BreakPoint Blog
|
Talking about faith on campus Every Saturday night, I would get the same question, and then the same reaction, upon boarding the Gillett Residence Hall elevator: “You going out tonight?” one of the boys, already slightly tipsy, would ask. (By “going out,” he meant going to a party and drinking.) “No,” I would say, polite but slightly annoyed, as this happened EVERY week. “Then why are you so dressed up?” “I’m going to church. Do you want to come?” “Oh, you’re one of those people,” he would respond, and deny the invitation. This reaction came as no surprise; it happened each Saturday. I was, to the boys on my floor, one of those people. What exactly they meant by “those” I’m not quite sure. But what I do know is that it certainly wasn’t a positive description. What happened next, though it varied, was always something smart-aleck: “Tell Jesus hi for me.” “I looooove God.” “I’m Catholic. I bet you didn’t know that.” “If I went to church, the place would burn down.” “Say a prayer for me that I’d get laid tonight.” Why do so many non-Christians react in such a negative way to church-attending, Bible-reading people? Is it because they associate them with slandering pastors in Speakers Circle, picketers like those of the Westboro Baptist Church, or the “crazy killers” like those in the Crusades? Unfortunately, the media doesn’t always do an accurate job of representing our true colors, or the true colors of other religions, which can turn into a downward spiral of misjudging people of faith . . . all based on one assumption from, many times, one source. For this reason, I was very excited to read an article in the New York Times that addressed "A Better Way to Talk About Faith.” The reason why Christians and many other religions, I am convinced, get such a bad reputation is because people don’t understand them -- they are uneducated about the real people who represent these faiths. I mentioned this belief in another blog post, “Umbrella Faith?” Thankfully, however, a Chicago-based organization called Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC) has decided to challenge these notions by bringing “college students together across faith and belief lines so that they develop greater respect, comfort and appreciation for one another and their traditions.” As a college student, I will say this: It’s about time.Through “Better Together” campaigns, IFYC hopes to reach 1,500 that encourage acceptance, and most of all, understanding, of other religions. My hope is that Mizzou, where I attend college, will be one of these campuses. Maybe I will be saved from the Saturday night harassment on the elevators. |
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
“I’m Catholic. I bet you didn’t know that.”
Is that a pick-up line...? REALLY?
-That's fine...but people who have tried to convince me to go to church in the past have told me what a comfort it can be for them, and I'm sure it is. I imagine that church/mass/temple can be many things to many different people. It's not always easy, though, to roll out of bed early on any given Sunday, get ready, and have to go out regardless of the weather. My mom and stepdad found a way around that, though, and watch Lon Solomon's service at McClain (sp?) Bible Church from the comfort of their home - and their PJ's and coffee - via the internet.
":-)
Perhaps I am rising to the bait, Anthony, "
~:-) to you as well, Kevin Peet.
Sorry to say though, there is no bait, it was just a question for Megan I had out of slight confusion. It was not intended to start debate or insult anyone - just simply my observations from past experiences and wanted to get a better understanding of what she was talking about. And she did, thank you Megan :)
"May I ask how you are using the word 'tolerate'?"
~Sorry Kevin P, I was referring to #2 of the Merriam-Webster definition of "tolerance" when I initially posted that. I should have specified.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance
and # 2 of
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance
"Er...I am not sure that "quite lovely" is the compliment most boys desire."
-Sorry Jason, but I respectfully disagree :) One night a couple of years ago I went dancing at one of our local dance clubs, and some random very attractive girl came up to me while I was talking to some friends and blurted out, "Aww! You're SOOOO pretty!" then handed me her phone number on a napkin and gave me a kiss on the cheek and left. (For the record, she didn't appear to be intoxicated. Bonus.)
I never used her phone number, but that compliment is still etched in my memory. I think lovely is a great word to use!
"I think Christians have some stuff to learn about other religions - not to say that we agree with their worldviews, particularly, but just to clear up some “misjudgments.”"
-This is my favorite part of your response, Megan. I've taken some time to study other religions, and I've learned so much that I never knew before. Maybe this could be more than just about clearing up misjudgements. This could also be a fascinating learning experience, as well...?
But I will say that the Vishal Mangalwadi book should make for an interesting discussion at an IFYC meeting . . .
Interfaith is talking about ALL faiths, not just Christianity. In fact, that's why I support it so much because I think Christians have some stuff to learn about other religions - not to say that we agree with their worldviews, particularly, but just to clear up some “misjudgments.” Also, don’t worry… I don’t have anything against boys… the ones in the elevator just got a little “too” carried away. A lot of boys are quite lovely. :-)
Perhaps I am rising to the bait, Anthony, but you write:
"I ask because of all the different faiths/religions in the world that are practiced, and the many interpretations of Christianity that have been made over the past several years. It's always been my view that more conservative-leaning Christians cannot/do not/will not tolerate other beliefs/belief systems."
May I ask how you are using the word 'tolerate'? I ask because these days it has come to have two informal meanings. In one instance, it means to permit another person to believe what he or she wishes, without any recriminations or refusal to accept the person. In the second, more slippery (but I think more common) use, it means to refuse to take a stance on the truth-content of WHAT they say, on the fuzzy ground that 'who is to say what is true or not?' or something along those lines.
I find the second use to be really weak reasoning, and generally the result of intellectual gutlessness, the refusal to take a stand-- based, most likely, on not having any rational basis for one's beliefs. Here's a simple example: if the Bible says there is just ONE God, while Hinduism says there are 5 million gods, doesn't simple reason dictate that both statements cannot both be true? Either one or the other must be incorrrect (unless we're using language in a very slippery, shape-shifting manner), or possibly both are incorrect. I don't see that tolerance has the slightest thing to do with this assertion.
Here is one core of the distinction: one view looks at the content of what is said and evaluates that, the other looks at the person saying the statement, and does not make a distinction between what is said and the person saying it. I know it has become (oddly enough) a radical thing to maintain, but the truth of a statement is completely independent of the person making the statement. And therefore, good people can believe something that is false, while evil people can believe what is true.
And finally, another sub-set: the second kind of 'tolerance' may be based upon the view that, "well, in the spiritual/metaphysical realm, who can possibly know what is true??" I will contend that in most cases, this is more likely revealing that person's lack of intellectual rigor in pursuing the matter. But in addition, in a way it's a self-defeating statement: to say that one can know nothing about the metaphysical world is simultaneously claim that one knows something about the metaphysical world, that it is 'unknowable.' To say you know something which cannot be known is self-contradictory. But I think that usually the speaker is more likely admitting, "*I* myself know nothing about that world, and therefore I am extrapolating and maintaining that no one can know anything about it." And THAT is a strong statement, worth investigating and either proving or refuting. Because if that world can be known, even if imperfectly, then it is very possible that the claims of that metaphysical world are completely and utterly compelling on all human beings.
-Megan, I have a Question: Are you referring to only Christianity when you state "bringing college students together across faith and belief lines"? I ask because of all the different faiths/religions in the world that are practiced, and the many interpretations of Christianity that have been made over the past several years. It's always been my view that more conservative-leaning Christians cannot/do not/will not tolerate other beliefs/belief systems. I do not mean that in a harsh or insulting way, but I've attended services at conservative-leaning churches, was educated in (STRICT) Catholic school from ages 4-12, and that seems to be the general sentiment I've noticed.
And what do you have against us BOYS young lady?? ;) There are a (large) number of us out there who give hugs and affection openly, support women's rights, and not all of us are out to "get laid". Don't put all of us on the same boat, Megan, not all of us are sleazy, slimy dirtballs! :)
"I have no doubt, Jason, that a whole host of people read those words and immediately offered heartfelt praise that indeed, there could have been two of me, but God in His mercy stayed his hand."
-No matter what I read or wherever I go in my explorations of BreakPoint's blog, I know I can always count on some post of LeeQuod's to either make me smile or have me in stitches. Good one :)
That is, the proposition "It is permissible to use force in self-defense and/or the defense of others and to cooperate for such" is generally agreed upon even if how far that extends is not. That being admitted the focus of collective self-defense can be a tribe, a city, or a nation, but there is no logical reason why it should not be a religion. For instance, the Sikh practice of carrying plastic swords as a symbol of their status as a warrior faith is immune to criticism from outsiders; because Sikhism is a warrior faith. If a Jain were to do so, however he would be obviously inconsistent.
Likewise while rude, it is perfectly logical to answer someone who criticizes the Crusades simply with "Who made you Pope?" That is the literal answer. The speaker is often neither himself a Christian nor well-studied in Christianity enough to give an actual answer. And only someone who is one or the other of these can actually say that the Crusades were a discredit to Christianity because otherwise they are not competent to give an opinion. An outsider has no way to say, "The Crusades were immoral" if it could reasonably be said that Crusading would have been defensible if conducted in the name of another institution. For instance the Byzantines were an ally of the Crusaders but though Christian, Byzantine soldiers fought for the Emperor. And no one says "the Byzantine Empire was immoral to fight in the Crusades."
The basic reason people want to say stupid and cruel things about Christians is the guilt they know they have.
How times have changed. Dorms do have co-ed floors now, where guys and girl live on the same floor together. It's quite interesting :) I learned to stay away from the boys pretty quickly. haha. "Better Together," I think, does focus on people who already have faith, but I got the feeling that it also reaches out to those who don't. I'll research it a little more for clarity. Although, I do think there is a need for education even with people who do have faith. I think some (but not all, of course) Christians get the wrong impression of Muslims (thinking they are all violent or terrorists) and, as I mentioned, many people get the wrong impression of Christians. A lot of that has to do with the media, in my opinion. I value organizations that seek to integrate all religions and tolerate all people of faith, whether or not we agree with their respective faiths.
I haven't read "The Real History of the Crusades," but I've read some articles about what really happened, probably with ideas similar to those in the book. I was just trying to illustrate what are some of the prevailing notions at school about Christians in general.
As for Buddhists, most people seem to connect Buddhists with romantic thoughts of mysterious Himalayan temples with Tomes Of Ancient Lore, and secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know. Or of stoic samurai, tea ceremonies and of course with gorgeous Wuxia princesses who are of course martial arts experts.
One problem is that Evangelicalism isn't exotic or elegant and even when it tries to be doesn't have the knack for it; you have to have several hundred years of backlog to do that sort of thing properly and Evangelicalism is a middle class suburban religion. In a way it is the same aesthetic inferiority complex that Americans have vis-a-vis Europe.
As for the Crusades, going to far to defend them is odd though they were no worse then any war of the time. One thing to point out is that unless you are starting from a particular doctrine it is hard to say that it is more immoral to fight for one's religion then for any other form of local identity so the phrase "religion causes wars" is logically flawed to anyone but a pacifist.
As far as getting along with people from other religions, I find them more pleasant company then materialists. The chief advantage I will give materialists is that they are very much aware that they live in an unjust universe and in some ways rage is better then complacency(in other ways complacency is better; it causes less trouble). I do believe however that materialism is logically contradictory(the phrase "there is only matter" is a philosophical proposition not a scientific one), and does not properly account for the complexities of the human mind without convoluted myths that are interesting as myths but are obviously myths(I still haven't heard why lions are beautiful and hogs are ugly even though lions are competitors and hogs are breakfast).
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/19583
I have no doubt, Jason, that a whole host of people read those words and immediately offered heartfelt praise that indeed, there could have been two of me, but God in His mercy stayed his hand.
And indeed, when you name a religion "Submission", it's a safe bet that its most important value is submission. And that mercy operates on a sliding scale, weighted toward those who are more fully submitted.
Megan, firstly I'm very sorry that you had to suffer the boors in the elevator every week. ("the boys on my floor"?? In my day "co-ed dorm" meant boys on one floor and girls on another. Ick.) John 15:20-21 springs to mind, as does Acts 5:41.
Secondly, though, I must admit I'm a bit puzzled: Doesn't "Better Together" aim to connect those who *already* have faith? Versus, say, those who are going out seeking alcohol and sex? I mean, I understand that the result would be a greater interfaith dialogue and understanding, but the lack of those doesn't seem to be the cause of this rude behavior. So I'm not making the connection of how their treatment of you would improve if only they understood your faith.
And I'm not trying to start something with Jason or anyone else, but I doubt you'd get the same treatment if you were going out in a hijab, or if you said you were going to the synagogue or even a Buddhist meditation center. No, you get picked on because it's culturally acceptable for them to so. I think this is less a problem of ignorance and more a problem of tolerance of inappropriate behavior. Educating them will simply make them smarter jerks.
No doubt you already know about the works of J. Budziszewski. I wonder if anyone at PFM knows him personally, and could arrange an introduction for you (if one's really needed); a pity that Mizzou and UT Austin are so many miles apart.
And there's some guy named Eric Something-or-other at PFM ;-) who has a series of absolutely awesome books titled "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About God (but were afraid to ask)" that would be excellent to give to someone who's actually open to learning about your faith. I highly recommend "The Jesus Edition" of the series.
And maybe an elevator ride's just long enough to ask them, politely but with conviction, where they got their misconceptions. Eric has an incredibly disarming way of doing this in his books and his speeches; it's well worth studying.
Oh, and Kim's right about the Crusades; the common understanding of them is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. Rodney Stark has written several very accessible volumes on the topic.
And I, too, thank God there aren't two of me, because if there were, this comment would be twice as long.
But though I am not LeeQuod, even I don't believe that the most important value in Islam is mercy.