One mind at a time
Having just returned from taking my daughter to the doctor for not only another chest cold, but also an ear infection to boot, I happened to engage in a little political discussion with one of the peditricians there who asked me if she could pose some questions about Barack Obama to me (since I was proudly wearing my Obama '08 sticker). She asked if it bothered me that Obama was raised in my an atheist mother and Muslim father and had only recently come to discover Christianity.
While the latter point is patently false, I could have easily allowed my frustration to get the better of me, but I didn't. I explained that ...
- I was voting for a president and not a pastor. That if Person X shared a vision of how to run the country that was similar to mine, I didn't care if they were of a different faith than me.
- That, relating to his actual Christian beliefs, it wasn't my place to judge either his sincerity or when he converted to Christianity. If he pledged his Christianity yesterday or 50 years ago, it shouldn't affect how I judge him.
Just an interesting Election Day caveat.
While the latter point is patently false, I could have easily allowed my frustration to get the better of me, but I didn't. I explained that ...
- I was voting for a president and not a pastor. That if Person X shared a vision of how to run the country that was similar to mine, I didn't care if they were of a different faith than me.
- That, relating to his actual Christian beliefs, it wasn't my place to judge either his sincerity or when he converted to Christianity. If he pledged his Christianity yesterday or 50 years ago, it shouldn't affect how I judge him.
Just an interesting Election Day caveat.
posted by Jmac at 5:09 PM
11 Comments:
Please tell me you know that pediatrician as at least a casual acquaintance...because that's a pretty freaking intrusive question to ask a supporter just because you see their sticker.
ear infections suck. But they are a part of fatherhood.
I agree with mike-el, I have worn a number of interesting stickers over the years, but never has someone engaged a conversation that intrusive before.
Though I asked a co-worker this morning after seeing her I voted sticker, if she voted for the right guy ("guy" I meant in the generic candidate sense") and she got very frustrated with my choice of words.
I guess I could guess who she voted for.
Is it less intrusive if first she asked if she can ask questions? It seems to me Johnathan put it that she did...
I don't see it as that intrusive, but that's me, I suppose.
polusplagchnos, even if I gave the okay for questions, I would find it incredibly intrusive for a question to be prefaced with "does it bother you" because that's a passive-aggressive way of saying, "If it doesn't bother you, it should."
I had two different people give me a variation on that, they asked me if I was really alright with a muslim for the president. Its amazing the traction that stupid email that went around earlier this cycle has gotten. I've heard Obama at least try to debunk it during the stump speech on C-Span, but he's gonna need to do more.
Mike, I don't get why it's intrusive. Democracy. Talk about it. If you wear a sticker, expect questions. Be glad someone is asking questions. Even if they are based on ignorance. Set them straight, light the bulb. Change the world.
It's intrusive because it's set up under a false pretense. This person said they wanted to ask something about Barack Obama. Then they turned around and *told* JMac something about Obama and not-so-subtly suggested that it should bother him. About religion, no less. Unsolicited religious commentary is always intrusive and unwelcome to me.
Honestly, it's not a dealbreaker or anything. I wouldn't have cussed the person out. But if you get in my grill about religion when I don't know you from Adam, I'm going to consider that intrusive. That's why I wondered how well they knew each other. If they're acquaintances...whole other story, IMO.
I can see your point about the passive-aggression, Mike-el. I guess I'm just more used to questions of that sort (questions about religious interpretations and observations), and that's a mode of speaking that comes with the discussion. Of course, there might be some tone to it, as I can also see how well-meaning people might ask the question with actual sincerity. That is, it seems it's the sarcastic bent one adds to it that indicates the passive-aggression, where sincere naivety could generate that question.
(This is Polusplagchnos, btw.)
It's times like these when you need to carry around several printed copies of the Snopes pages refuting the muslim rumor.
I think I'm going to start taking them to every family gathering.
You mean religion is different from politics!? Perish the thought! ;)
Along those same lines, I get nauseous thinking that without Fred Thompson's presence to divert from South Carolina, Huckabee sweeps the South entirely.
Regarding the relevance of the question: I'm with Xon on this one. The whole point of democracy is dialogue, and the more meaningful, the better. That doctor's lucky to have asked someone with reasoned opinions and just a talking point repeater.
You know, I think my "I guess I'm just more used to..." comment could be read as itself a passive-aggressive comment ("Oh, I am used to those comments, because I'm Mister Diversity, but little ol' you is a sheltered misanthrope."). I want to express that it was not any intention of mine to compare our respective involvement in religion discussions. My history is one of wanting, midway through my undergrad career, to go on a "lecture circuit" as an evangelical apologist, maybe even street preaching in a reasonable way. I did stuff like that.
You know, there really isn't any safe way of covering one's bases from the lurking passivity of aggressiveissiveishness, is there?
Post a Comment
<< Home