Smoking Grassroots: Politics and Religion: Two Topics That Ask the Most Important Questions … So Why Avoid Them in Friendly Conversation?

By JOSHUA ALLEN

No politics; no religion. The times I’ve been told those two topics are not to be talked about are uncountable. Often in casual conversation; often with friends and family … and certainly at most every bar I’ve enjoyed cocktails in.

It’s as if to disagree means there will inevitably be conflict, thus breaking the peace of a casual outing or serene conversation. In all the places or all the times I’ve been told to avoid politics and religion, the aforementioned thought insinuating the inevitability of conflict is a real concern. While that may be the case, I think it’s unfortunate, and I think we should change it. We should not avoid these topics, we should cherish the moments we may could have exploring those disagreements that would without doubt arise. Every moment we can learn, we shouldn’t pass up. Should we? I don’t think we should, but it seems most people – at least those I’ve spent time with living in and around rural cities in the South – do not share this sentiment.

Before I get too deep into the weeds, I want to clarify that I’m not saying we should discuss politics and religion at all times or every time we find ourselves in conversation. I am saying, however, that we should not avoid it. After all, within the two topics are asked the deepest, most important inquiries concerning human existence. Whether it’s admitted or not, those questions and how we ascertain answers make us who we are. Outside what we are by way of genetics, our method for obtaining truth, for interpreting reality, is what forms our worldview – the lenses through which we see the navigation system to our lives.

Politics, by definition, pertaining to government policy, asks questions concerning the best and most fair way to govern masses of people – at least that’s the idea in a democracy. Assuming (though that may not be the best idea) that readers of this have a basic knowledge of our representative democracy, I’m going to continue digging this hole with as few definitions as possible. Notwithstanding, the concepts, ideas and implications of government policy – of governing people – matter on a macro level and a micro level. In other words, politics matter on a day-to-day scale, as well as a year-to-year, decade-to-decade, generational scale … micro, macro, respectively. There is no way to even discuss politics, much less initiate any political action, without having to as close to compromising terms which deal with ethics, morality, justice, economics and social culture. Are not those the most important concepts when questioning what it really means to be a human within a society of many other humans?

Where else are those things at the forefront of the conversation?

Religion – humanity’s attempt to explain reality by appealing to the spiritual, metaphysical or supernatural. That is no endorsement or judgement of the validity or truthfulness of religion. I’m only speaking of religion as merely an institution that seeks to find answers to inquiries into what is the best way to live as a human with other humans – questions of ethics, morality, justice, society and culture. There are too many religions to count, to even name.

For the sake of ubiquity, I am primarily speaking of the three monotheistic religions, the most dominantly practiced in the world: Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

To not even get involved in speaking on the validity of religion – I wouldn’t want to start a fight – I will simply say, I think those that are believers should have, in the very least, a tenable reason for that belief, one that can be iterated in conversation, and one that can be argued without contempt or conflict. The Apostle Paul seemingly shared that sentiment, writing in his second letter to his protégé, Timothy (II Timothy 4:2), to be “ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke and exhort …”

The same expectation of having an honest, defendable position is applied to those who do not believe, are secular, agnostic or of some alternate belief system. Why believe anything as truth without an explainable method for obtaining it or some process for validating evidence or the lack thereof?

And the aforementioned question serves as a good Segway to my point, as this is no treatise on religion or a reliance on faith. I do think it is true that not all the questions one may ask while pondering existence or pondering the best way to live and treat each other while existing have binary, “right or wrong” capital ‘T’-like, absolute answers. That is not to say that I am espousing some form of postmodernism – a land where there, reportedly, is no such thing as objective, absolute truth. On the contrary … there are some answers to some questions that I believe to be true, objectively, in as much that these truths hold no matter who is asking the questions, at what period in time they’re being asked or where they’re being asked.

There is no need I have right now to name any of those questions that I think have absolute answers. That is not the point of this piece. This is not to argue any point … as a matter of face, I’ve not made any truth-claim, outside suggesting and endorsing the idea that we should discuss these things with each other, whether we agree on any truth or lack thereof, disagree on each other’s findings or conclusions or decide there is no way of obtaining an answer, regardless of agreement or not.

I guess what I’m saying is that it’s not the questions or even the answers we have come to that should cause conflict, strife or avoidance in conversation. We should want to not only ask these questions – and we all have and have drawn conclusions, whether consciously or not – but want to discuss the possible answers with each other. Much information and knowledge stands to be gleaned from honest, intellectual conversation. It may be the most important part of my personal method for obtaining truth.

I mean I could be wrong, but this is not about answers; it’s about the method used to reach them. Too many people try and possess the answers they’ve found to those deepest questions about life. This will cause conflict every time they’re faced with opposition. When we let ourselves get defined by the conclusions we’ve reached, we will literally fight with those that disagree because we feel judged as a person by the very idea that our self-defining answers are being argued, questioned or challenged.

There is no answer to any question concerning politics and religion that I take ownership of … actually, my favorite and only self-defining answer to many of the deep, extensional questions is “I don’t know.” I’ll own that.

It’s not my answers to anything that form my worldview. It’s my method for ascertaining answers that defines me. It’s my opinions, my answers I want to keep fluid – allowing for correction and room for myself to be proven wrong. Most of the time, especially concerning politics and religion, it’s not about right or wrong, it’s about what we’re doing here and how to treat each other, compromise being optimum. Compromise can’t be reached outside conversation. So, let’s talk about it, not avoid it.