Where are my manners?

[athelind]

When did it stop being bad manners to talk about religion and personal belief?

Ninety-nine percent of our problems with polarization and conflict stem from the shift in culture that's made this an acceptable topic of public discourse.

I miss the concept of "boundaries".

---

Comments

[leonard-arlotte.livejournal.com]

The cultural shift you mentioned involves a change from discourse, to the assumption that talk about your religion means you are trying to force me to believe your way.

It's a combination of people becoming much thinner skinned, and the need to be absolutely right about everything.

[hinoki.livejournal.com]

I don't know as it's a matter of people becoming thinner skinned.

I think it's more a question of building egotism. 'I have a right to talk about my religion and personal beliefs. If you don't like it, sod off.' seems to be the running mentality.

It used to be that religion and beliefs weren't discussed because it was assumed that it was not a desired topic unless one was first asked, or in a venue that promoted such things. The discussion of belief and religion has spread past those bounds, and is fairly omnipresent, currently.

I'm with Athelind on this one.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

... it was assumed that it was not a desired topic unless one was first asked ...

Not only was asking recognized as a very personal, intrusive question, but politely declining to respond to such a question was accepted as a well-mannered response.

[paka.livejournal.com]

I blame American conservatives.

Christianity as we know it involves telling others about Christianity, because you sincerely want to help your fellows (as well as less noble motivations). Populist movements in conservatism requires a state of constant crisis, in which the conservatives are the proud, the few, the beset on all sides by reduction of their rights at the cost of higher taxes, and therefore need to state their opinions frequently and loudly or they will not be heard at all (this isn't true, but people believe it). And, American right-wingers started off the political trend of name-calling.

The combination of all three of these things in American conservatism results in people who are not silent and who frequently do not feel it is safe to be silent. This prompts a reaction from Americans to the left of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter - since it's now been made into a crisis situation where American "leftists" do not feel they can afford to be silent. Atheists are a great case example; by definition atheism is sort of a laissez-faire philosophy, but most atheists feel they have to be downright militant about it simply to be heard and acknowledged.

Again, I think "our side" - such as it isn't - is part of the problem, but we damn well didn't start it.

[tombfyre.livejournal.com]

Boundaries are all well and good, but there are a few angles to explore on the subjects. :3 I rather like the idea of no subject being taboo, everything being open to conversation and personal exploration, and generally having everything open to debate and questioning.

However, seeing as that particular subject always manages to get a fellows knickers in a twist, it might be time for a slight revision to social etiquette. For example, asking somebody about their beliefs in order to have a pleasant conversation, should be just fine. Openly *TELLING* people all about your little faith system in an unsolicited manner, or alternately preaching with the intent to force conversion, should of course be seen in a negative light.

Also asking people about their faith as an invitation to preach about your own, should likewise be looked down upon. I personally wouldn't mind at all if people kept their faith between themselves and their god, and stopped bothering the rest of us. :3

[pseudomanitou.livejournal.com]

Wait... when was it ever not discussed?

People 50 years ago would ask what church you go to like they asked for your name. At least today people are not so much in a rush to classify you by religion as they were back then: "Oh, you're Jewish? Martha, please get me my rifle so I can take out this trash."

I'm not sure what kind of cultural shift you are seeing...

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Maybe it was just a peculiarity of a particular time and place. This post was prompted by a blog post in which an elementary school teacher had to field uncomfortable questions about the topic from a couple of her students after class one day. One of the respondents expressed dismay that teachers these days couldn't answer questions about their personal beliefs.

In my experience, thought, it was never appropriate for teachers to discuss matters of faith with students -- and said "experience" stems from my elementary years in the early '70s.

It Just Wasn't Done.

What really struck me, though, was that back in my day ... the kids wouldn't have ASKED. It would have been BAD MANNERS, and, at least in the places I lived, EVERYONE KNEW THAT. It wasn't something you brought up in public, and it most certainly wasn't something you interrogated an adult about.

I'm well aware that religious prejudice has always been around, and a major issue, but when I was growing up, it was always a truism that Religion And Politics Were Not Topics of Polite Conversation, any more than were Bodily Functions.

(I've always suspected that the reasoning there was the same. "Everyone may have them, but that doesn't mean anybody wants you to share.")

Maybe it was different in places outside of Southern California. I know I've heard horror stories from people about my age about getting abused in childhood, verbally and otherwise, by aggressive evangelism. Maybe part of it's that very small age difference -- those stories seem to come from people only five or six years my junior, but that period covers the transition from the Peace And Love Era of Godspell to the rise of the Moral Majority.

Maybe it's because my grandfather was an Army chaplain, and thus, despite his Methodist ordination, had to minister to an eclectic flock. He died before I was a year old, but I grew up in a house that had a translation of the Koran right next to a Hebrew Bible and old King James.

This is not to say I didn't encounter artifacts of a more aggressive evangelism. I saw the Spire Christian Comics version of Archie Comics on the racks in some artsy-craftsy stores of the time, but Mom was perceptive enough to distinguish them from the regular Archies, and veto their purchase (or even rack-browsing). In kindergarten and first grade, I started going to a fairly evangelical bible studies at a friend's house; my mother's misgivings are clear to me now, in hindsight, but even then, she was very much of the opinion that we had to make up our own minds on such matters.

It didn't take, by the way. That study group also introduced me to Jack Chick's awful little comics, which I have often credited with turning me away from organized religion.

Did you ever notice that Chick's hateful little tracts are about the same format as the old "Tijuana Bible" pornographic comics? This may be a matter of convergent evolution; both the Tijuana and Chick "Bibles" were printed cheaply, transported covertly, and distributed discreetly, because they contain material calculated to be provocative and outside the bounds of conventional propriety.

[kinkyturtle.livejournal.com]

Oh man, I once bought a Spire Archie comic by mistake. "Oh hey, they have Archie comics here at the supermarket too! ...[purchase, take home, read]... Why does the art look different? ...Oh crap, it's a *Christian* comic!" So I took a pen and a bottle of Liquid Paper and started defacing it for my own amusement. :}

My parents were never religious and never made me go to church or participate in any religious activities of any kind. I am grateful.

[mocha-mephooki.livejournal.com]

Back then... I didn't actually know there were nonchristian Archie comics...

[scarfman]

Religion And Politics Were Not Topics of Polite Conversation

You forgot the Great Pumpkin.

[araquan.livejournal.com]

Ah, good ol' Jack. There was a little old lady who'd set up a table in the Student Union at college and cover the whole thing with pretty much the full library of Chick Tracts. Given where I was, though, I wasn't entirely surprised.

You know, I think I ended up with a copy of those Archie comics at some point too. They were... kind of unusual. If anything turned me away from organized religion in the past, those have to rank up in the top ten- and they weren't even that far out there as such literature goes. Ah well.

[pseudomanitou.livejournal.com]

1. I'm thinking the children were questioning faith because what has been going up is the amount of "pride" people have in their religion, and the drive of some people have to identify themselves by religion instead of other attributes (such as 'artist', 'nurse', 'mother'). This instills behavior in children -- they ask because they observe the almost ethnic importance their parents place on the subject. This is something I have seen on the rise -- after 9/11, people were TOO proud to identify as being of a Western religion.

2. I'd say the wide cultural acceptance of chaplains is growing wider and wider each day. But the intolerance of evangelicals is also growing. Unfortunately, the evangelicals are running a business model -- and that far outpaces the growth of the number of civic duty bound chaplains.

3. Jack Chick... funny you should mention the "Tijuana Bible" -- Jack Chick comics are like the raunchy/nasty logic porn. Just the thought of being alone on a debate floor with any one of the fools who have anything to do with the comic makes me want to touch myself right now ;)

[ebony14.livejournal.com]

Didn't Harley Baldwin (aka "Boss") explain to Miss Friday Jones that the most prevalent sign of the decline of a society was the loss of good manners?

[athelind.livejournal.com]

That was one of Unca Bob's recurrent themes.

[perlandria.livejournal.com]

Because having it NOT discussed led to the kind of social atmosphere that led to monsters like my grandfather. I'll take rudeness that lets pus like that be shown for the otherwise hidden stink it is.

[hafoc.livejournal.com]

To me, it looks like we have a general presumption that we have a right to know everything about everybody under every circumstances. And a moral responsibility to provide said information about ourselves to anyone whether or not they need to know, care to know, want to know. We have a general presumption that publicity is always good and there is no such thing as too much information.

I have heard any number of people saying that "we" (whoever we may be) need to get publicity and explain ourselves to a general public which neither knows nor cares. Why? "Well, you know, we have to explain ourselves." "Why?" (blank stare "Well, you know, we have to explain ourselves..."

I still can't see why anybody should want to give others information they don't need about ANYTHING.

[toob.livejournal.com]

Since when is "because it's good manners" a sufficient reason on its own for doing anything?