It sounds great on paper, but the reality is it doesn’t work that way. Not to say we shouldn’t try. But ask yourself how many times you have had your own misguided passions er….reguided…after a discussion about politics or religion. I know that just in the discussions you and I have had the answer would be zero…mine would also be zero…funny how that works.

I think when it is said that one shouldn’t discuss politics or religion, I think it’s more of play on “why waste your time”. At least that’s how I always perceived that saying.

I don’t think we can let the possibility of prejudice or passion keep us from discussing these topics. And I think that if you TRULY believe in something and you’re NOT trying to persuade people to it then you probably don’t actually believe it all that much.

I think that hits on another part of the problem – and that’s our age of relativism. There is a loss of the sense of any kind of objectivity in the first place. There is a sense that every point of view must be treated as equally valid simply because somebody holds it. That’s weird. In an objective reality one side will always be nearer the truth than the other on a particular point. Our goal must be to work together to find that objective truth…not to muddle it with uncertainty, lack of discussion, or a false sense of “balance.”

We put it out there (respectfully of course)…however passionate and prejudice we may be and we let it collide with the passions and prejudices of opposing sides. The grinding together is what lessens the prejudice and clears away misguided passions to eventually reveal this objectivity we desire and ultimately the truth.

If we bottle it all up or only express it in bubbles of affirmation, the prejudice and misguidance flourish.

Problem is when someone ‘discusses’ politics or religion, 99% of the time it’s not ‘discussion’. It’s really not true ‘examination’ of a topic. It’s persuasion. It’s person ‘A’ trying to persuade person ‘B’ to see the light, as they see it. We have all done it. There is nothing wrong with it. It’s human to be passionate. In fact, it’s wonderful to be passionate enough about something to want someone else to share that same passion. Kind of like when you see a really great movie or hear an awesome song and you want a friend to experience the same feeling of passion you do. But sometimes, no matter how hard you try to get them to like that song you like,they are not able to share this same feeling of passion. They don’t hear it like you hear it. They don’t get that feeling you get.

My point is, I think that ‘political discussions’ or ‘religious discussions’ are almost oxymorons. I really believe that in order to truly ‘examine’ something, in the most absolute form of the word, it must be done objectively and without passion or prejudice for one side or another.

Thus, the old saying that politics and religion aren’t fit to be discussed. If we were not human, i.e. if we were able to remove the passion and persuasion from these ‘discussions’ then we would probably learn a lot more! Just my $.02.

So my point is this: I would discuss both, but rather separately because mixing it up just makes it all the more difficult to come to a point.

Phew.

Pamela, you might point out to your mother that among practicing Catholics the numbers are quite different.

I’ve long thought the same thing.

If people can competently argue over the best quarterback of all time or the merits of movie A vs. movie B, they can do the same for religion and politics. The latter topics just require a bit more involvement.