How to Deal with Zealots Who Tell You that Your Way of Thinking is Wrong.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

Exactly.

[the_geneticist]

As an adult who no longer lives at home, the real leverage you have is the ability to either be present & available for interactions with your parents/extended family or to not be.

You have the right to be treated with kindness and politeness.  By everyone.  That doesn't mean you have to agree all the time, just that disagreements have to be civil.

If a family member can't hold to that agreement, then you leave the room/hang up the phone/don't answer the text.  You can block them on social media, cut visits short or not visit at all, etc.
Hold firm to your boundaries!  And you might want to consider a therapist to help talk you through this.  It's not easy to limit or cut off contact with a loved one, even if that person is constantly hurting you.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

As an adult who no longer lives at home, the real leverage you have is the ability to either be present & available for interactions with your parents/extended family or to not be.

You have the right to be treated with kindness and politeness.  By everyone.  That doesn't mean you have to agree all the time, just that disagreements have to be civil.

If a family member can't hold to that agreement, then you leave the room/hang up the phone/don't answer the text.  You can block them on social media, cut visits short or not visit at all, etc.
Hold firm to your boundaries!  And you might want to consider a therapist to help talk you through this.  It's not easy to limit or cut off contact with a loved one, even if that person is constantly hurting you.

Thanks the_geneticist. Had a convo today and I had to talk over this person to change the subject several times. Managed to get off the phone relatively unscathed. Like you said, it is difficult, when it is a family member, to keep those boundaries.

[marshwiggle]

I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

This is a really cynical view; it basically suggests that society is doomed to either anarchy, or a police state with one viewpoint completely supressed by force.

In my experience, controversial issues are that way because there are two (or more ) factors that must be taken into account, and much of the polarization is a result of different weights put on the factors by people on different sides of the issue. While complete consensus may not be achievable, people from different viewpoints who make an effort can come to some agreement on the factors themselves, even if they can't agree on their relative importance.

[mahagonny]

I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

This is a really cynical view; it basically suggests that society is doomed to either anarchy, or a police state with one viewpoint completely supressed by force.

In my experience, controversial issues are that way because there are two (or more ) factors that must be taken into account, and much of the polarization is a result of different weights put on the factors by people on different sides of the issue. While complete consensus may not be achievable, people from different viewpoints who make an effort can come to some agreement on the factors themselves, even if they can't agree on their relative importance.

increasingly, not in the academic world. Our college is already enlisting all of us in the 'antiracist' pledge. The questionnaire I just filled out didn't ask 'how do you feel about recent events.' It asked 'what are you interested in finding out about antiracism' 'what commitment are you willing to make to antiracism and making the college more inclusive, less racist,' etc. Academia in the last week is riding high on the wave of the moving of progressive positions to the political center that has occurred in the last several weeks.

'Antiracism' is the new manipulative emotional  or identity blackmail technique. The right had something like this a few years ago that they called 'support the troops.' It meant that if you love people who put themselves in harm's way for America, you vote for Prudent Bush.

[marshwiggle]

I have realized that many controversial issues are not really about evidence and logic, right and wrong or the best result as shown by statistical evidence.  They really are about personal preference and that is rooted in culture and there can be no consensus or compromise.

This is a really cynical view; it basically suggests that society is doomed to either anarchy, or a police state with one viewpoint completely supressed by force.

In my experience, controversial issues are that way because there are two (or more ) factors that must be taken into account, and much of the polarization is a result of different weights put on the factors by people on different sides of the issue. While complete consensus may not be achievable, people from different viewpoints who make an effort can come to some agreement on the factors themselves, even if they can't agree on their relative importance.

increasingly, not in the academic world. Our college is already enlisting all of us in the 'antiracist' pledge. The questionnaire I just filled out didn't ask 'how do you feel about recent events.' It asked 'what are you interested in finding out about antiracism' 'what commitment are you willing to make to antiracism and making the college more inclusive, less racist,' etc. Academia in the last week is riding high on the wave of the moving of progressive positions to the political center that has occurred in the last several weeks.

'Antiracism' is the new manipulative emotional  or identity blackmail technique. The right had something like this a few years ago that they called 'support the troops.' It meant that if you love people who put themselves in harm's way for America, you vote for Prudent Bush.

The modern equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[kaysixteen]

Well now I get this is an interesting issue.  My own church, an independent evangelical congregation (c. 60 people in attendance normally), where I was one of but two voters who did not vote for Drumpf in 16, has been back holding live services for a month now.  In our state, the governor, a centrist Republican I never voted for, but for whom all these folks did, has put in a mandatory public maskwearing emergency policy, for about 2 months now.  Sadly, I am one of three churchgoers who is obeying the policy, the other two being a young (29yo) type I diabetic and his wife (interestingly, his dad is an elder and neither he nor his wife mask).  I confess my patience for this has worn thin, both for the issue of our need as Christians to obey those lawful acts of Caesar that would not cause us to disobey God in obeying, and for the awful testimony associated with the lack of concern for the health of our fellow congregants and those they would encounter during the week (a concern amplified for me personally due to the repeated ongoing exposure I face during my retail job).  Thus, finally, after church Sunday I asked the pastor for a few minutes of his time to air my concerns.  I never got to the last part, the 'putting the Lord to a foolish test' concern for our health, and just started in on the legal obedience part.  He flatly denied that the governor had any authority to put such a masking req on us, and asserted a standard Fox-y line about religious liberty and such like.

Ah well.

[apl68]

Well now I get this is an interesting issue.  My own church, an independent evangelical congregation (c. 60 people in attendance normally), where I was one of but two voters who did not vote for Drumpf in 16, has been back holding live services for a month now.  In our state, the governor, a centrist Republican I never voted for, but for whom all these folks did, has put in a mandatory public maskwearing emergency policy, for about 2 months now.  Sadly, I am one of three churchgoers who is obeying the policy, the other two being a young (29yo) type I diabetic and his wife (interestingly, his dad is an elder and neither he nor his wife mask).  I confess my patience for this has worn thin, both for the issue of our need as Christians to obey those lawful acts of Caesar that would not cause us to disobey God in obeying, and for the awful testimony associated with the lack of concern for the health of our fellow congregants and those they would encounter during the week (a concern amplified for me personally due to the repeated ongoing exposure I face during my retail job).  Thus, finally, after church Sunday I asked the pastor for a few minutes of his time to air my concerns.  I never got to the last part, the 'putting the Lord to a foolish test' concern for our health, and just started in on the legal obedience part.  He flatly denied that the governor had any authority to put such a masking req on us, and asserted a standard Fox-y line about religious liberty and such like.

Ah well.

Our pastor has taken essentially the line you were talking about, in reminding the church that we are to follow government directives where they do not directly contradict Christian duty.  That's why we were all masking and social distancing when we reopened last Sunday.

[kaysixteen]

This is exactly the attitude I encouraged my pastor to take, but of course he did not take it.  Indeed, this mask ordinance and other issues regarding the pandemic seems to have hardened him into a Trumpist 'they're coming to take our religious freedom away' mindset, and, although I *think* (but certainly do not know) that at least some of the other folks in the church are probably taking their lead from him and would be masking in church if he did/ told us to do so (I believe his health conditions do actually warrant the exemption from masking that the Governor's policy permits, but almost no one else in the church has such a condition), many folks in the church would have this same view regardless of what he was saying/ doing, and indeed might well react negatively if he were to take the opposite view, the one I want and your pastor takes (and indeed, our lay elder takes, at least the part about obedience to lawful state mandates).  It is also true that, quite unlike the South, up here in very very blue Massachusetts, the people in our church hold a vastly different religious and political perspective than the vast majority of peoplel around here, which strongly contributes to the us vs. them mentality that many of them, including the pastor think, irrespective of the level of education and intelligence of the person.  It is very difficult to deal with, whereas in a place like Arkansas, it would almost certainly be much harder to get and especially maintain such a view, when the vast majority of the folks you'd encounter outside of your congregation are pretty likely to be very simpatico to those religious and political perspectives of yours, or at least say they were.  Lastly, there is also the rather sectarian, almost culty, groupthink mentality that runs rampant in a church like this one, which is not something like the Catholic or Methodist churches, denominations noted for a wide variety of members holding a wide variety of opinions.  I do not much know how to deal with this, either, and must needs admit that I have succumbed on occasion to a wee bit of this 'culty' feeling myself, a feeling of a magnet-type thing pulling me into the overall thinking on any given subject, even if I really do not want to be so drawn,

[Liquidambar]

Kay, here's a piece to maybe share with your pastor:  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/church-dont-let-coronavirus-divide/
Key quote, speaking to those who don't think precautions are necessary:  "even if it turns out you're right, can you not sacrifice your ideal for a season, out of love for others who believe the precautions are necessary?"

[mamselle]

Kay, here's a piece to maybe share with your pastor:  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/church-dont-let-coronavirus-divide/
Key quote, speaking to those who don't think precautions are necessary:  "even if it turns out you're right, can you not sacrifice your ideal for a season, out of love for others who believe the precautions are necessary?"

Yes. This.

M.

[financeguy]

I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar. I'm an atheist, but the one thing I actually do appreciate about having so many Christians in this country is that they provide at least some limit on the degree to which people will follow government, even if I disagree with the underlying reason. Unfortunately most of my fellow atheists adopt the state as their religious idol with no boundaries at all.

While we're at is, I actually refuse to use the phrase "the government" in isolation. There are nearly 200 national governments and many thousands of regional governments within them. The use of the general term "the government" almost implies an inevitable natural state. You're really just referring to the people threatening you with violence for non-compliance in a given geographic area. I doubt a christian god would wish one do too much rendering unto Caesar if suddenly ruled by "the government" of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc.

[mahagonny]

When Jesus said 'give Ceaser what is due him and give God what is due him' he was still living. Isn't that a game changer? Wasn't he saying 'I got your back.'

[Ruralguy]

I think with age, my extended circles shrink, and though I wouldn't say I don't have both extremes represented,
Most either share my views or are only willing to discuss views we have in common.  I don't think I would bother to debate the mom of my kids friend about Trump or even a more clear individual principle. What's the freakin point? I just accept them on fairly superficial terms , and we go from there if we can. Family can be harder. Work folks can either be easier (if , say, similar age and rank) or harder to discuss these things with. It's not that I don't want to discuss important issues with junior faculty. I just don't want them to think they are being brow beaten.

[mamselle]

I've never heard the interpretation of the Caesar line to imply that one is to obey the orders of a government so long as they do not contradict faith, but I'm certainly not a religious scholar. I'm an atheist, but the one thing I actually do appreciate about having so many Christians in this country is that they provide at least some limit on the degree to which people will follow government, even if I disagree with the underlying reason. Unfortunately most of my fellow atheists adopt the state as their religious idol with no boundaries at all.

While we're at is, I actually refuse to use the phrase "the government" in isolation. There are nearly 200 national governments and many thousands of regional governments within them. The use of the general term "the government" almost implies an inevitable natural state. You're really just referring to the people threatening you with violence for non-compliance in a given geographic area. I doubt a christian god would wish one do too much rendering unto Caesar if suddenly ruled by "the government" of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc.

Good point about "governments." Traveling and researching in other countries over extended periods, and reading their newspapers and listening to their newscasters, besides being excellent language immersion experiences, pointed out to me just how exclusionary and self-focused/selfish our own news coverage is.

I get better insights about US topics from Reuters. I find out more about Asia, Africa, Europe, and S. America from Le Monde. My cousin's local paper in Liege is more international than my local paper, which is no slouch, but still doesn't reach out as much h as it could (or used to) for a broader perspective on things.

This use of the word "government" points it up, in a nutshell.

The closer Christian citation for me, about the ethical responsibility of co-religionists for each other--and for the newer, younger, or more fragile members of a shared faith community--is the parallel concern for the behaviors expected of the early Gentile converts when disambiguation between adherents to Judaic law and the followers of the Christian Way (as they were first called) became an issue.

In Acts 15:29, and again later in Rom 14, and in I Cor 8, injunctions against certain behaviors (notably the eating of meat offered to idols) were imposed. The operant reason given is that while idols may be seen as impotent and their worship frivolous-- and so, eating offerings to them, or not, was irrelevant-- eating meat taken from those altars was a potential issue of conscience and/or confusion for newer adherents to the faith.

To be charitable to those new baptisands/confirmands, then, the point is made several times that abstention from such meat was requested as an act of kindness, so as not to bruise their consciences. Older, more assured followers of the faith may have seen it as a non-issue, indeed, being certain of their own agnosticism re: the various other cults in the area, but long-standing memebers were urged to be considerate and take the extra trouble to procure meat not so 'tainted' by association, however glancing, with idolatry.

Instead of parading their "rights" about, they are urged to observe humility and greater self-control, and to make the extra effort needed to make their newer members feel comfortable.

I Cor 8 is also, in some readings, the lead-up or prelude--the softer-voiced prologue, perhaps-- to the development in chapters 9-12 of the "ethics of love," which winds up to a full-throated crescendo in I Cor 13 ("the wedding verses") and 14 (which presses out the principles or organic unity and consideration for others into the specific issues faced by early churches in the realms of prophetic utterance, church order, and the enactment of the giftedness celebrated in the earlier passages), as well as that upheld in Roman's 12.

These, too, are tied to ideas of governance and government, of course. A voluntary society differs from civil society in some ways, but the underlying idea of consideration for others as a significant principle, set into conversation with principles of liberty and individual rights, seems to me to be the common thread.

I think of Reingold Niebuhr, Robert Bellah and Robert Coles as exponents of these ideas in the somewhat more recent past. I develop this point from this perspective because I know it best, but it's not the sole arena within which these ideas are discussed.

Jewish and Islamic scholars may have related comments from the Abrahamic perspective. Buddhism's guiding concept of "compassion" and the ideals of Confucianism may obtain in those spheres. Alex Garcia-Riveria wrote along these lines in Latino/a terms, and Ifanyi Menkiti developed Nigerian philosophic considerations along similar lines.

So, I'm suggesting that a conversation--not a conflation--around these ideas might be instructive in the more global context.

M.