Archive for Postmodernism

AWOL

Posted in College Life, De-conversion, English, Fat Acceptance, Feminism, Literature, Media, Postmodernism, Reading, Self-Esteem, Sociology, Writing with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 25, 2010 by lifeasacupofcoffee

So…I haven’t blogged in a really, really, really long time.

Most of that is because I’ve been busy with school work. On top of writing papers and tutoring, I’ve also been unofficially given an editor position for one 0f my school’s English department publications. (I will officially have the title of editor next year, but they’re kind of phasing me in this quarter, so I’ve had to take on a lot more responsibility.) Add that to my leadership positions in extracirriculars plus the fact that I’m trying to get ready to apply for grad school next year and apply for internships this summer…I’ve had a lot going on and this blog has fallen by the wayside.

I also haven’t been blogging regularly because, well, I’ve been rethinking this blog. I started it out as a way to vent my feelings about my de-conversion and to talk about fat acceptance, two movements that I joined more or less at the same time. And now, I feel like I need to vent less about de-conversion. It’s become a part of me, and it’s a part that most of the people around me have accepted. It’s also something that I’ve accepted about myself. As for fat acceptance, I think I need a break from writing about it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still great, but after having written a huge academic paper about it and now preparing to present that paper, I need a break.

What I do find myself wanting to write about, however, is English. This is probably because I’ve been researching grad schools so much. I’ve found myself wanting to blog about pop culture and books from the perspectives of various critical theories. I’ve also found myself wanting to blog about how to look for a grad school in English and what the process of applying to that school is. I also really want to defend my field from the philistines that I’ve encountered lately who see no point in examining texts or don’t understand things like postmodernism and deconstruction but then feel the need to bash them anyway. I also want to examine the connections between sociology and literature, because there are many.

So, I may be starting a new blog that deals with English studies more and less with de-conversion and fat acceptance and feminism, though I’m sure those things will indeed come up in the new blog. And I probably won’t be starting it until I have some free time, which will probably be closer to the summer. I’m not sure if I’ll continue to post here as well. I’m sure I will, but I expect that my posts will tend to be far between. 

I’ve had a good run with this blog. It’s given me a chance to explore new aspects of my identity and learn new things about the world around me. It’s been a place to explore and vent. I’m just starting to feel like I’ve outgrown it.

Religion and Criticism: How Much Is Too Much?

Posted in Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, De-conversion, GBLTA Issues, Ideologies, Parents, Postmodernism, Prejudice, Religion, Religious Pluralism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on September 4, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

Right now, I should be getting ready to go back to school. I’m leaving tomorrow and yet I still have not packed everything that I’m going to need. I have chores to do before I go back. If nothing else, I could be studying for the GRE. But I have other things on my mind…

How much is too much? This is a question that I’ve been asking myself a lot lately in regards to criticism of religion, particularly Christianity. I started asking myself this question after I read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel. At the time that I read it, my interest in de-conversion was mild. It’s something I’ll probably always be interested in. It will always be a significant part of my life, but my interest in it waxes and wanes periodically. But reading the book sparked my interest again. Also, in preparing for a class I’m going to start soon, I was reading some essays on religion by Emile Durkheim. My interest flared up even more.

One of the things that Hirsi Ali and Durkheim have both been criticized for, in their times, is for saying too much about religion. The thing is that what they both say is so glaringly obvious that people tend to overlook it, but when an astute observer points it out, it can’t be ignored. It’s true and it’s there and it’s not going away. And a lot of people don’t like the fact that somebody brought it to everyone else’s attention. A lot of people get offended, even though people like Hirsi Ali and Durkheim usually don’t mean to offend. They’re just honestly asking some questions and honestly describing the world as they see it. They say what they mean with no hidden motive and no malice. It’s just that this kind of truthfulness offends some people, usually the people who would like to pretend that these kinds of truths don’t exist.

And yet these kinds of truths do exist and there’s a lot that I’d like to say about them, but I don’t know how to say it. I want to discuss things in a way that promotes dialogue between opposing sides. I’d like to discuss things in a way that can bring people together, not separate them. I’d like to discuss things in a mature and open way that brings out the best in people. I certainly don’t want to engage in name-calling or stereotyping. I don’t want to engage in what I call “pointing-and-laughing.” (You’ve seen these types of blogs or heard these kinds of discussions. They usually begin with, “Hey? Have you heard what this group who disagrees with us is saying now? Ha ha! It’s that just ridiculous? How could they think that way? Ha ha!” I do this sometimes, but I don’t want to blog like this. These kinds of discussions really aren’t discussions. They involve no explanation or criticism. There’s no attempt to understand the other side’s thinking or clearly define why someone thinks it’s wrong. It’s lazy and appeals only to those who already agree with the writer although it doesn’t even benefit those agree because it doesn’t help them reach a deeper understanding of their position. We all do it sometimes, but at the end of the day, it gets us nowhere.)

Of course, at the same time, I realize that what I want to say is probably going to offend somebody somewhere simply because some people can’t take anything objectively. Extremists and fundementalists aren’t going to like my opinions, and nothing that I say will probably change their opinions. That’s fine. But at the same time, I don’t want to come off as being opposed to all religions in all degrees. Really, as long as religious doctrines do not supercede compassion and empathy and common sense or one’s sense of self and dignity, I have no problem with religion. I am perfectly okay with religious moderates, liberals, and pluralists. I don’t want to join them, but they do not offend me, and I don’t wish to offend them.

But at the same time, I don’t want to censor myself, which is what I’ve found myself doing lately. There are some things about religion that I’ve been wanting to say, some good (The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America finally decided to ordain homosexuals! Yay!), some bad (Okay religious right, the way that you have been treating President Obama is just totally unfair), some might be offensive to some people (all evidence seems to point to the Bible being the work of men and not of divine inspiration), and some is just personal (Look, Mom and Dad, I love you very much, but…). And I mean none of this to be disrespectful. I’m not angry. I don’t have some hidden agenda. I don’t hate religious people and I don’t wish that they would shut up. I just want to say what I think without anyone, myself included, censoring what I have to say.

I just had to get that off my chest. Pretty much, what I’m trying to say is that I’d like to talk about religion and my thoughts about it more. However, I want to keep what I have to say rational, respectful, open-minded, and moderate. And above all, I don’t want to categorize people or judge people purely based on their religious affiliations. I really don’t like criticizing things. I’d rather mention the good of a postmodern existential existence than constantly gripe about the problems of religion. At the same time, though, there’s some stuff that I want to say, and I don’t want to stop myself from saying it, and if I get out of line, that’s why I have a blog. So somebody can leave me a comment and tell me why they think I’ve gone too far.

Okay, now that I’ve said that, I really need to go pack. Have a wonderful day, everyone!

Looking Back…

Posted in Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, De-conversion, Ideologies, Postmodernism, Prejudice, Religion, Religious Pluralism, Self-Esteem with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 22, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

It’s been roughly a year since I de-converted and it’s about half a year since I’ve become an agnostic, and I’ve been thinking about some of the changes that have taken place in my life.

I’m much happier now than I was a year ago. Part of this is because I’m happier now having to bend my observations of the world to fit into the box of Christian/religious thinking, but I’m also happier because I’m no longer mad at the church.

For a while, especially in my questioning stage, I was very angry at the church. I felt that I was being lied to and that there were so many important issues that the church was turning a blind eye to. I felt as though whenever I brought up a topic like gay clergy or misogyny, I was told that those topics weren’t nearly as important as the love of God and if I just kept quiet like everyone else, my indignation about those topics would go away. I felt as though I was being kept in the cage of the Christian worldview and that other worldviews, like existentialism and pluralism, were purposefully kept from me.

And for a long while, I was angry about that. I felt as though I’d been hurt by the church, and I was anticipating that the church would continue to hurt me as I came out as a de-convert. For a while, even though I saw life in an array of colors that was much more beautiful than the narrow blacks and whites of my Christian thinking, I continued to see people in terms of black and white. I assumed that all atheists, agnostics, deists and freethinkers were the good guys out to intellectually liberate the world and all Christians were the bad guys out to keep us afraid that God might at any moment strike us down if we didn’t obey His Holy Church.

But as time has gone by, especially this summer, I’m beginning to see that people aren’t black or white, either. Yes, there are plenty of atheists, agnostics, deists, and freethinkers out there who are wonderful people, but there are some who are jerks. There are Christians out there who spout out Bible verses like they’ve been brainwashed, but there are other Christians who are thoughtful and intelligent. There are people out there, some religious and some nonreligious, who actually don’t care too much about religion and are willing to judge someone based on what kind of person they are and not on what they label themselves as. In the past year, I’ve met some people who disagree with my decision to de-convert and I’ve met some people who agree with that decision. Even better, I’ve met some people who don’t care what I call myself because they are more concerned with getting to know me as a person.

And I’m starting to try to become someone in the last type of category. I don’t want to be the sort of person who judges other people purely on labels. I want to be the kind of person who gets to know people for who they are and judges them for what they are like, not what they call themselves. I think it’s time for me to put my hurt and prejudices aside and start getting to know people as people instead of trying to fit them into narrow biases that exist in my mind but not in real life.

I’ve learned that I can be a good person without being a Christian. I’ve learned that I can love and be loved without being a Christian. I’ve learned that I can get through my daily life and plan for my future without an all-powerful God by my side. I’ve learned that believing in the goodness of human nature, believing in the Golden Rule, believing in education, and believing in myself are much stronger and much surer than believing in any particular religious dogma. Now, I think I need to learn how to see people as they really are, without the convenient boxes and categories that I’ve always relied on.

For this reason, I’ve found myself spending less and less time reading de-conversion blogs. I’m beginning to find that the ones that I still read regularly are the ones that acknowledge the complexities and ambiguities of humanity, regardless of its ideological persuasions. There’s only so many times that I can read, “Ha! Ha! The idea of a God dying to appease himself about a rule that he invented is illogical and Christians haven’t figured that out! Tee hee hee!” Now, when I think about some of the things that some Christians believe, I don’t feel indignant or disgusted. I don’t feel the need to point out exactly why they were wrong. I actually feel kind of indifferent. I mean, if challenged, I can defend my ideas, I can say why I left Christianity and why I’m much happier not being a Christian. But I don’t feel the need to point this out immediately to every Christian that I meet. Some Christians aren’t bothering anyone with their religion, so I won’t bother them. And I have no desire to ridicule their faith. Instead, I’m more interested in getting to know people on an individual level, in letting them be who they are as Christians and as just people.

This isn’t to say that I’ve totally stopped caring about religion. I’m still interested in religion. I’m still interested in the impacts that it has on the world. I’m still interested in how my religious past continues to affect my life now. But I’m no longer interested in judging people purely on the basis of their religion. I want to grow beyond my stereotypes of, “Freethinkers are kind and enlightened, Christians are rude and ignorant” because it’s not true. I want to get to know all kinds of people and I don’t want their religious beliefs to stop me from getting to know them. I’m not angry at the church anymore. I’ve seen the good it can do and the bad it can do, much like most institutions. I’m not angry at Christians anymore. They’re individual people who deserve to be judged on an individual level and not swept away in generalizations.

And I think that the reason that I’ve come to this point is because I’m happy and comfortable with my worldview as it is. I don’t feel the need to convince other people and myself that it works. I’ve seen throughout the past year that it works for me. That’s all I need to know and that’s all I need to worry about. And now that I’m more comfortable with who I am, I can reach out to other people and be comfortable with them.

A Quick Note About Racism

Posted in Ideologies, International, Japan, Postmodernism, Prejudice, Race, Religion, Sakae, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on August 5, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

I was looking over some of my previous posts about racism, and I thought that I should probably define what I mean by the term, since I’ve started using it so much. And I’ve realize that my definition of racism might be different from other people’s.

Obviously, if someone is marching around with the KKK and burning crosses in people’s yards, that’s racist. If someone becomes a neo-Nazi and blames all of the world’s problems on the Jews, that’s racist. If someone shouts, “Jap!” or “Yellow!” out of a car window at some students who happen to be biking through town (yes, this happened to some of the Sakae students, unfortunately), that’s racist.

Then there’s racism that isn’t so blatant, but it’s still recognizable as racism. There’s clutching your purse just a little bit more tightly when a black man passes you in the street. There’s trying to speak Spanish to someone who looks vaguely Latino. There’s blaming foreign car companies for the failures of American car companies. There’s buying into stereotypes, even though most of us know, at least on an intellectual level, that stereotypes are often untrue.

And then there are the gray areas. For instance, during the Sakae program, there was a camp of American high school students who were here to learn more about Japanese culture. Since there are a few high school students in our camp, we decided that they should all hang out together. Sounds like a good idea, right? At first, it actually went very badly. The American students treated the Japanese students the same way that biologists treat wild chimps–they were there to observe, to study, to take notes. I called that racism.

It’s well-meant racism. I do applaud the American high school students for wanting to learn more about a different culture, but the problem was that they were treating the Japanese high school students like Japanese and not like people. And I found that racist. So, I guess my own personal definition of racism is treating someone not firstly as a person but as someone of a specific race.

Even in situations where treating people like their race is an honest attempt to understand their culture, this treatment can still make people feel uncomfortable. The trick is to treat people like people, regardless of their race. When you do that, you will end up learning about the person’s culture anyway.

The problem is that it is honestly hard to see people as simply people and not as their race. Most of this is based on our society’s belief that race really does create huge differences between groups of people. Really, it doesn’t, but we’ve spent centuries believing that it does, and those ideas won’t go away overnight. Also, we tend to base race on physical appearance, and we tend to notice (or think we notice) a person’s race as soon as we see them. (This actually isn’t true and people don’t always look the way that we assume they “should” look based on their race.) For these reasons, we tend to see people as Black or Latino or Asian or White before we see them as people.

We all do this, whether we want to or not. I did it when the students first arrived. I treated them like Japanese and not like people. By my own definition, I was being racist. I didn’t see them as individual people with their own thoughts, ideas, beliefs, dreams, and interests. I just saw them as a group of students who were speaking a language that I didn’t understand and didn’t look like most of the people that I usually encountered.

But here’s the thing about racism: it can be overcome. Once I got to know each of the students, I stopped being racist. I now see them firstly as people and secondly as Japanese. This doesn’t mean that I ignore the fact that they’re Japanese. This doesn’t mean that their nationality is no longer important to me or to them. It makes up who they are, it affects how they think. It is important to their identity. But I when I interact with them, I don’t see their being Japanese as their entire and only identity. I see them as people, who happen to be Japanese.

And if we are going to overcome racism, this is what we need to do. We need to treat people as people, while recognizing that their race, nationality, or ethnicity does play a part in who they are. The best way to do this is to get to know people. If you’re afraid of black people, get to know some black people! If you feel uncomfortable around Latinos, then get to know some Latinos! If you have apprehensions about people of a different race, then get to know people of a different race. It will open your mind in ways that you couldn’t imagine before.

Actually, this trick works with pretty much any type of prejudice. If you’re afraid of gays, get to know some gay people. If you think that all feminists think a certain way, get to know some feminists. If you don’t like religious people, visit their places of worship and talk to them. If you don’t like atheists or agnostics, spend some time with them. The more you actually know about individual people and the less that you generalize and use stereotypes, the less prejudiced you’ll be.

Queer Theory from the Japanese

Posted in Choice, Dating, GBLTA Issues, Ideologies, International, Japan, Postmodernism, Prejudice, Queer Theory, Sakae, Sex, United States with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

Yesterday, we had a little talk with the students about GLBT issues, mostly because sexualities that deviate from heterosexuality are not discussed in Japan, and we wanted the students to know that for the most part in America being queer is okay. (There are still some prejudices out there, but apparently, compared to Japan, America is much more accepting of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism.) Part of the reason that we had this discussion is because there are a few students whom we suspect might be queer, and even if they aren’t, we also want the students to realize that making fun of people for being gay will, largely, not be tolerated in America.

 It was only after we’d discussed what we were going to say to the students that I googled gay culture in Japan. (Normally, whenever I’d want to know about something, Google would be the first place to look, but my time for computer access has been limited.)What I found was enough information and controversy to write several volumes of books.

 To highlight some interesting facts:

 1) In Japan, there is no moralizing about how heterosexuality is “right” and homosexuality is “wrong.” Instead, the focus is on individualism versus collectivism. America is an individualistic society in which the needs of the individual are valued before the needs of the group and everyone is encouraged to be different. In Japanese culture, the needs of the group are valued before the needs of the individual. Everyone is encouraged to sacrifice for the group and practice conformity. Being homosexual/bisexual/transgendered is seen as “wrong” not for any moral reason, but because being queer is a way of being different, which is discouraged.

 2) There doesn’t seem to be much comprehensive education about GLBT issues in Japan. The Japanese often confuse homosexuality with transsexuality and transgenderism. The Japanese program assistant even said that some Japanese people are probably homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered but do not realize that they are because these issues are not discussed openly in their culture.

 3) The Japanese actually have a history of sexual openness and acceptance, as seen from some of their ancient literature and art. The arrival of Western ideas seems to have made queer behavior a taboo.

 4) There is an openly gay section of Tokyo, but most Japanese homosexuals remain in the closet.

 5) In some ways, the Japanese are more accepting of homosexuality than Americans, as long as a person does not advertize his/her homosexuality. However, being openly queer can lead to shunning. In America, this would not be seen as a horrible punishment, but in Japan, people have been known to commit suicide because of exclusion from a group, as would be expected from a collectivist culture.

I didn’t have much time for research, but towards the end, I started to find some articles that delved more deeply into queer culture in Japan than the superficial surface articles in Wikipedia. One article that I read focused on the colonialism of western homosexuality—meaning that western ideas of what it means to be queer are being forced on nonwestern cultures.

This idea had never occurred to me before. I’d never given much thought to how Western ideas of homosexuality were being forced on other cultures, but, from what I read, that seemed to be the case, depending on the writer’s viewpoint, of course. Part of the problem seems to be that the Japanese conception of homosexuality comes from their pop culture, which portrays all gay men as cross-dressers and all lesbians as butch. A Japanese man might admit that he is sexually attracted to other men, but he wouldn’t identify himself as “gay.” In Japan, “gay,” means a queen. A feminine woman who desires other women wouldn’t identify herself as a lesbian, because she isn’t butch.

Of course, not all American gays are queens and not all American lesbians are butch, but isn’t that still the stereotype here in America? For instance, I once met a man who was gay, but I never would have guessed because he didn’t fit the stereotype of the effeminate gay man. He didn’t lisp, prance, make dramatic hand gestures, or look overly neat. In fact, he had a deep voice, a sturdy stance (he was a sports writer whose special interest was in football), understated gestures, and casual dress. No American would have guessed that he was gay.

 And ultimately, that is his right. He can define his homosexuality in whatever way he wants; he can decide for himself what it means to be gay. And people of other cultures should have that same right. They should be able to decide for themselves what being homosexual or bisexual or transgendered means for them and their culture.

 For instance, when we American PAs (program assistants) suspected that some of the students might not be straight, our immediate goal was to out them. Of course, we weren’t going to confront them and force them out of the closet, but we believed that if we let them know that they had a supportive environment in which to come out, they would come out of the closet. And we saw their coming out as a good thing. In America, we tend to believe that whatever you are, you should be open and up front about it. We believe that coming out of the closet is better than staying in it, whatever your closet may be. I know that I often feel guilty for still not having told my friends that I’m no longer a Christian. I feel as though I’m not being honest with them.

 In Japan, however, the focus is not on someone’s individual personality and preferences. The focus is on maintaining harmony within the group. So, in many circumstances, it is perfectly appropriate not to share information about yourself, and doing so is not seen as being dishonest. This includes information about one’s sexuality. One article that I read said that even though the Japanese do not talk openly about homosexuality, their “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy works quite well in their culture. People are free to be queer as long as they do not advertise their difference from the heterosexual majority. To Americans, this would seem to be repressive, but some gays point out that the openly queer culture in America and the stereotypes that it sometimes supports can also be repressive in its own way.

 While I admit that there is some truth in that, I still feel that there should be a place for people who want to be openly queer. They should not need to fear open hostility (which they are often confronted with in America) or shunning (which they are often confronted with in Japan). Japan’s policy of keeping homosexuality quiet might, in some ways, be appropriate to their culture, but I still feel that homosexuals and bisexuals should be granted basic rights that straight people take for granted, such as the right to marry someone of the same sex and the right to be free from discrimination because of their sexuality. Of course, how I believe this should be done might just be the colonialist in me talking.

Ultimately, though, how the Japanese handle their queer culture should be left up to them. Japanese queers should be allowed to define for themselves what their homosexuality means in terms of themselves personally and in terms of their culture. I feel (hope) that the general trend of global culture is progressing in such a way as to become more understanding of queers, but that progress is slow. While I might feel that coming out of the closet is a way to speed that progress, at the same time, every individual should decide for him/herself when coming out of the closet is appropriate. And different cultures should be able to decide for themselves what coming out of the closet means and how it can be done appropriately within the context of their cultures.

 Obviously, this is a very complex issue, but I’m glad that this experience has made me aware of it, and I will be paying much more attention to it in the future.

Debunking Racism

Posted in English, Ideologies, International, Japan, Postmodernism, Prejudice, Race, Sakae, United States with tags , , , , , , , , on July 14, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

“If we all could just admit/That we are racist, a little bit/Even though we all know that it’s wrong/Maybe it would help us/Get along.”—“Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist,” Avenue Q (watch the full song at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9CSnlb-ymA)

 I’ll admit it: I’m a racist.

 If you read my post a few days ago about how the Sakae program is going (which I have since deleted), you’ll remember that I made some comments about the Japanese students’ accents. Now, I admit that I was tired and a bit crabby when I wrote that post, but still, racism seems to be something that comes out at our worst moments. During economic downturns (like the depression that we seem to be stuck in), hate crimes are on the rise. People need someone to blame for their troubles, and immigrants seem to be popular scapegoats. During good economic times, someone might not care that a nonAmerican gets a certain job, because there are more than enough jobs to be had. However, when times are tough and work is scarce, a lynch mob might form when someone outside of the narrow WASP category gets work while the “poor” and “helpless” white man is being kept down by the “impure” races.

 Of course, you don’t have to be part of a lynch mob to be a racist. Most of us agree that hate crimes are terrible things. We gasp in horror when we hear about cross burnings on the news. If a foreign exchange student is teased, we bemoan (rightly) how ignorant Americans are of the rest of the world. Guess what? We can still be racists.

 Racism doesn’t have to be that big. It can be much more subtle. It can be thinking that someone isn’t as smart as you are just because that person has a different accent. It can be holding onto your purse just a little bit tighter when you pass a black man in the street. It can be complaining about road signs written in English and Spanish. (To any American who has a problem with this: Go to a big Chinese city like Shanghai or Beijing. There street signs, restaurant signs, and advertisements are written in at least four languages—Mandarin, Japanese, English, and German. Sometimes more. And you don’t hear the Chinese complaining about it.) It can be thinking that the Native Americans are a legendary people who lived in America a long time ago. It can even be well-meant at times. For instance, if you speak Standard English normally, but greet a black person by imitating Ebonics, that’s a form of racism.

 Often, I like to think that Americans aren’t that racist, but after spending several days with the Japanese Sakae students, I’m beginning to realize my own racism.

 Guess what? That’s okay. Admitting that I have biases, that I buy into stereotypes, and that I make quick and often unfair judgments about people is fine. We all do it! We’re surrounded by it. The other American program assistant (PA) and I were watching an episode of Family Guy in which the Griffin family breaks Lois out of jail and goes on the lamb in…Asiantown! The other PA and I looked at each other with a mixture of amusement and horror. “Do you feel racist?” I asked him. “Yes!” he answered. My point: racism is everywhere. It’s built into our society. (By the way, he is writing a blog about his experiences in the program at http://www.ctlgsakae.blogspot.com/. Forgive him if he doesn’t update it very often. We’ve all been very busy these past few days.)

 Before the Sakae program, I probably would have watched this Family Guy episode and analyzed it from an objected, distanced, English-major point of view. I would have applied postcolonial criticism and planned a paper discussing how Family Guy both deconstructs America’s Asian stereotypes by self-consciously calling attention to them and yet also supports these stereotypes through humor.

 Post-Sakae, however, I couldn’t see the episode that way. I couldn’t laugh at it. All I could think was, “This is wrong.”

 It’s wrong that all Asians look like Jackie Chan. There are thirty-one students in this program, and they all look completely different. I could never mistake one of them for the other. They all look too different, and they all also have different personalities. Some of them are tall. Some of them are short. The bone structure in their faces is different. Their eyes are different shapes and hues. Their body types are different. Their hair styles are different. They don’t look the same.

 It’s wrong that all Asians don’t pronounce their r’s and l’s correctly. One of the students actually speaks English with a thick British accent. And even though we think that the Japanese pronounce those letters incorrectly, in their language, they don’t. In Japanese, the letters r and l are rolled together so that they sound a little bit like both letters at once. (I really can’t explain what this sounds like. It’s a bit like the v being pronounced like b in Spanish, but it’s also different.) The fact that this sound really doesn’t exist in English makes the Americans seem a bit ruder, because we can’t correctly pronounce some of the Japanese students’ names. Confusing “playing” with “praying,” might be a minor mistake, but incorrectly pronouncing someone’s name is a bigger mistake.

 And what right do Americans have to criticize how the Japanese speak English in the first place? Most Japanese students start learning English when they are ten years old. When do American students start learning Japanese? Most never learn it.

 So, I know all of this. I know that I tend to stereotype groups of people based on their race. I also know that these stereotypes are wrong. Does that still make me a racist? Yep. However, the difference between me and a member of the KKK is that I know that my racism is wrong, and I’m willing to work around it. I’m willing to admit that I need to learn about different cultures and different races. I’m willing to get to know people of other races and relate to them on a level that goes beyond race. I’m willing to see them as human. I’m willing to admit that no race is superior to the other because race is actually not biological at all but is a social construct.

 Genetically, you have more in common with someone of a different race who is the same height as you than you have in common with someone of the same race but of a different height. And since we all share 99.9 percent of our DNA with every other human being in the world, biologically, we’re all pretty much the same. So, where does race come in? Race was actually an invention of Western people to justify the African slave trade and colonialism. (This doesn’t mean that racism wasn’t around before in some form, but this is when a lot of our contemporary ideas about race start to come up.) Before, people judged other cultures as inferior because they had different religious traditions. But, as black slaves began accepting Christianity, abolitionists began pointing out that there was something wrong with treating your Christian brothers and sisters like beasts of burden.

 However, people were unwilling to get rid of their slaves and stop enforcing their own systems of government on foreign peoples, so they had to come up with a new reason to feel superior. Western whites tried to justify their prejudices with pseudoscience and flawed logic. People who were not white were incapable of higher thinking, they said. People who were not white were only fit for grueling, manual labor. People who were not white did not have the mental capacity to be properly educated. However, the reason that people who were not white were this way had nothing to do with biology. It was because of the environment that white people placed them in. Black slaves seemed ignorant to educated white men because the educated white men did not provide the black slaves any way to be educated. Whites created a self-fulfilling prophecy by making bogus assumptions about people of different races and then creating conditions in which those assumptions became true…some of the time.

 Unfortunately, even though our scientific understanding of biology should have done away with racism, our fears and prejudices are still with us. A lot of us know that these prejudices are wrong, but we don’t seem to know how to get over them. Now, I think I’ve found a solution:

 One of the things that I hoped working for the Sakae program would do would be to confirm my theory that getting to know more about something or someone makes that thing less scary. So far, this theory y seems to hold true. At the beginning of the program, I was terrified of meeting the Japanese students. They were all sitting in the common room of the dorm for dinner, and they were all chatting away in Japanese, which I do not speak. I was afraid that I wouldn’t be able to understand them. I was afraid that they wouldn’t be able to understand me. I was afraid that they wouldn’t like me. I was afraid that I would do something that would offend them.

 But, I took a deep breath, smiled at them, and started talking. I showed interest in them and their culture. I showed interest in them as people. And they have returned the favor. I’ve taught them about American culture, and they’ve taught me about Japanese culture. I’ve helped them speak English more fluently, and they are teaching me some basic Japanese. I’ve gotten to know them, and I’m not afraid of them anymore. I know that with a little patience, we’ll be able to find some way to understand each other.

 As I’ve gotten to know the students, I’ve stopped seeing them as Japanese.  That’s not to say that I don’t still realize that they are Japanese. However, when I look at them, I don’t think of them as just Japanese. I might think of one as an excellent percussionist, who also happens to be Japanese. I might think of another as a good baseball player, who also happens to be Japanese. I might think of another as a serious student, who also happens to be Japanese. In other words, I have a more complete understanding of them as people. Their nationality is still something that I recognize, but it isn’t the only defining factor of who they are to me.

 The only way that we can get past our own racism is to interact with people of other races. We need to learn more about their cultures and customs, as well as who they are just as people. We need to be open to the idea that not everyone looks like us or behaves like us or values the same things that we do. That’s okay. Neither group has to be wrong or right. We just need to accept that we will have some differences. If we are aware of these differences, it can make getting to know people of different races easier and less scary.

 We need to know what our initial assumptions about people of different races will be, and we also need to be open to adjusting those assumptions, because when you meet people of different races, a lot of your initial assumptions will change. And, trust me, they will change for the better. But if we’re going to go about changing them, we have to first recognize that they exist.

Love is Blind…Until He Mentions Religion

Posted in Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Dating, De-conversion, Ideologies, Postmodernism, Prejudice, Race, Relationships, Religion, Sex with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

Why is it than whenever I meet a guy who seems intelligent, funny, sarcastic, and nerdy, (and thereby fulfilling my initial qualifications as attractive) he turns out to be a Christian? This has happened to me several times since de-converting, and while I think that a relationship between a religious and non-religious person can work, I don’t think that I’m ready to get into a relationship with a Christian or any religious person at this point in my life.

I’ve also wondered if that makes me prejudiced. Suppose I meet a nice guy, we get along, we could potentially take things further, and then as soon as he mentions his church or his role in a worship team or something he read in the Bible the other day, I write him off. Am I being superficial? Just because he is a Christian does not mean that he is also conservative, misogynistic, and Republican. (For that matter, am I being prejudiced by not wanting to date Republicans?)

I’ve tried examining the issue from the point of view of race. For instance, if I said that I would not date someone purely based on his race, would I be prejudiced? I  think so. However, religion and race are two different issues. A person’s race does not necessarily determine his/her beliefs, attitudes, and worldviews. (Because race is a social construct and we treat people differently based on their race, whether we want to admit to it or not, race can affect a person’s beliefs, attitudes, and worldviews, but this has to do with the fact that race is socially constructed and has nothing to do with race itself.) Race is also not a choice (except in the fact that we as a society choose to buy into the social construct of race and see it as a cold hard absolute when really the perception of race varies from culture to culture. But this is a tangent that I will have to explain another time.). One cannot change one’s race. Religion is, to some extent, a choice. We choose to buy into the worldviews and beliefs that a religion holds. If we don’t like them, we can change them. Some of us might have had religion forced upon us from a very young age, but we can still decide for ourselves, once we are older, if we will continue to accept this religion or reject it. If one accepts a religious faith, then one accepts the worldview of that faith. I disagree with some (okay, the vast majority) of the views of Christianity, so I would prefer not to date someone who held those views. However, there is no worldview inherent to a particular race, which is why I really don’t care what race a guy is when I’m viewing him as a potential partner.

But, do these differences in religion and race make me prejudiced if I won’t date a Christian? I’d guess that they do, because, while there is nothing about race itself that makes two people inherently incompatible, there could be things about Christians and nonChristians that makes a relationship between them…difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. They could end up arguing about their ideologies and topics like, When as the Bible written? or Does the Problem of Evil rule out the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity?

These seem like petty things that shouldn’t get in the way of a relationship, but religion or lack thereof, is more than just a list of beliefs that a person holds. Religion or agnosticism/atheism can make up a person’s identity. When you attack someone’s religion or nonreligion, you are not just attacking an ideology, you are attacking who they are and what they base their understanding of the world on. This is why it can be so hard to talk to some people about religion or agnosticism/atheism. They are not just trying to protect a list of rules that they can revise. They are trying to protect something that gives order to their entire world. If this thing falls apart, they are left utterly confused and lost. This is also why you should be gentle and open-minded when you bring up topics concerning religion. However, sometimes being gentle and open-minded is not easy, which is why I think that relationships between Christians and nonChristians can take a lot of work.

And maybe I don’t want to try to be in a relationship with a Christian right now because I don’t want to put that much work into a romantic relationship. If I ever even decide to get married, it won’t be until after I’ve completed grad school and lived completely on my own for a while. This process will probably take several years. Any relationships that I have in the meantime will probably not last that long. So why should I put that much work into something that has a high probability of not lasting?

I also would hope that I’m not prejudiced because even though I don’t want to date Christians, I have a lot of Christian friends and am open to making more. I’m even willing to sit down with Christians and listen to them talk about what they believe and why they believe it. I’m willing to talk to them. I think they and every other religious and nonreligious group out there, has the right to freedom of speech. I might not agree with what some of them have to say, but I would defend to the death their right to say it (paraphrased from Voltaire).

Ironically, when I was a Christian, I would never have considered dating a nonChristian, and I never even would have thought of this preference as prejudiced. My reasoning was that only a Christian who had a relationship with Jesus Christ could truly love me because he had the love of God in his heart and that our relationship could never work out well unless it was based on Jesus Christ. (Thought what it means to have a relationship based on Jesus Christ I never did understand and still don’t. I’m not sure if it means to have a relationship based on Christian vaules or traditional gender roles or the idea that sex before marriage is wrong. Maybe it just means that Christians are only supposed to date other people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I’m still not sure what it means.) Now, I think that relationships are better off when they are based on mutual respect and trust. Values like humility and selflessness are also important, and while Christianity emphasizes these values, many other worldviews also hold them in high importance as well. Of course, when I was a Christian, I thought that only Christians could possess these qualities. Now, I believe that all people have these virtues or can be taught them, regardless of their religion. I now believe that nonChristians are just as capable of being loving as Christians can be.

Anyone else have any thoughts? Can relationships between people of different religions work? Can relationships between a nonreligious and a religious person work? Is dismissing someone as a potential partner because of religion the same as being prejudiced?

Michael Jackson’s Death Has Hijacked the News! (But No One Was Paying Attention to the News to Begin With)

Posted in Iran Election Protests, Iranian Election, Media, Music, Postmodernism, The Internet with tags , , , , , , on June 26, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

Usually, I hate putting down the media. They seem to get a lot of unnecessary criticism from all sides, and quite a bit of it usually seems too harsh. Overall, I support the various types of news media–television news networks, newspapers, and internet sites, because I believe that it is important that Americans, well, people all over the world, really, keep themselves informed about what’s going on. Our world is shrinking. Once, people never traveled more than fifteen miles away from their hometown, if that. Now, just by logging onto the internet, people can connect with others from all around the globe. A webcam can allow people to speak to other people hundreds of miles away without even leaving their own office. And that’s not to mention all of the overseas travel that is now available. One can go across the world in a matter of hours. We are more connected now than we ever have been, and that has given us the responsibility to know what is happening around the world.

However, the news media also has a responsibility, which is to provide relevant and informative news to its audiences. Most of the time, it does. I was actually quite enthralled by the news last week and earlier this week, as most of the major coverage had to do with the protests in Iran, which is definitely something that Americans need to be informed about. There were also some local stories that weren’t having a major global impact, but they were certainly relevant.

And then Michael Jackson died. Now, I’m not saying that his death was completely unworthy of any news coverage. A famous and controversial pop star dies and people are going to want to know about it. I’m sure that his family and fans are grieving. His contributions to popular culture, music, and dance are certainly worth remembering. (Yes, just like everyone else, I think that the Thriller album was amazing!) But does his death really deserve so much coverage? Tonight, I just watched news anchors spend fifteen minutes (of a half-hour news program) discussing the fact that his autopsy results will not be completed for several weeks. Does that information need fifteen minutes worth of coverage? All they have to tell us is that we won’t know for sure what caused his heart failure for a while and that it might have something to do with some prescription painkillers he was taking. Then they should get back to giving us some real news that actually has some substance. For instance, the House passed a bill that will attempt to cut down America’s use of fossil fuels. I’d think that a story like that would get precedence over a celebrity’s death.

Now, I mean no disrespect to Michael Jackson and his grieving family and fans. I was never a huge fan of his and I thought he was a little strange, but he grew on me a little after a professor in one of my English classes had us analyze his “Thriller” music video. We ended up having a pretty insightful discussion about the portrayal of race in American media. Plus, the song was really catchy. I’m not trying to downplay the impact that he had on popular culture or the right that his fans have to mourn his death and celebrate the positive contributions of his life.

But does every news network have to spend their entire program time doing that? There are people dying all over the world. Many of them are dying because of intolerance or injustice! Shouldn’t the news be enlightening us about their situations instead of talking–and essentially saying nothing because there is nothing definite that can be said at this point–about the fact that they will not know for several weeks what caused Michael Jackson’s heart failure?

I sometimes wonder if this doesn’t have something to do with the internet becoming Americans’ main news source. Because you know Americans: we want what we want, and we want it now, and we want it to be the newest, shiniest, freshest whatever-it-is that’s out there. We feel this way about our news too. We want it now, and because the internet is becoming available nearly everywhere, it’s the most immediate way to find out what’s going on. It can also be updated more quickly than, say, a newspaper.

We Americans are also very specific about what we want. We usually don’t want to hear opinions that differ from ours. We want our own opinions presented as truth. We also don’t want to be bothered with news that doesn’t interest us. (I’m proving my own point by complaining about how much Michael Jackson’s death has been covered.) We only want to hear about what we’re interested in. With television news, we really can’t do that, unless we flip the channel. (I tried that, and I only found that every news station out there was discussing nothing but Michael Jackson’s death.) With newspapers, we can flip to another page. But newspapers’ coverage tends to be kind of bland. Aside from the editorials, journalists present the facts with as little opinion and explanation as possible. This is actually a great way to be unbiased, but Americans tend to prefer reading biased news, provided that bias is in accord with their own.

So Americans are turning to blogs for their news! (That is, if Americans are even paying attention to the news. Only 11% of Americans watch television news. Only 12% of Americans read the newspapers. And the people who are getting their news from the television and the newspapers, and the internet are all the same people! Only about 12% of Americans actually know what’s going on in the world. My statistics are a little out of date, I admit, but, still, that is a scary thought. We are the most powerful country in the world, and none of us know what’s happening in the world. Does anyone else see a problem here?) And we all know what a great source for news blogs are! I sincerely hope that no one is reading this blog and expecting to get accurate, cold, hard data about what is happening across the globe. I’m writing my opinions. That’s all I’ve got to offer. Now, for my own personal integrity, I try to make sure that I have some basis in fact to back up my opinions. I try to research issues as thoroughly as I can before I make up my mind regarding them, but I can make mistakes too. (Typos abound, as I’m sure you’ve noticed.) And in a blog, there is no editor to call me out when I make mistakes. Television news networks and newspapers have such editors. Blogs really don’t have this kind of checking system.

But even if they did, would they still be the best source for news? I’m not sure. When the internet first became available to the public, a lot of people thought that it would bring all sorts of different kinds of people together–that it would encourage dialogue between peoples of different backgrounds and worldviews. And the internet still has an amazing potential to do just that! The problem is, the internet also has the potential to let people filter out whatever ideas they don’t want to hear and surround themselves only with the ideas that they already agree with. And that’s the potential that the internet is living up to. When we get our news from the internet, it’s much easier for us to only read blogs that pander to our tastes. I know this because I do it. There are no blogs that I read regularly that present current events from the conservative Republican point of view. I might stumble across them once in a while, but I don’t read them regularly. The blogs that I read regularly for news present their information from the perspective of liberal Democrats. I shut out the voices that don’t agree with mine. And I’m not alone. In general, most other Americans do the same thing that I do–they ignore what’s out there that they disagree with and they only concern themselves with the information that supports their beliefs.

The problem with living this way is that it breeds intolerance and it does not promote understanding. If you never come into contact with people who are different from you, it becomes easier to marginalize them as the “other.” It becomes easier to see them as stupid or not human or ridiculous. It also doesn’t help you learn how to talk to these people. If you don’t know how and what they think, you certainly won’t know how to start a conversation with them. Even worse, you probably won’t even bother trying to have a conversation with them in the first place.

Like I said, the world is getting smaller. That means that our minds need to be getting bigger. We need to start realizing that the way that we think is not the only way to think and that it is not necessarily the way that other people think. We also need to realize that just because other people do not think exactly the way that we do, that does not make them stupid or ridiculous or less human than we are. This also doesn’t mean that we have to accept every idea that we happen to come into contact with, but we should be willing to consider other viewpoints, even if we don’t adopt them as our own. Instead of avoiding diversity, we should be embracing it.

That being said, I feel like looking up that old “Thriller” music video on YouTube. And I should also probably go read some conservative blogs, so that I can say that I practice what I advocate.

We All Want to be the Underdog

Posted in Agnosticism, Christianity, Cultural Myth, De-conversion, Ideologies, Postmodernism, Religion with tags , , , , on June 25, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

We all want to be the underdog, the Lone Ranger, the sole voice of truth and right in a world gone mad. And we want to do this alone.

At first, this claim sounds crazy. Nobody really wants to be the underdog. We’d rather win. We’d rather have all of the advantages, and we’d rather have them with a large group of people who agree with us and support us. We’re certainly more comfortable that way. However, I would argue that Western culture loves the underdog more than the top dog. As a culture, we value our independence and individuality more than anything else. They’re two of the few values that we have that we won’t question. We might question our religious assumptions, our standards of beauty, our ethics, our treatment of minorities, or our previously held assumptions about institutions like government, but we never question our worth as individuals and our right to independence. In fact, when we question all of our other values, we often do so on the grounds that they are threatening our individuality and independence. We take them for granted.

So, it might surprise us when we learn that these values are not universal. Traditionally, Eastern culture has valued the collective over the individual. In America, school children are encouraged to express their own opinions and told, “think for yourself” or “just be yourself.”. In Japan, school children are told, “the tallest nail gets pounded down,” meaning that instead of asserting their own ideas, children should conform to the consensus of the group. In the West, we gain a sense of worth based on who we are as individuals and what we as individuals can accomplish. In the East, a person’s sense of worth is based on his or her place in a larger group of people and what the group accomplishes by working together.

Each way of thinking has its pros and cons, which I won’t get into right now. My point is that Western culture often takes for granted the worth of the individual and the individual’s right to be independent. But once we realize just how powerful these values are in our culture, we can explain a lot. Why do Americans drive their cars, even when public transportation is available? We want to be independent. We don’t want to depend on the bus or the subway. Why is Welfare so stigmatized in our country? Because people who are on Welfare depend on government money. Of course, we are all dependent on someone for something. (The middle-class conservative with his or her own car might sneer at a Welfare recipient for being dependent on the government while not realizing that s/he is also dependent upon the government to keep the roads paved and in good condition or that car would be useless.)

Our values of individuality and independence can also explain a lot of the rhetoric that goes on between conservative Christians and atheists/agnostics/deists/de-converts, because even though we might not be consciously aware of these values, we know how to use them to manipulate other people to feel sympathy for our cause.

Conservative Christians do this by setting themselves up against the world or the devil. They claim that they are the force of right and truth in this world, but they are beset from all sides by enemies who want to stop them from spreading this truth. These enemies might be secularists, who want to keep church and state separate. They might be pro-choice advocates or feminists. They might be homosexuals or heterosexuals who believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. These are the people of the world, and Christians try to differentiate themselves from the world. They have to set themselves up against an oppressive norm so that they can prove that they are independent. They do not get their ideas by thinking like everybody else. No, they think differently!

They also have to portray themselves as losing. After all, the best way to prove that you really are an individual is to stand out from the crowd, especially when doing so involves risks, and the greatest risk is losing. (Our culture loves stories about heroes who fight for what they believe is right, even when they know that they’re set up to lose right from the beginning.? And the more risks you’re willing to take, the stronger individual you are. At the Christian middle school that I attended, we were constantly told that life would be different when we went to secular high schools. We would be ridiculed for our faith. Some people might not want to be our friends because we were Christians. Our teachers would teach us about evolution, and we had to be brave and tell the teacher what a lie that was! We had to stand out from the crowd. We had to be different from the secular majority around us, even when that meant taking risks.

By trying to show how they adhere to the values of individuality and independence, Christians, whether they know it or not, try to manipulate people. They want people to think that they are good, and if they can show that they are in line with these values, then the public will perceive them as good.

Secular groups try to use the same tactics. Nearly all the de-conversion stories I’ve read rely heavily on gaining the reader’s sympathy by appealing to the values of independence and individuality. De-converts like to stress how they are in the minority, not only in the country (which, according to the last census, is 76% Christian and 14% atheist/agnostic), but also in their groups of family and friends. They are setting themselves apart as individuals–they are unique in their lack of faith in God. They also often stress how they are independent thinkers. Instead of following the religious crowd around them, they emphasize how they question what everyone around them assumed was given to be true. They try to demonstrate how they put the popular phrase, “Think for yourself” into action.

And, unfortunately, they also sometimes have to set themselves up against an enemy to which they are losing. And often that enemy is Christianity or other religious institutions. Sometimes they do point out things that Christians or other religious groups are doing that are wrong, but sometimes they can sound just as pig-headed as Christians, as though they just need somebody to fight with.

Now, I’m not point this out to place blame on either group. I also think that when both groups try to manipulate their audiences by appealing to the values of independence and individuality, they’re not doing it consciously. These values are so ingrained into us that we often take them for granted without questioning them. They’re givens that we don’t bother questioning. And if we want to feel like we’re doing the right thing, we’re going to look to these values to judge our actions and attitudes.

I am pointing this out, because these values seem to be the reason that these two sides so often set themselves up against each other is to prove how much more independent and individual they are, especially in comparison to the other group. Sometimes, Christians accuse de-converts of giving in to the world’s values–they accuse de-converts of being like everyone else, of not being individuals. Sometimes, de-converts accuse Christians of letting the church think for them–they accuse Christians of not thinking independently.

In reality, both groups are probably each a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Christians certainly do hold beliefs and practices that different from the larger culture, and it takes some individuality to be able to do that. And I know that, as independent as we de-converts often feel, even we need communities of like-minded people. At the same time, though, Christians also need that sense of community, and as much as they try to make themselves seem like a minority, in America, they are the minority. They have their own lobbyists and special interest groups, not to mention their sheer numbers, so they have a lot more sway than they make themselves out to. We’re all dependent on somebody, as much as we hate to admit it. And none of us are quite as individualistic as we’d like to think we are.

So, my question is, if we’re all dependent and we’re all conformists, even though we like to think of ourselves and independent individuals, why do we have to set ourselves up against another group? Why can’t we realize that by creating this opposition between our groups, we’re really just playing into a deeply held cultural myth? What I’m really wondering is, Instead of setting ourselves up as opposition against each other, why can’t we make more efforts towards getting along with each other?

Crossing the Rubicon: Wading into Religious Pluralism

Posted in Agnosticism, Christianity, Ideologies, Postmodernism, Religion, Religious Pluralism with tags , , , , , on June 13, 2009 by lifeasacupofcoffee

(For the sake of understanding, I’m going to define some terms very quickly: Exclusivism is the view that one’s own religion is the only truth and that all other religions are false and their adherents are destined for eternal punishment. Christian fundamentalists are exclusivists. Inclusivism is the view that one’s own religion is the best way to the truth and that one’s own God is the only true God, but one admits that people of other religions might come to know this God by a means other than their own religion. A Christian who says that Gandhi will be in heaven because he was a Christian without knowing that he was one would be an example of an inclusivist. Pluralism doesn’t concern itself with whose religion is true and whose is false and focuses instead on understanding between people of varying beliefs. A Christian who visits a Jewish synagogue with some Jewish friends, attends their religious holiday celebrations, and listens to them explain their beliefs to him or her without butting in and telling them why those beliefs are “wrong,” would be an example of a pluralist.)

In the religions seminar that I took last quarter, the professor described religious pluralism as “crossing the Rubicon.” She even drew a river on the board and wrote “exclusivism” and “inclusivism” on one side of that river and “pluralism” on the other. (I love it when professors draw on the board!) She then explained what this diagram meant.

If you’re going to take an exclusivist or inclusivist view of religion, you don’t have to change what you believe too much. You still believe, more or less, that your religion is right and that everyone else’s is wrong or at least not as good as yours. Your God is still the best God and the most powerful God and you are His blessed chosen. You don’t have to question a lot of doctrine or rethink much theology. To hold these views, you don’t have to think too much about what you believe. You also don’t have to change many of the tenants of your faith.

Pluralism, though, is quite different. When you are a pluralist, you have to be able to put your beliefs aside. You have to be able to say that there is something more important than being right or being saved or being united with God in a pleasant afterlife. You have to see understanding between people as more important. You have see people getting along in this life as more important than fighting over whose God is better or whose doctrine is most true. Instead of seeking converts, you seek friends. Instead of being content with tolerance, your goal is an open-mind. And to reach some of these goals, you have to rethink some of the major tenants of your religion. You might have to question some important theology and doctrine. You might even have to decide that these goals are more important than some of the rules of your religion. When you become a pluralist, you cross the Rubicon, and you might have to leave some important aspects of your own religion behind.

This doesn’t mean that pluralists have to abandon their faith completely. Pluralism is not the same as universalism, which says that all faiths point to the same God and we will all be with this God in the afterlife, no matter what religion we follow. Pluralism is also not the same as eclecticism, which combines practices of different religions to make a whole new religion (such as Zen Buddhism, which is an amalgamation of Buddhism and Taoism). Pluralism doesn’t even have to be religious syncretism, which is the practice of different religions simultaneously, though they are not blended into one religion. A pluralist still practices his or her own religion. However, a pluralist interacts differently with those who do not follow the same religion. Instead of trying to convert them or simply allowing them to go about their religious business as long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s, a pluralist tries to understand someone else’s religion. A pluralist tries to see the world from the point of view of a person who practices this different faith. A pluralist sees someone of a different religion as one of “us” and not one of “them.” And a pluralist does not worry about whose religion is “right” or “wrong.”

Obviously, this is a very difficult mentality to cultivate. Thinking that your own beliefs are right and true and never trying to see otherwise from someone else’s perspective gives one a feeling of security. It feels safe, especially since you don’t have to question what will happen if you do try to understand people of other religions. You also don’t have to question truths that have been passed down to you in your own religion, which was set down by people much smarter than you and must be right because everyone you know has gone on for centuries without questioning it at all. You might–horror!–begin to see them as human beings just like yourself. You might be forced to admit that some of their beliefs do make sense. You also might lose your zeal to convert them to your own way of thinking, and you even might begin to wonder if all of this talk about hell is as dire as everyone makes it out to be. You might cross the Rubicon, and the other side of the Rubicon is uncharted territory. Not many people have been there; you don’t know what you might find.

As scary as crossing the Rubicon might be, I really think that it’s the best chance the religions of the world have for getting along with one another. If we could all try to understand each other’s beliefs instead of fighting about who is “right” and who is “wrong,” the world would be a much more peaceful place. The lines between “Muslim,” “Jew,” “Christian,” “Hindu,” and “Buddhist” would be blurred until we all just saw each other as people, people with a right to have their own system of beliefs. 

We also might be able to take constructive criticism from each other and perhaps improve our own belief systems as well. Instead of Muslims shouting, “Greedy materialists!” at the Christians, who merely shout back, “Oppressive militarists!” we might have Christians saying to Muslims, “You know what? We are awfully materialistic, and our greed has harmed other societies all over the world, not to mention the damage that it’s done to the environment. We really ought to go about changing this…” while Muslims say to Christians, “Yeah, we could do a better job of supporting human rights and providing freedoms to our people…” Does this kind of conversation sound far-fetched? Probably, but that’s because the understanding has got to come first. Think about it: you’re more likely to take criticism from a friend that from someone whom you view as an enemy.

I think that atheists, agnostics, deists, freethinkers, de-converts–whatever we want to call ourselves! For now, I’m going to put everyone in those categories under the label of Humanism for simplicity’s sake–have a role to play in this too. While we may not be religious, we can still practice exclusivism, inclusivism, or pluralism. There are people who think that religion should be done away with completely and we should all be Humanists, who don’t need a God to give us morality. There are people who think that religion should be tolerated and religious people should be able to go about their little rituals and prayers, so long as they don’t try to interfere with us. And then there are people who, even though they do not wish to practice religion themselves, are willing to consider the world from the point of view of someone who is religious and try to understand them.

Crossing the Rubicon can be just as difficult for Humanists as it can be for religious people. For instance, I know from my own life, that too often I merely dismiss Christians. I assume that because I used to be a Christian, I must understand all of them and know how all Christians think. This is simply not true. Though I might not want to practice Christianity anymore, I should still try to understand Christians and be willing to see the world from their perspective. I should be willing to talk to them, to find out why they believe what they believe. It’s something that I will probably always be struggling with, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t try.

I would also argue that being willing to understand religious people can be a little scary for even Humanists. It involves stepping outside of the safe boundaries that we have set up for ourselves. (Yes, even freethinkers have boundaries.) We might have preconceived notions about religion that we feel safe clinging to because they give order to our lives. They allow us to classify people as “us” and “them.” We’re human and we like our neat little classifications. They make our lives much simpler.

But if we want to get along with each other, we’re going to have forget about simplicity. We’re going to have to cross the Rubicon and let it carry us away from our safe, secure boundaries. We’re going to have to be willing to redefine our views of all sorts of people. And we’re going to have to see the world in complexity instead of simple binaries of “right” and “wrong,” “true” and “false,” “us” and “them.” Maybe we will have to give up a lot of beliefs that we hold as absolute. Maybe we will have to rethink a lot of our most important assumptions. Maybe we will have to change our religions and worldviews and leave the judging up to God, if we happen to believe in God. This doesn’t mean that we have to drown all of our old views in the Rubicon. It just means that we may have to let some of them float away. But the new worldviews that we create after we’ve all crossed together could be even better than the old views that we leave behind.