"B-A-B-Y. M-A-M-A. This goes out to all my baby mama's. I got love for all my baby mama's!"

The following post is actually a comment to a post on reappropriate.com (I don't have the techie know-how to post links, plus it's 2 AM and I'm exhausted) Anyway, check it out if you want context. Otherwise, just try to follow along and wait for my next "Whatever happened to Voltron" rant which I'm sure will come out of my mouth sometime during the next week...

Brace yourself, 'cause I may never say this about your site again.

You're right, Jenn. You're absolutely right.

In this country, we do have a negative tendency to measure everything against Judeo-Christian norms. Hell, it's on our money! That's not a reason, but an excuse, I know.

The problem is, religion is such a touchy matter for all involved.There is nothing tangible to grasp. There's as much reason to NOT believe in something as there is TO believe in something. And with many people, it's a love or worship scenario. Now, I know many people out there will agree that you can sometimes love something or someone without understanding why, or better yet, being able to CONVEY why. The heart and the mind aren't always invited to the same parties. Some people can offer up genuine reasons, while for others, it's an Apple Jacks situation: "I dunno why I believe this...I just DO".

I've never been a Jesus fish, soul-winning kind of person. I feel that all and every religion is a deeply personal matter. But I don't think it's simply a matter of being open-minded and accepting for things in "The America Situation" to change. You can't just decide that you're ready to learn about Buddha. I feel, much in the vein of the Bill Cross Model of Minority Development (you're smart kids; look it up), you have to have an "encounter" that makes you question your views and outlook. Something in your life has to enable and prepare you to open your mind. But the road to understanding, much like the road to Hell, is paved with good intentions.

I had my encounter over the weekend, and I ended up hurting the one person I love most in this world. Why did this happen? Well, in order to learn about new experiences, it's common to try to associate them with knowledge that you already posess. After all, you're not gonna be able to fly a plane just 'cause you're a good figure-skater. Instead, you will try to grasp a part of the process that relates to some kind of knowledge you already possess and it makes learning much easier. But by trying to understand a new way of thinking (new to me, at least), I kept falling into the trap of forcing it into my enmeshed Judeo-Christian framework.

Now, I honestly believe I was trying to understand and be open-minded and receptive, but it began to come across as judging and accusatory. Therein lies the problem with faith-based discussions. I feel that there is a limit to disclosure. There is only so much one is willing to share because, maybe, there is only so much that one CAN share. Sure, you can try to put it into words, but what makes faith and religion so important to people is that nameless, sort of personal fulfillment that ones gets from their faith. Time for another metaphor(I do SO love them):

Sometimes, with parallel parking, we use the other cars as guides to figure out our own position. But sometimes, when you're not careful, you hit one of those other cars. That's what I did: I hit one of the cars, and man do I love that car (Man, if you bring your feminist readership over to my site, they are gonna have a FIELD day with that one. Sorry, ladies...).

Then, there's also the selfish angle to it. While many people feel like they're open to new ideas, there's the inherent fear that this new knowledge will somehow take away from their former beliefs rather than enhance them. The whole hurdle of, "Well, we can't both be right." Once even an inkling of this comes to the surface, it causes both parties to retreat and sort of become more defensive of their viewpoints. Kinda like, "You had a shot. I was lettin' you in. But you had to go and fuck up!"

So, I guess my post leads to this: you're good at pointing out problems, but dish out a solution. How are we to truly change the paradigm? How can we change the system when it's so hard to gain the understanding necessary to shake shit up? 'Cause I know how you and JL love a good verbal sparring match, but one of the things I've always been impressed by/in awe of/taken aback by/ashamed of/embarassed by (yup all and any of those) is y'alls ability to go to Hell and back on a topic with another party, and emerge like nothing happened. I've witnessed conversations with K and many others, where y'all really let it hit the fan. When all's said and done, you and J simply wipe your brows, with a "Whew, that was a good workout!", while the other party is mumbling assassination plots under their breath. You have transcended to this realm where you honestly believe, "Hey, it's nothing personal", while debating what might be, to some people, the most intense and passionate feeling that they hold dear. I guess I've learned that the point is that if you really care about that other party and his viewpoints, then the journey to Hell is worth it. But, is there a way to do this, and gain this understanding, and truly come across as ready to learn, WITHOUT the pain, resentment, and friction? I guess we could just say, "Leave your preconceived notions at the door", but that's so much easier said than done, even with the best intentions at heart.

Or, an even bigger question: MUST we try to understand the other religions? Is it merely enough to accept that there are other religions, without trying to learn more about them? To me, that seems like a cop-out, but maybe the point is I don't have to understand other religions. I just need to make sure I don't force my own on them. We kind of set up a faith-based neutral sphere around ourselves. "You do your thing, and I'll do mine." Once again, I feel like this is cheating because there's so much we could learn from each other, and this sharing is the only hope of breaking down a few barriers...

I mean, I am honestly ready to learn. I know that it will be hard at times, but I don't want to be known as the guy who only participated in the discussion til shit hit the fan. I will be the Killen in this scenario: put me on trial for every close-minded Christian on American soil. But how do we go about my education?

Maybe y'all don't know what I'm talking about, what with my metaphors and such, but I figured I'd offer up a little deeper than my usual Pop culture beat dreck...

Posted by William @ 6/27/2005 02:11:00 AM
permalink | 4 comments

 

4 Comments:

• At 6/27/2005 12:30:07 PM, Karlos said…

  I'd say you have to start with: what do you believe, and why?
  
  Understanding your own mind, your own journey, will be invaluable in helping you understand someone else's. While you're exploring your beliefs, try to avoid mental masturbation, too: it's easy to fall into the trap of admiring the belief system you've built, but that won't help; instead, try to tear down everything you know and rebuild it. If you can do that, you'll learn a lot in the process.
  
  Produce some moments in which you actually scratch your head and think, "why do I believe that?" and you're getting somewhere. I've literally broken things down as far as "why do I believe that 2+2=4?" (and that's saying something for an engineer). It's tough to do honestly, and it's not comfortable (or comforting), but I think anyone who hasn't done it is building a house of cards on a pile of sand.
  
  I hope that made some sense, and I hope I didn't go too "self-help" on ya.
  
  --------------------------------
  If you enjoyed this, please look for these Karlos self-help books:
  -How to Pimp in the Midwest
  (excerpt: "The pimp hand must be kept strong - even in the corn field")
  -I'm a Straight White Man, But I Don't Feel Like a Bastard
  (excerpt: "Don't worry; you are")
  -Being an Engineer Without Being an Engineer
  (excerpt: "Don't give your computers female names. Oh, and no one does the Macarena anymore; cut it out.")

   

• At 6/27/2005 01:34:19 PM, James said…

  Will said: "I guess I've learned that the point is that if you really care about that other party and his viewpoints, then the journey to Hell is worth it. But, is there a way to do this, and gain this understanding, and truly come across as ready to learn, WITHOUT the pain, resentment, and friction?"
  
  Will,
  
  I never debate anyone with the express purpose of changing their mind on anything. It's not possible. Maureen says that in all the years I've known her, she's never changed my mind on anything, and I have no problem with that. We are not on this planet to teach one another and gain understanding. I'm no one's instructor.
  
  Plus, it's not a journey to Hell to have a conversation or debate with me or Jenn. Quite the contrary. We respect other people's viewpoints. The difference is probably articulation. Ofttimes (like in most religious debates) we encounter people who are so blindly adamant in their beliefs that any reasonable questioning of their standpoint engenders the assassination plots of which you speak. For example, I had the audacity to question a possible cultural commitment to violent over-exuberance by a rigidly defined group of affluent White males on my blog last week, and Shelly found it racist. Now, I don't mean to denigrate her perspective, but what was interesting to me in the exchange was that, given Shelly's rhetoric, the barest inkling of negativity directed towards any segment of our generation's White mainstream was considered too controversial for reasonable discussion by her; hence, the epithet 'racist'.
  
  My point here? Most discussions on religion mirror this phenomena. Person A speaks publicly about his own particular belief (Tom Cruise discussing Scientology on the Today show, denigrating psychiatric drug use). Person B, often tied in with the dominant culture, reacts with stunned disbelief (Matt Lauer asking Cruise, "But Brooke Shields says that the drugs worked. Isn't that better? Isn't that ok?"). Person A is depicted by general media and/or his interlocutor as so outside 'normality' that all must regard him a bizarre alien (Media treatment of Tom Cruise referenced in Jenn's postCrusin' For Religious Freedom). Replace Cruise's commentary with mine and Lauer's reaction's with Shelly's and you may see my point. To paraphrase Dylan, if I'm the geek, who's the freak?
  
  Discussions on religion, or any other topic? Totally necessary and useful. Fanatic adherence to banal mainstream perspectives without trying to question them? Where the problems start. The solution? Stop looking for some grand unified theory. Understanding does not exist. Debate is conflict, and conflict is both useful and necessary for ideological survival. So be willing to fight it out, knowing that no one is right and no one is wrong.

   

• At 6/27/2005 03:27:58 PM, Jenn said…

  Aaaagh! There's two debates going on in two different places. If this were a forum I'd be reaching for the split and merge button faster than Katie Holmes' career is gonna be over.
  
  However, I do have to say this before going back to my own blog (because dammit. I'm selfish. I want the traffic...), regarding not offering a solution, I point you to the last few sentences of the post:
  
  "Instead, there must be a mindset shift. If we want real debate and discussion regarding religion leading to real choice, for every Cruise that gets publicly crucified, there must be an equal treatment of Graham and his beliefs. (emphasis added)"

   

• At 6/27/2005 04:53:20 PM, Karlos said…

  Oh, btw, since I was used as the example of a sparring partner for the J&J tag team:
  
  In all the years I've known them and all the discussions/arguments we've had, I can only remember getting fed up on 2 occasions. Once was while driving home from NYC (J and I worked it out when we got home and - if only because of Jason's intervention - without either of us breaking the other's nose). The other was incredibly stupid, had something to do with a $15 shelf and/or the delivery of my boxes, and I still blame it entirely on Big Red Shipping-When-We-Get-Around-To-It & Storage-With-As-Much-Damage-As-Possible (I really don't remember what it was about exactly, but I remember being annoyed). Oh, and don't let us play "Risk," either.
  
  Point is, I've never plotted any assassinations over discussions with J&J. Although, just for fun, I've cooked up one for James involving a game of paintball in front of NYPD headquarters...

   

Post a Comment