John Doe became a fan of Thou Shalt Not Inflict Your Religious Crap Upon Others.

This popped up on one of my Facebook friends' walls. Since I am avoiding a paper, I have some thoughts on it.

My initial reaction was hurt and self-consciousness. Was I one of the religious psychos he was referring to? Honestly, its possible.

Then it occurred to me. What if Shakespeare hadn't incorporated anything about Christianity into his writings? That would have been very difficult for him because Christianity in 16th century Britain was his cultural context. God, prayers, Jesus, Puritans, etc. were all common themes in his everyday life so of COURSE he would incorporate and react to these things in his writings. Should HE have shut up about it?

I think its the same thing today. I make sense of the world around me largely by Christian ideas. It then makes sense that when communicating about my concept of reality, Christianity inevitably comes up. I am a Christian, and I make sense of life like one.

I am also an artist (Well, whatever that is. But sure). And so, when wondering why the sky is blue and nature is generally green, I like to think it has something to do with the fact that green is a relaxing colour and blue is a creativity inspiring colour for humans. And so, I like to think that all that was considered by an Artist who was figuring out what colours to use where.

A scientist would have a different perspective, and would likely talk about chlorophil (sp?) and the atmosphere and light. Or something. I don't know. I'm not a scientist.

But the point is, we all have different ways of seeing reality. Is it really fair to label one way, "Religious Crap"? We're all relatively equal in our stupidity about ultimate matters, which effect mundane matters which tend to effect everyday conversation. Why should one voice be silenced because another has dubbed it "crap" (probably without researching it much)?

Granted, some theories of why the world works the way it does are more solid than others and some ideas ought to be discredited as soon as possible. Perhaps that's THE BEST reason then to create a culture where these things can be talked about openly without fear of one point of view being called "crap". If people keep their stupid ideas to themselves or to their circles of friends with similar ideas - in part because they're too scared to talk to anyone else about it - then no light can be shone on how stupid those ideas actually are! So its actually counter productive to divide everyone up like this for the sake of a tolerant peace.

Wouldn't it be so much better if say, the atheistic scientist and the artistic Hindu got together in someone's living room over tea and had an open, unjudgemental dicussion about, say, the sun, and the importance of it to human life? Wouldn't both their worlds be illuminated by the other's point of view, even if neither changed their opinions? Isn't it just beneficial to know, in depth, that there are other ways of looking at something than just the way oneself looks at it?

That is why I think hospitality trumps tolerance as a virtue. Inviting people in for open discussion, where there's food, couches and the ability to make a joke or a comment on the art on the walls - this is so much better than cold, academic coexistance. Or worse, insisting that everyone should shut up when discussions about Truth ever come up. Because they will come up. Its natural, and so connected to everday life. We MIGHT AS WELL enjoy spaghetti together while we talk about it.

Just to prove that I'm not completely full of idealistic crap, we (my housemates and I) do actually have this type of relationship with John Doe and his housemates. They have been to our house several times, and we've been over there a few times too. So it works. I even thinks he enjoys us as people and can look past our awkward evangelical labels.

THE END. Back to my paper.