4 ms·

As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That p

As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to also maintain friendships across political divides. But some of my deepest regrets are the times when I was timidly silent while bigotry was voiced. In addition to the intrinsic value of family and community, I think we can catalyze change in our communities if we refuse to dehumanize the people we disagree with and engage them with empathy. But it's also easy to lapse into mere complicity.

watwut 6y ago
> As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to maintain friendships across political divides, too. I learned that self-restraint too. But then there was point where I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased. I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships. If I would openly disagree, I would be seen as problem. And they would not use the same restraint nor be expected to. One set of opinions was allowed and the other one was not. Empathy gotta go two ways. Otherwise it is situation in which my kids hear something quite anti-semitic on occasion, but I am expected to be silent in response.
- criley2 6y ago
  To provide a story of the opposite, I'm another atheist with very center-left politics with extremely Trumpy Christian family (they moved out to a rural area, prepping with guns and supplies, the whole nine yards) and I never took the "high road" of being silent with them when they went on their tirades. My rule was I never brought up religion or politics, but I would defend my religion and politics to the fucking end of the earth if you bring it up, condescend to me, attack my views with conservative media talking points etc. And my family learned, through the years, to never ever touch the subject because it isn't worth another big the-family-versus-me as I'm max volume playing evidence debunking their stories on my cellphone louder than they can shout their next narrative. It doesn't hurt that my grandfather is known to be "extraordinarily stubborn" and so, if he can, so can I, and if they accept his, they accept mine. The result is very civil and completely de-politicized family events. It's actually lovely for everyone. They know to turn Fox News off and keep their opinions on politics to themselves, and we've continued to have an active and healthy relationship even though they live much further away. Standing your ground isn't a bad option, because if your family doesn't respect you at all, why would you want to be around them anyway?
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    The word for your grandfather would be "obdurate". Rather than stubborn or obstinate, obdurate specifically means an unwillingness to alter one's position in the face of valid argument.
  - incangold 6y ago
    This is a lovely story. Thanks. I’m quite a bit more liberal than my family, and we manage to get on too, with basically this approach. Over the years we’ve also found plenty of areas of agreement, if we stay off the hot button topics. It gives me some hope.
- Joker_vD 6y ago
  Well, you're minority amongst them, so it's you who should show restraint and politeness! /s
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  > I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased (apologies for the long post) imho it's all about boundaries. You may have have a strong disagreement with a family member about a topic. But if they have a car accident you will drop everything there and then, and run to them, even if you 'hate' them for voting XYZ, or believing in Zeus or Ganesha. Silly example: when I donate blood, I don't care (EDIT: care = I am not concerned) about the religion, colour, nationality, etc of the person that will receive it. I do it to help save a life. Anyone who is a donor does it to save someone else's life. It could be the case that your (vs your family/loved ones) lifestyles are fundamentally different i.e. you are married to a person of X religious persuasion, or Y nationality, or X colour. In which case, "hi, Boundaries, bye" and then THEY made the conscious choice to remove themselves from your life, and NOT the other way round. In your example, (again imho) saying something anti-semitic bad, just like saying anti-black is bad, same like saying anti-(i.e.)-italian is bad, etc. I have written in this forum before, we all got 1000 reasons to dislike/separate and/or hate one-another (vegans vs meat-eaters, followers of Y religion vs followers of Z religion, ManU fans vs ManCity fans, and so on). My definition of freedom is the following: your rights stop, where my rights begin, and my rights stop, where your rights begin. I know, this leaves a pretty large grey line. If I like Sepultura, I will use my headset but leave me alone, and I will leave you alone while you listen to your Spice Girls (using simple example to avoid passionate responses). > I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships. The Minimalists say "you cannot change your friends, but you can change your friends". If you have to fake everything to be liked and accepted by a certain group, then perhaps withdraw yourself from that group? In the end it is your choice.
  - Steltek 6y ago
    Sure but this is about relationships and how our government should be run. I'm not required to be friendly to racists, even if they're family. I am not required to be meek and silent in order to preserve family unity. I can't even say that certain "opinions" on basic human rights are even valid. Allowing it to be mooted is already giving it more credibility than it deserves.
    - DougN7 6y ago
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
The trouble is that when Group A is actively dehumanizing and harming Group B (e.g. Trump immigration policy supporters are unequivocally actively harming immigrants, especially children), then if Group C acts like we can all be civil and tactful and just get along with Group A, now Group C is also directly and unequivocally harming Group B too. If Group A holds horrific enough points of view, and this is just beyond dispute about supporting Trump at this point, then Group A effectively holds civil discourse hostage, and Group C is either in the position of negotiating with terrorists or in the position of upholding baseline acceptable civil society norms by ostracizing Group A, and Group A has not allowed Group C any other option.

watwut 6y ago

> As an atheist growing up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I learned a long time ago that maintaining relationships required tact and self-restraint. That practice makes it easy to maintain friendships across political divides, too. I learned that self-restraint too. But then there was point where I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased. I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships. If I would openly disagree, I would be seen as problem. And they would not use the same restraint nor be expected to. One set of opinions was allowed and the other one was not. Empathy gotta go two ways. Otherwise it is situation in which my kids hear something quite anti-semitic on occasion, but I am expected to be silent in response.

criley2 6y ago
To provide a story of the opposite, I'm another atheist with very center-left politics with extremely Trumpy Christian family (they moved out to a rural area, prepping with guns and supplies, the whole nine yards) and I never took the "high road" of being silent with them when they went on their tirades. My rule was I never brought up religion or politics, but I would defend my religion and politics to the fucking end of the earth if you bring it up, condescend to me, attack my views with conservative media talking points etc. And my family learned, through the years, to never ever touch the subject because it isn't worth another big the-family-versus-me as I'm max volume playing evidence debunking their stories on my cellphone louder than they can shout their next narrative. It doesn't hurt that my grandfather is known to be "extraordinarily stubborn" and so, if he can, so can I, and if they accept his, they accept mine. The result is very civil and completely de-politicized family events. It's actually lovely for everyone. They know to turn Fox News off and keep their opinions on politics to themselves, and we've continued to have an active and healthy relationship even though they live much further away. Standing your ground isn't a bad option, because if your family doesn't respect you at all, why would you want to be around them anyway?
- sandworm101 6y ago
  The word for your grandfather would be "obdurate". Rather than stubborn or obstinate, obdurate specifically means an unwillingness to alter one's position in the face of valid argument.
- incangold 6y ago
  This is a lovely story. Thanks. I’m quite a bit more liberal than my family, and we manage to get on too, with basically this approach. Over the years we’ve also found plenty of areas of agreement, if we stay off the hot button topics. It gives me some hope.
Joker_vD 6y ago
Well, you're minority amongst them, so it's you who should show restraint and politeness! /s
HenryBemis 6y ago
> I realized that it is all fundamentally unfair and biased (apologies for the long post) imho it's all about boundaries. You may have have a strong disagreement with a family member about a topic. But if they have a car accident you will drop everything there and then, and run to them, even if you 'hate' them for voting XYZ, or believing in Zeus or Ganesha. Silly example: when I donate blood, I don't care (EDIT: care = I am not concerned) about the religion, colour, nationality, etc of the person that will receive it. I do it to help save a life. Anyone who is a donor does it to save someone else's life. It could be the case that your (vs your family/loved ones) lifestyles are fundamentally different i.e. you are married to a person of X religious persuasion, or Y nationality, or X colour. In which case, "hi, Boundaries, bye" and then THEY made the conscious choice to remove themselves from your life, and NOT the other way round. In your example, (again imho) saying something anti-semitic bad, just like saying anti-black is bad, same like saying anti-(i.e.)-italian is bad, etc. I have written in this forum before, we all got 1000 reasons to dislike/separate and/or hate one-another (vegans vs meat-eaters, followers of Y religion vs followers of Z religion, ManU fans vs ManCity fans, and so on). My definition of freedom is the following: your rights stop, where my rights begin, and my rights stop, where your rights begin. I know, this leaves a pretty large grey line. If I like Sepultura, I will use my headset but leave me alone, and I will leave you alone while you listen to your Spice Girls (using simple example to avoid passionate responses). > I had to be careful not to voice opinions to keep good relationships. The Minimalists say "you cannot change your friends, but you can change your friends". If you have to fake everything to be liked and accepted by a certain group, then perhaps withdraw yourself from that group? In the end it is your choice.
- Steltek 6y ago
  Sure but this is about relationships and how our government should be run. I'm not required to be friendly to racists, even if they're family. I am not required to be meek and silent in order to preserve family unity. I can't even say that certain "opinions" on basic human rights are even valid. Allowing it to be mooted is already giving it more credibility than it deserves.
  - DougN7 6y ago

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

The trouble is that when Group A is actively dehumanizing and harming Group B (e.g. Trump immigration policy supporters are unequivocally actively harming immigrants, especially children), then if Group C acts like we can all be civil and tactful and just get along with Group A, now Group C is also directly and unequivocally harming Group B too. If Group A holds horrific enough points of view, and this is just beyond dispute about supporting Trump at this point, then Group A effectively holds civil discourse hostage, and Group C is either in the position of negotiating with terrorists or in the position of upholding baseline acceptable civil society norms by ostracizing Group A, and Group A has not allowed Group C any other option.