6 ms·
It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place. To me, one of th
by Renaud 4y ago
It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place.
To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering.
If I’m attending a social function, I certainly don’t want to hear about your religious views or political bent. Chances are slim that I would espouse compatible views and that would just make things very uncomfortable for either or both of us.
There are so many other interesting and less polarising topics of discussion with strangers.
- throwoutway 4y agoI disagree. People have mocked others that hold my beliefs (negative) and I respond with a positive view. Why is it somehow deemed acceptable to denigrate religions at social events, but if you say you believe X then it’s “baffling”?
- londons_explore 4y agoThe way religions spread is to violate this social etiquette. Many religions explicitly require followers to try to 'spread the word' for exactly this reason.
- l33t2328 4y agoAll the religions that don’t encourage that quickly die out from lack of new members.
- drc500free 4y agoJudaism is still around.
- igetspam 4y agoIt teaches self sustaining levels long ago. New religions probably require much more viral spread to survive.
- drc500free 4y agoRabbinic Judaism and Christianity are the same age, though. They cover two ends of the propagation strategy spectrum. Paul tried to position Christianity as a pivot from Temple Judaism like the Sanhedrin did with Rabbinic Judaism, but the "light" version that spread like wildfire among Roman slaves is what survived. Roman slaves didn't really care about Jesus's messianic genealogy or all the allusions to him being the final pascal lamb, it was the salvation story ( itself a repackaging of exodus) that resonated. So Christianity sees itself as a successor while Rabbinic Judaism sees itself as a continuation.
- alisonkisk 4y ago
- locopati 4y ago
- slightwinder 4y agoSo is politic, or pretty much anything else people have a personal interest in.
- jseban 4y ago> To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics Yeah I agree, I'm also surprised, never talk about religion/politics, health or money, those are private matters shared with people you can choose freely, and not with colleagues or other random people you can't choose, but need to get along with.
- yakak 4y agoWhen it comes to money we should more freely talk about it. Trying to prevent discussions of salary and benefits is largely to keep us from shared understanding of the market rate, etc, which penalizes people less connected with the field.
- ekianjo 4y ago> To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. in case you have not noticed politics is creeping everywhere these days, even in non-political events.
- Hammershaft 4y ago> To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. This strikes me as a tradition that seriously bolsters religious & political partisanship in America.
- quantified 4y agoIt also keeps a lot of encounters from uncomfortable or erupting. Fervent believers of different things, of course, are supposed to be converting the others, and being told that their god says your practice is heresy doesn't make the canapes taste any better.
- _8j50 4y agoThat's a crappy rule and it is incompatible with democracy. Part of the reason "freedom of expression" tenants exist is because voters need to be able to convince their peers on various issues. Religion is literally why people believe everything they believe in and asking people to avoid religious topics instead of discussing how to converse controversial topics without causing offense is precisely how you end up with social bubbles of extremes ready to tear apart society to destroy each other. Part of that however is telling others explicitly when their topic of choice makes you uncomfortable and them ceasing the discussion after clarifying their intent immediately. Same thing with politics, superpacs and millions in advertising money isn't how politicians should reach out to voters, it is supposed to be by voters talking to people on the other side about their guy and his/her policies. Civilized discourse about controversial topics is a corr foundation of a free society. And it is being eroded by modern social media driven society.
- alisonkisk 4y ago
- smitty1e 4y ago> It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place. A major component of the current crisis is the willingness of some to scuttle traditional norms amd mores. One is now subject to evangelistic browbeatings from the "Woke" along Orwellian lines. Satan is now cast in orange, according to this faith, and the networks genuflected for two hours of televangelism in prime time on Thursday the 9th.
- weakfish 4y agoWhat?
- johannes1234321 4y ago> To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. This to me is destroying social debate. How can one grow without believes being challenged? - I don't want to live in my bubble of self-confirmation. I want my believes to be challenged with good arguments and improve my thinking. Of course the key is "good argument" and not "bah stupid"
- cloverich 4y agoYou are in good company here on HN but in general this is not how people work. Specifically re religion and politics, the reason it is a common adage to not discuss them in social settings is because people rarely engage rationally in those topics. For whatever reason, it triggers people's emotional reactions deeply and quickly. When people's emotions are involved rational discussion departs quickly, and (positive, negative) feelings linger.
- bradlys 4y agoKeep the debate lord behavior to online discourse. No one likes that shit in person. Debate lord is a pejorative for a reason.
- eternalban 4y ago> If I’m attending a social function, I certainly don’t want to hear about your religious views or political bent. Chances are slim that I would espouse compatible views and that would just make things very uncomfortable for either or both of us. Maybe it's because I'm high but that sounds fascinating, as mr. Spock likes to say. Why is it that knowing that another human being at a social event has a different political [or reality] view than you cause you discomfort? p.s. and what does that phenomena foretell for viability of 'democracy'?
- _8j50 4y agoI disagree heavily. You would talk about the latest movies, your pet,etc... but Religion is offtopic...why? It literally is the most important thing outside of work to most religious people. If people say they don't feel comfortable with the topic of course they should change it.