Have I mentioned that people fascinate me?
Today in the tea room at work there were 3 of us at the table. Somebody happened to notice a pile of Christian pamphletts when I sat down in front of them. On the front it didn't say much more than "Jesus something something" and it had a picture of a dove on it. We assumed a patron must have given them to another staff member, who probably brought them around back. This outraged to both of them. One of them said it was "absolutely disgusting" and the other said she would like to throw it out. "That is so offensive," was another line thrown out there. I told them not to throw them in the bin. I think the most important thing in a situation like this is the intention of the religious person - in other words, it's the thought that counts. Somebody who believes that God loves us and Jesus saves us wanted to pass on something they felt was very special, it's as simple as that. From their point of view, they were offering us the best gift of all, and they didn't even know us. Isn't that sweet? Also I just generally disagree with disrespecting any object that has value placed on it by other people, whether that's spiritual or financial, whatever.
I didn't really get a chance to say anything even remotely like any of that, though, and it probably wouldn't have gone down well. I just asked "what's wrong with it just sitting there?" and The Lady Who Picks On Me primly announced, "Religion is a matter of personal choice and we shouldn't have to put up with it being INFLICTED on us." She practically spat when she got to that word, "inflicted". I thought, holy crap it was just sitting there, you guys wouldn't have even noticed if I'd sat somewhere else! Inflicted? I mean, you could just not look at it, somebody else might appreciate the gesture, it's not like somebody was following them around demanding they convert ... =S
Why would this upset them so much?
What fascinated me further was the fact that I knew there was no way I could ask my question without my head getting bitten off. Because at some point I mentioned that I'd gone through 12 years of Catholic schooling the first lady assumed I was Catholic (which I find amusing because once a priest recommended an exorcism for me when he found out I was going to a Buddhist Temple). So she would have assumed I was being blindly defensive. The Lady Who Picks On Me had made her Big Bold Statement with such dramatic and aggressive flair that I didn't think I would get any sense out of her even if she didn't choose to get offended.
If I had asked them to justify their attitude and behaviour, I'm sure they would have become quite defensive themselves. But they really didn't make any sense to me. I genuinely just wanted to understand, but I'm sure they would have just assumed I was judging them and/or trying to change them - that's how most people seem to react. Why do people need to be so attached to their senses of self that it hinders our ability to have objective, constructive conversations? I get so confused trying not to upset people over trivial things - that's why I sometimes maybe come across as a bit of a pushover. It is near-impossible for me to predict when somebody's going to be upset over something that makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I still can't work out what's a reasonable problem at least by convention. I can't prioritise this sort of thing, it ALL seems frivolous to me.
I asked my parents about the whole thing over dinner, they thought it was fair enough (my Dad being the reason I got baptised Catholic) because people shouldn't have to be pressured or something. But, again, I totally fail to see a source of pressure in this scenario. My brother walked in at this point and goes "ohhh yeah cos THIS GUY never gets upset about ANYTHING" - I'll admit I found this frustrating because once again, it was an example of people's defensiveness totally getting in the way of my understanding. Why did he have to assume I was judging them? Why does everybody do that? I spot a failing in my ability to interact properly with another person and have figured out that the reason is because of a particullar difference between my way of thinking and theirs. Then I seek to understand it. That's just logical! I am aware that this seems like a defensive reaction in of itself, and while I love irony like that usually, it's actually a different, even better kind of irony - the fact that people keep making that assumption is yet another failure of mine to interact properly, so I will probably obsess over that too until I find a way to avoid the problem.
Anyway, my parents quickly grew weary of the topic on the grounds that I didn't need to care about every little thing, but I insisted that I had no emotional investment in this, I was just really REALLY interested because I could not understand it. They told me I didn't need to understand everything. I found that statement amusing because I didn't really understand IT, either. Then I said we didn't have to talk about it anymore, seeing as how they were clearly getting frustrated and that was just one more thing I didn't quite get xD
And that's my story. Oh by the way, does anybody want a pamphlett filled with stories about how Jesus saved various people in modern times? I've happened across a bunch somehow ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
religion's a funny one michael, a lot of people get very passionate about their religion, other people's religions, the opinion that religion is being "forced" on someone... it's funny because these same people often don't get as passionate about other issues, big issues that might affect them more.
it's very unusual to be able to rationally discuss different religions etc, particularly if you have a strong faith yourself. religion and politics - politics is very similar.
Maybe they were offended cause it was blatant proselytism/propaganda?
Seriously, leaving religious pamphlets in a public and educative place (I assume at work = at the library) is probably forbidden. Or should be.
And don't be so naive about the sweet "intention", you haven't talked to the person, you only "assumed" what their point of view was from your own point of view.
Anyway, as pure as the thought might be it's not what should be considered as the most important thing -not even in this situation.
Oh, by the way, it's "pamplet" with ONE "T" and not "pamplett".
Same with particular, only one "L".
:)
And as I have trouble with the "h" on my keyboard, I, of course, wrote pamplet instead of pamphlet.
So unsurprising...
Who is Kinsey-said-it-all?
I wouldn't be so quick to judge somebody as naiive or uninformed just because they have a different point of view to you. After all, you didn't talk to the person either =] And even the most twisted religious types have good intentions, or at least think they do.
Free speech includes proselytism, and, I suppose, being loudly offended by it. We also have free will and are capable of looking at a pamplett, thinking, "hmm, not for me then" and leaving it at that. Nobody was offended by the girl scouts pamphletttttt, which had essentially a similar contention - "girl scouts are awesome, we'd love it if you signed your daughters up". They just looked at it and said, "ah nah, Cynthia wouldn't be into that stuff".
Spelling "mistakes" are of no consequence to me, as I am a Grammar Descriptionist, not a Prescriptionist. There is no such thing as innately "correct" use of language, there is only convention, which routinely changes over time. Naiive, for example, was originally spelt with one "i" only if you put two dots above the i, it may interest you to know that your spelling featuring one dot and one "i" is the newer, radical variant - and relatively recently it would have been branded "incorrect" =]
Kinsey = Alfred Kinsey? He's one of my heroes. He did say a lot =]
Post a Comment