Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So, our church has recently launched a new video series on "How to defend religious freedom respectfully"
This is the new video:
To anyone from any religious or non-religious group who has ever felt the need to defend their beliefs/philosophy...
The best way to interact with people who hold different beliefs is to: grant them the right to their beliefs and move on.
Or is there some reason your interaction must necessarily focus on the difference of these beliefs?
.
I voted other, because the first thing to do is to know what their beliefs are and how that informs their life and personality and similarly they should know about you. Once that is done, then one can assess if a defence or a polemic is needed at all.So, our church has recently launched a new video series on "How to defend religious freedom respectfully"
This is the new video:
To anyone from any religious or non-religious group who has ever felt the need to defend their beliefs/philosophy...
One thing I try is to translate my thinking into the person's terms. If they are Christian, I coach my ideas into palatable terms that they can more readily understand. Without being a total dork about it, I'm painfully aware of the fact that the person I am talking to has little chance of understanding my raw, unfiltered ideas. (From your description above, it would seem that you understand to a degree what I mean.)I can give an example, since I talk and I'm friends with my co-worker. My co-worker is extremely christian. We can talk about cooking and something that inspires her about food would bring her to her foundation of talking about Christs or god. I don't have that personality, as I wasn't raised in a seminary like she has and wasn't raised Christian, but when I talk to her, I'd consider it rude to "move on." (This is interaction between friends rather than strangers) I'll voice my say, such as I understand or that makes sense and that's about it.
It does depend on the person too. With people I don't know, I have an easier time talking with than people I know. A lot of people don't know what Buddhism is and I try not to be a mirror of what Buddhist believe since we don't all believe the same thing. As for people I know, it's almost a "I have the upper hand" situation. Hard to move on, though, when that person's life and conversation centers around the thing you want to move over. Minds well not be friends.
So, our church has recently launched a new video series on "How to defend religious freedom respectfully"
This is the new video:
To anyone from any religious or non-religious group who has ever felt the need to defend their beliefs/philosophy...
Peace be on you."How to defend religious freedom respectfully".....
To anyone from any religious or non-religious group who has ever felt the need to defend their beliefs/philosophy...
I voted 'other'. I try to understand other positions and form an intelligent objective opinion of their understanding. I then like to discuss with the other person. If I feel the other person has a more innocent faith in something positive, I may not challenge but sympathize.
For some reason, the video on my phone and computer are not streaming the video so I can watch it.
In general, I rather find equal ground or foundation between both people best so if we are talking about different beliefs we still have things in common. It helps because I feel conversation about religion, especially, should be for learning rather than debate. In the religion I follow, I just read that "one should never engage in frivolous debate over the various doctrines or dispute or wrangle over them." To interact with people of different faiths that drastically differ than our own is respect. The only religious I have this issue with is strong protestant Christians that live with me and work with me. So, interaction and finding a common foundation is near zero given they are not open (by admittance and non-verbally) to see in my and others shoes of those who disagree with them religious wise.
I also find that interaction with people of different religions would be easier if we learned about each other's faiths and take interest. I say this because we ask about the other person's favorite color, what type of music they like, but do we ever take the time to ask about who they are rather than what they like?
I voted 3 and 4 because when you are calmly talking about common issues and paying attention to non-verbal cues, you can begin to touch on more contentious issues in a more relaxed, less combative manner. It's always about the long game... never the short, easy victory.
I voted other because each person is different. I try to read the other person before deciding what to do. In some cases, I will just walk away. In others, where I see there is some hope to have some kind of growth on either or both sides, then I'll continue with a discussion. Certainly I would never have voted for either of the first two options. Certainly, as in the video, listening is a key. I thought the video was well done, perhaps a little sugar-coated.
I wonder, is there a specific situation we are voting on or are you looking for some sort of all encompassing preference?
The best way to interact with people who hold different beliefs is to: grant them the right to their beliefs and move on.
Or is there some reason your interaction must necessarily focus on the difference of these beliefs?
.
I can give an example, since I talk and I'm friends with my co-worker. My co-worker is extremely christian. We can talk about cooking and something that inspires her about food would bring her to her foundation of talking about Christs or god. I don't have that personality, as I wasn't raised in a seminary like she has and wasn't raised Christian, but when I talk to her, I'd consider it rude to "move on." (This is interaction between friends rather than strangers) I'll voice my say, such as I understand or that makes sense and that's about it.
It does depend on the person too. With people I don't know, I have an easier time talking with than people I know. A lot of people don't know what Buddhism is and I try not to be a mirror of what Buddhist believe since we don't all believe the same thing. As for people I know, it's almost a "I have the upper hand" situation. Hard to move on, though, when that person's life and conversation centers around the thing you want to move over. Minds well not be friends.
I voted other, because the first thing to do is to know what their beliefs are and how that informs their life and personality and similarly they should know about you. Once that is done, then one can assess if a defence or a polemic is needed at all.
religious freedom doesn't exist as an absolute; We are all products of our environment, and have beliefs based on our upbringing, school and education, what we have read, seen or heard on TV. So the choice of our beliefs is not entirely in our conscious control.
My beliefs, on paper at least, include the elimination of religious belief and independent thought. If everyone lives and works together, they have to think alike and share a consensus even if it's not necessarily identical. The sense of uniqueness in individuality is gone though and that is a problem for most people because of how they value themselves and by what measure.
What I do with that belief is still up to me however to interpret. Most religions and philosophies share something in common as part of the dominant ideology of society and can agree a basis for tolerance. When you are mainly outside that ideology, the capacity for mis-understandings and conflicts escalate. The hardest part of defending my own beliefs is reconciling the sense that they are true with the emotionally overwhelming sense that virtually everyone I meet wouldn't want them to be true. The self-loathing, doubt and guilt is intense and that is most of the battle: accepting that, whatever people may or may not think, it is an objectively true belief which I cannot ignore gets you a part of the way there. You have to go over every argument and double check the reasoning and make sure it is defensible. It's very insecure as most of the time your beliefs and pretty quickly yourself, become "unnatural", "unrealistic", "impossible", "evil", "totalitarian", etc. I just follow the evidence and the arguments and see which conclusion I reach- it was never deliberately meant to be hostile or offensive. There comes a point however when you have to let go, as no belief is absolutely true, right or wrong, and that process of "acceptence" gives you a much bigger perspective on the disagreements you have with others.
Whilst this society offers the opportunity for independent thought, actually using it is very different as dissent changes your relationships to friends, family members and peers as well as your identity. There are powerful incentives to conform, often that you were trained into from childhood, and learning to violate those hidden norms in controlled and acceptable ways is tough. You test the water to see if you get burned and it gets easier each time you step outside of the box. Psychologically, it's still very stressful because your only human and some part of you wants to "shut up" because you want people to like you by thinking and behaving like them. Looking at society from the margins does give you a different understanding of the world, and can be useful if you want to give advice based on insights that come from being on the "outside". People can respect that and find it useful. It's one of the better aspects of my experiences and reflects a deeper sense that I want to help that can cross the divide.
However It's very lonely and isolating and that is what you have to learn to deal with- that sense that you have cut yourself off from everyone else and that the very language means something different to you than to others, Thought patterns are different based on changes in understanding of logic or that you don't share the same understanding of history or science and have to fill in the gaps whilst trying to tell the difference between someone missing your point and you actually being wrong. You are a collectivist without a collective to belong or identify with, a machine part that never fits into the grand scheme of things and that is at odds with it. The disconnect is always there.
The worst bit is the identity crisis. As the way you use the language changes, the words you'd use to describe yourself change their meaning and trying to explain what you believe to someone who doesn't share that intellectual vocabulary is an intimidating experience as its their identity to. They've been taught that words like "totalitarian", "socialist", "communist", etc are bad or represent the worst humanity can be. They want nothing to do with it- and that feels like they want nothing to do with you. It's the feeling you get when you picked the side of the devil and then have to learn to advocate the unthinkable. An intellectual equivalent of the nightmare where everyone sees you naked- but of course, we were taught to feel shame, we were not born that way. I'm still not sure how I'm going to approach dating with a toxic label- savour it perhaps as dark and sexy, let it out almost as a dare. Sex and Power play suits the totalitarian mindset, as long as your not an *******.
The hardest part is how unexpected it is to someone who has never heard the other side of the story. So sitting in front of them as they spew the same lines you've heard for the thousandth time as if it were self-evident when your identity, self-worth and experiences tell you it's ******** is tricky. You want to hit them but you want them to like and respect you too. A comment with no ill intent can feel like an insult or a personal attack and you have to learn to be patient and try to tell whether someone is deliberately trying to **** you off, or if their ignorance means they don't know how offensive what there saying is. Often the insults are partially true but the "complexity" evades people because they are using them as a put down to finish an argument- thinking that x,y or z is indefensible when really the arguments only just started because they never thought about it before or have a fixed view that can seem black and white. The trick is getting them to open up to the shades of grey that you live in, the less than perfect reality and leave behind the purity of abstract ideas, for the messiness of practicing those beliefs and living with them.
In the end, you get a bit existential. You have to live and let live, know that you cannot control others beliefs or what they think about you and so long as they are not violent, not do violence towards them. You let go- accept you are small and that no matter how dangerous society says your beliefs are, they are only ideas and ideas alone cannot hurt anyone. But small is not insignificant- you keep smashing through the boundaries into unexplored territories, reaching out into the unknown and wondering who you will become in the alien landscape you call "home". You accept your thoughts and feelings are not sins, and that you aren't "crazy" (even if it would be easier for everyone else). It is just who you are. It's still up to you to decide what to do with these beliefs and you have some control over its worst aspects. You respect yourself and learn not to anger quickly, be patient and know when to quit and walk away and most of the time, others will respect you even if they don't understand you or what you believe. They see the effort you put in even if they don't know what it's for.
Peace be on you.
Ahmadiyya-Muslims' view:
1-Know and practice own faith.
2-Know other religions' original, nascent teaching.
3-Know how much other religions have deviated from their original creed.
4-Talk to others with respect, and in friendly way.....Talk according to person and situation.
5-Show patience.
6-Be persistence.
7-No compulsion.
+
+
.
I didn't know it did. It doesn't for me or most people I know.So, where does it become hard to grant them the right to their beliefs?
Or the vast majority of people.A functional society needs some sort of laws everyone can agree on to live in peace with one another
What gets tricky?I supposed that is where it all gets tricky.
Agreeing on laws that everyone can agree to.I didn't know it did. It doesn't for me or most people I know.
Or the vast majority of people.
What gets tricky?
.
In this sense, I am meaning "game" somewhat metaphorically, as much of interpersonal communication is almost the intellectual equivalent of a game of "peek-a-boo", as most of us tend to mask what we are really thinking lest the unvarnished truth offend the person with whom we having a discussion. I almost never expect to "win anyone over" and am more inclined to simply plant seeds in their thinking, to expand their thinking in ways that I think might be helpful. That is more how I am meaning the "long game". I do agree that in the vast majority of cases, due to peoples inherent lack of communication skills, if you approach these discussions as a game, your motivations will become clear rather quickly. Similarly, it is difficult to hide intelligence, and if one is much more intelligent that the person(s) one is speaking with a real ice-breaker is to employ liberal doses of humor. Keep 'em laughing and keep their heads bobbing in knowing agreement.Why does it have to be a game with a victory? Why can't it just be two people talking about different ideas - without the need to convert anyone to anything? If there is some motive to win the other person over - it doesn't matter how relaxed or "non-combative" everyone tries to make it, the game under it all will shine through, there will be tension and jabs in the conversation, and it will lead to a non-genuine relationship. Just being polite is not good enough. A happy society can only be created if everyone stops trying to win others over to whatever viewpoint it happens to be I think.
But it isn't necessary to get everybody to agree on them, just a majority of our lawmakers. In the USA laws are created by the people we elect to our legislatures.Agreeing on laws that everyone can agree to.