Open Forum: How Do We Talk About Religion and Politics? (Without Starting WWIII)
Look, Ms. Manners has already forewarned us. The two subjects we are never supposed to so much as graze over in friendly, courteous conversations are religion and politics. Supposedly, these are the A-Bombs of all social conduct. Basically, with these little firecrackers, forget proceed with caution–do not proceed at all ever.
And yet, religion and politics are important things in people’s lives. In fact, to a lot of people, they can be the most important things. People have waged wars and built entire civilizations around religions and politics. One could argue that they still do. And yet we’re not supposed to so much as mention, let alone have a full conversation, about these monumental subjects?
But, you know, I get it. These subjects are touchy because, well, when someone believes in something so much and may even structure their entire life around it, how do you begin having a possibly opposing conversation with them about such an integral part of their identity? They’re bound to get offended, you’re bound to lose your cool, and, basically, the whole planet is bound to combust into one endlessly loud shouting match.
So, obviously, the only way to avoid staging a remake of Apocalypse Now in your living room (or in front of your nearest embassy) is, well… to avoid touching the whole thing altogether. Right?
But if any of you have been paying any attention to the news in the last couple of days, you’ll have undoubtedly heard of the low budget, borderline pornographic, disgustingly offensive American ‘movie’ mocking the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as well as the insane crap-storm of reactions that Muslims all around the world have been having to this film.
And now, all of a sudden, I feel myself compelled to bring this hairy can of worms into the room (which happens to have an elephant in it). I feel like now, more than ever, is a time when people need to start talking about talking about religion and politics.
Because when my religion (which I truly hold very near and dear to my heart) has been heinously assaulted and ridiculed for reasons that are possibly political and definitely asinine, all I can see is a mass wave of rightful anger being displaced in ways that are, at worst, murderous and, at best, fruitless.
I don’t see a lot of people trying to actually talk this thing out, and attempt to deal with a negative situation proactively.
I’m so baffled by this lack of dialogue we all seem to have with one another, that I’m now desperately trying to put together a how-to post about how we can talk about religion and politics without simultaneously exploding into a million pieces.
But, while I do that, I really wanna hear what you guys think of this. Do you guys think its possible for two opposing sides to have a civil and conducive conversation about religion and politics? Do you think there’s a way that these two opposing sides could ever work together to help zap out the negative, idiotic, offensive pests?
Please share your wisdom, you special snowflake, you!
All my love!
Can’t. Think. Brain. Stuck. On: hairy can of worms with an elephant. Ew. Ew. Ew.
Oh, but they’re not real! They’re euphimisms! I was trying to bring all the euphemisms for awkward, uncomfortable, touchy issues together for one big awkward party. So, c’mon! Pet the elephant!
(I don’t really want you to pet anything. This is another euphemism.)
Sorry, overactive imagination! English lit major alert!
On a serious note, I totally believe in the possibility and success of dialogue; especially when it’s between PEOPLE and not entities/heads of state or institutions that claim to represent someone.
Dialogue, when properly facilitated, can be eye-opening. Its purpose is not to change somebody’s mind, but to present an argument they are unaware of and hopefully get them to emphasize with a certain issues on a basic human level. People usually talk and don’t listen, and the first thing dialogue does is strengthen listening skills by building on common grounds. (Do I sound like a brochure? I worked with Soliya for three years!)
That said, there will ALWAYS be the radical fanatics who won’t listen. At some point you need to recognize those individuals and understand their motive. This particular case of “Muslim Rage” is an excellent example. People have different motives and agendas. Agendas that completely clash may not be interested in dialogue. Sometimes we need to accept that and let go. Engage those who are willing to listen, respond and make a difference.
I think that’s probably the only way for anyone to approach a touchy conversation, especially if it has to do with religion and/or politics. Most of the time people pretend like they’re going into a discussion for discussion’s sake but usually what ends up happening is a kind of mental dueling match–each side tries to find every single vulnerability the other person’s ‘argument’ has and tries to use it as a way to show off and act all condescendingly knowing. This, of course, is where most verbal volcanoes erupt in these kinds of discussions, even if they’re not among extremists.
I honestly think that if you DONT go into this kind of conversation with a truly open mind that has no ulterior motive beyond simple curiosity, you’re going to set yourself up for a pretty explosive situation, that will only make for more polarization and animosity.
The violence is starting to become so predictable its almost boring. Over the last two decades we’ve seen the fatwa against Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh’s murder, the Danish cartoons, violent protests when some idiot Pastor burns a Quran; to name just a few.
Is there any room for optimism? How can you not lose faith in even the possibility of religious discourse that doesn’t end in bloodshed?
RT @Warmaudiokingy “What chance has the human race got if people see a film as more offensive than murder?”
Hmm. Well, I absolutely agree with you on the fact that things have been going from bad to worse when it comes to religious tolerance and people both from within Islam (by that I mean people who generally call themselves ‘Muslim’) and outside it have contributed to the shared habit of always standing on the offensive whenever the subject of religion is so much as broached.
But, I think that the examples you mentioned aren’t really discourse, per se. Just because the word discourse implies an opportunity to have an open, two-sided conversation. Those actions, however, don’t provide any opportunity for such a discourse. In fact, I’d say they’re deliberately and terminally setting out to destroy the opportunity for this kind of discourse to emerge.
If anything, people from every side of ANY religious/political following need to come together to collectively agree upon the fact that the nitwits who commit these acts need to be removed out of the ‘discourse’ equation and are squarely dumped into the garbage pile.
I’m trying to stay hopeful because, based on what I was able to gather, MORE people (Muslim people) actually did find the murder of the US ambassador in Libya more offensive to Islam’s image than that disgustingly insulting movie.
(P.S. Be sure to speak up more, now! ;D)
Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned Pastor Jones. His opinions definitely did not deserve the publicity they received. I should not have mentioned him in the same sentence as the others.
Theo Van Gogh’s movie, although probably deeply offensive, was made in conjunction Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who as an ex-Somali Muslim definitely has opinions worthy of consideration – even if her experiences with the religion are different from the majority’s.
The Danish cartoonists as well. Satire is a great way to bring about discourse. In my opinion: the best way.
I was glad to hear about all the Muslim support for the ambassador. I always felt there’s a bias against Muslims in the western media. And idiots out on the street throwing stones and killing people just provide the press with more fodder.
You know, I actually read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s autobiography and, even when I know that her experience is not reflective of Islam’s indoctrinations or its belief system (just a horribly criminal exploitation of it), I fully support her right to relay her experience to the entire world and to shed a light on any similar suffering that other Muslim, Somalian women may be going through. She has a right to hold the people who caused her suffering globally accountable. I will never take back my support for Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s right to express herself and her beliefs (which are VERY anti-Islam) even if I’ll never really agree with them.
The Theo Van Gogh movie and the Danish cartoons are different discussion though. I will never deny someone’s right to express their point of view, especially through art, but I am a firm believer in the fact that there is a solid difference between freedom of speech and full-on hate crime. As you said, Van Gogh’s movie was deeply offensive (and one could posture even deliberately so), and, I’m sorry, but the Danish cartoons cant really qualify as any form of ‘satire.’ Satire is the mocking of a larger, social reality in a way which inverts the perception that most people seem to have. When you draw a cartoon of the prophet of a religion with bomb on his head instead of a turban, (plus dozens of other similarly insulting stuff) there is no such satirical inversion being made.
That is all hate crime. Theo Van Gogh and the Danish cartoonists did not make their works with the hopes of starting some globally friendly, curious discourse. Their works were insulting because that’s how they wanted them to be. They wanted to spread more hate and polarity not any kind of unity and understanding. Which is, coincidentally, the same exact thing that this Neanderthal behind ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ wanted to achieve and, unfortunately, did achieve.
Pingback: Maybe This is How We Talk About Religion & Politics? (Hopefully Without Starting WWIII) « owlolive
Hi all,
Human beings generally need some type of higher connection. Call it Supreme Creator, or It or Agent on which all things depend on. But the reality is why live with the ‘fear of the unknown’ when you can figure it out right here on Earth. No need to join some outer space galaxtic war, Star Wars and what have you getting Stephen Spielberg involved and all, lol. But seriously you’d e surprised how simple, wholesome and peaceful life can be if you give ‘Truth’ a chance to be examined objectively or under scrutinity, the choice is yours.
Regards,
PS I hope I did the conversation some justice.
Arsito