And a question about discussing religion

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Good points, PLATO. It would indeed be better if people were more tolerant of other people's choices. Funny, though, in my experience, the intolerance hasn't come from "secularists."

-Arrian

theres all kinds of intolerances. From "you're gonna go to hell for not believing in Jesus" to "a ritual central to your religion should be banned" or "youre one of those good Jews who opposes Israel, right?" or "the communists at least had the right idea about banning religion"

I note (one again, I know its boring, but it still jumps out at me) that in this thread both Christians and secularists take for granted that a 'non-church goer' means a secularist. Odd to think that, in Singapore, with Muslims, Buddists, etc. Of course its probably true, for the most part, of Americans working at the embassy (though I know of at least one Conservative Jew whos an east asia specialist in the FS). Whatever, its no biggie.

I would note that way back in the 1950s, attendance at a house of worship was so taken for granted in the USA, as to transform the US Jewish religious balance. In all Jewish inner city areas like Flatbush or the Grand Concourse, it was routine that non-believing Jews, socialists, secular Zionists, etc did not belong to Synagogues, and appeared in, usually Orthodox ones, only for life cycle events, and maybe briefly on the Yom Kippur. When we made the great migration to the suburbs, these same folks joined Reform synagogues en masse, to have an answer to "where do you go to church?" This not only massively increased the size, wealth, and power, of the Reform movement, it also transformed the movement, by introducing a focus on social justice and Zionism as more important than Reforms previous focus on somewhat ethereal universalist spirituality.

For those for whom even Reform was too religious, there arose "Ethical Culture Societies" which had the advantage of meeting on Sundays instead of Saturday, and being completely godless.

Things have changed dramatically since then. Today id almost say its easier to get sympathy for Jewish ritual observance from Christians than from secularists, including from secularist Jews, and at least here in Dee Cee (where the fundies are a minority) fundies as a whole are not more intolerant of it than liberal christians (though it varies alot from person to person of course), and the folks who probably understand the issues raised by our kind of observance the most, are, of course, muslims and hindus.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

the answer only depends on what effect do you want it to have, and since you didn't want to flame, this was perfectly boring response which would make all but the most hardened fanatic stop in his tracks

[Arrian]

I note (one again, I know its boring, but it still jumps out at me) that in this thread both Christians and secularists take for granted that a 'non-church goer' means a secularist.

I picked up on the term as it was already being used in the thread - and also because I "know" Rufus. IIRC, Rufus is not an atheist, but doesn't go to church.

I know that Rufus is not, for instance, Jewish or Muslim or ____. I wasn't doing any assuming.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


I picked up on the term as it was already being used in the thread - and also because I "know" Rufus. IIRC, Rufus is not an atheist, but doesn't go to church.

I know that Rufus is not, for instance, Jewish or Muslim or ____. I wasn't doing any assuming.

-Arrian

yes, of course, understood. My remark wasnt meant at anyone personally, more a statement about the culture.

[Arrian]

Rufus made it pretty clear that he's not religious (or at least that he doesn't think much of organized religion) right in the OP. So I don't really think there was any assumption required by the posters in this thread.

-Arrian

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by PLATO
Interesting how even the non religious treat religion differently.

You point out why we treat it differently later in your post. It has been my experience that people would typically ask strangers about their religion out of a judgmental, even discriminatory, motive. If everyone treated the issue as casually as they do sports, then asking about ones religion (or lack thereof) wouldn't be rude. The unfortunate fact is that this isn't how the world works.

Polls show that, in the U.S., athiests & agnostics are the least liked and trusted minority group. I know that my wife and I have to lie about our beliefs to her side of the family so as to avoid a massive falling out with them.

I'm used to being less with open about my beliefs with others. I don't mention them around people who I know they will offend. I don't ask others about their religious views. If someone I just met was pushing me as to why I don't go to church, I would be suspicious of the motives behind the question. It's a rude question.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The follow-up question was rude, full stop. Regardless of his motivation, it was far too personal a question to ask of someone he barely knew. That's why the smart-ass answers occured to me. I can easily abide religious sentiment, but cannot abide rudeness.

You can consider it a minor faux pas in any society which doesn't have a forced state religion, but I really doubt he was trying to be rude. He could've been a bit simple, overtly friendly, naive, tired, et cetera.

Your answer was perfect in the situation. A smart-ass question would've made you an, well, ass. If he were to press on this subject you wouldn't want to talk about, you could simply answer in a strict tone of voice: "That's personal. I don't want to talk about it".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Rufus made it pretty clear that he's not religious (or at least that he doesn't think much of organized religion) right in the OP. So I don't really think there was any assumption required by the posters in this thread.

-Arrian

Not all the discussion has been about Rufus, but about the question in general, and how one would answer it. Well church goers and secularists arent the only ones whod be asked it, and that seemed to me be the assumption everyone made. Maybe if i go back and read everyones posts closely I will find no such assumption implicit. Im sorry if I gave offense.


Also note well - Rufus, at the end of his post, addressed himself to church goers and non-church goers. What group was I to be in? Or Aneeshm for that matter?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


You point out why we treat it differently later in your post. It has been my experience that people would typically ask strangers about their religion out of a judgmental, even discriminatory, motive. If everyone treated the issue as casually as they do sports, then asking about ones religion (or lack thereof) wouldn't be rude. The unfortunate fact is that this isn't how the world works.

Polls show that, in the U.S., athiests & agnostics are the least liked and trusted minority group. I know that my wife and I have to lie about our beliefs to her side of the family so as to avoid a massive falling out with them.

I'm used to being less with open about my beliefs with others. I don't mention them around people who I know they will offend. I don't ask others about their religious views. If someone I just met was pushing me as to why I don't go to church, I would be suspicious of the motives behind the question. It's a rude question.

the article seems to mention atheists, not agnostics.

Perhaps it relates in part to the association of atheism (and not agnosticism) with Marxism?

[lord of the mark]

"So, churchgoers: was his follow-up question inappropriate? If not, what answer would you have found satisfactory?
Non-churchgoers: what answer would you have given?"

I will answer both, since I dont know which category im in.

First let me assume "church goer" means "place of worship goer"

The second question was a bit intrusive, but not necessarily inappropriate in all circumstances. There could be legitimate reasons to wonder why, that didnt preface an obnoxious attempt at conversion. Or a judgement. But any response would be satisfactory, and if it was an obnoxious response, well that goes with the territory when you ask an intrusive question.


Now, let me assume church goer means Christian, and that im NOT a church goer.

I would, of course, have said I go to synagogue. Or, in Singapore, I might have said I dont go cause there is no synagogue here that meets my needs. (?) Or perhaps just that Im Jewish. Depending on his agenda, he might then have responded to that in one of many different ways.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by PLATO

I believe that Rufus unwittingly fell pray to that (no pun intended. ) in his thoughts and assumptions.

Don't we all.

But this has now raised a different, and perhaps more interesting question:

As I said, I'm one of the forum's older farts, and I was raised to believe that asking any question about a person's religious beliefs is rude, unless you know the person well (the same goes for asking about political beliefs); my response was, I'm sure, visceral and based on this deeply-ingrained rule of etiquette. I know I wasn't the only kid of my time and place raised that way, but things change. It sounds like this rule has gone the way of bustle and the buggy whip. True?

(Incidently, re the soccer analogy: I actually don't follow any sports at all, and am frequently asked why by other American men -- particularly when playing poker, drinking bourbon, smoking cigars, and otherwise passing for a man in their company. I answer with a similar tautology, "I just never really got into sports" (a soft version of the true answer: "Sports bore me silly"). This tends to elicit looks of pity and contempt (which is why I never follow up with "but I really love musicals!" ), but I've never once had a sports fan convert me or tell me I was going to be condemned to hell for my beliefs -- so hats off to sports fans!)

[Lancer]

Over the decades people quit worrying about stuff so much. As an old school east coast guy myself in some ways it makes life easier and in others less, erm, something.

I do like the fact that it's now ok to fart around women.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Also note well - Rufus, at the end of his post, addressed himself to church goers and non-church goers. What group was I to be in? Or Aneeshm for that matter?

I used it as a convenient shorthand for all house-of-worship goers, LOTM; I certainly meant no offense (either to you, Aneeshm, my wife's many Jewish relatives, or anyone else).

[SlowwHand]

Soccer sucks. Just that plainly. It's brief and to the point.
Concise. Succinct.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Don't we all.

But this has now raised a different, and perhaps more interesting question:

As I said, I'm one of the forum's older farts, and I was raised to believe that asking any question about a person's religious beliefs is rude, unless you know the person well (the same goes for asking about political beliefs); my response was, I'm sure, visceral and based on this deeply-ingrained rule of etiquette. I know I wasn't the only kid of my time and place raised that way, but things change. It sounds like this rule has gone the way of bustle and the buggy whip. True?

I'm 25, but I found it rude.