Whoever first said ‘don’t discuss politics and religion’ may have been on to something. It is probably one of the surest ways to turn friends into enemies, or at least damage friendships. But perhaps that happens because we don’t discuss these taboo subjects enough, rather than too much. I very nearly had one of those Freudian slips a moment ago when instead of typing ‘discuss,’ I started to put ‘argue.’ Maybe if they were more commonplace conversational topics, we’d at the very least be more used to calmly sharing views, and agreeing to disagree without hard feelings, rather than jumping right to anger.
I think there’s a challenge whenever strong feelings are involved and we come up against someone who feels equally as strong, just in the opposite direction. And for some reason, politics and religion both seem to be two areas where middle of the road, devil-may-care, couldn’t care less attitudes are rare. So almost by default, politics and religion are set up to harbour strong emotions.
There can almost be a knee-jerk, automatic confrontational reaction when faced with opposing political or religious views. ‘How can you possibly belief that?’ kind of thinking. A determination to sway the ‘wrong’ thinking person to your ‘right’ way. I by no means mean ‘right’ in terms of ‘left’ and ‘right’ – that’s in taboo political territory after all.
But then again, maybe ‘right’ and ‘left’ are themselves part of the problem, at least for the political portion of the discussion rule. Here we’ve gone and labeled the two sides. By definition putting them in opposition. Setting the stage for confrontation. Why not instead, use both, the best of both, right here, left there, decided point by point, not side by side. And at the end of the day, left and right together, shaking hands, literally.
The performance of both the members is important in a healthy sexual relationship. viagra samples robertrobb.com Research on such equipment will show up a lot of mental energy of men as viagra low cost they can’t help but think about this problem. Latest technologies enable teens to gather all the levitra online india specified data on this matter. For all of this the enzyme called PDE5. cialis online uk
The religion side seems more nebulous to me. While at the core there are two main sides, believers and unbelievers, there are many shades of grey running the gamut of very structured religious beliefs to completely individual to none at all. The more sides there are, perhaps the better. More voices get heard. So many ideas floating about that we better realize we only control our own belief. If we could let go of that need to change another’s mind, maybe we wouldn’t take political or religious disagreements so personally. We could accept that each of us is perfectly capable for deciding for ourselves. Of course there’s strength in numbers and the more the merrier, so of course part of us still wants to sway opinion, bring more people into our way of thinking, whatever it is. But really, when has arguing, or should I say heated discussion, accomplished as much as just leading by example, and trusting we will each find our own way.
If anything, being told what to believe, told how wrong your way, your side is, just reinforces an inner rebellion, causes us to dig in our heels all the more. Closes our mind to other ideas. In our quests to be right, err correct, we can forget about what’s left, err what remains, what we might actually agree on.
So what’s the point of ‘discussing’ things like politics and religion, aside from practicing your debating skills? Maybe there isn’t one, maybe it does just stir up hard feelings. But it does seem like a sad commentary if we can only discuss these subjects with people with whom we agree. Just preaching to our own choir seems a little closed off. Like we’re making believe that the whole world agrees with us, when deep down we know they don’t. Isn’t talking, not arguing, a first step in understanding? A way to see another point of view and perhaps, instead of just seeing the differences, seeing the shades of grey where there’s common ground. And even if we don’t agree, maybe by understanding a little more, we won’t feel so threatened when that next person comes along, and we feel the tell-tale tug of, ‘How can you possibly believe that?’
