Standing up for my beliefs
Nov. 14th, 2010 05:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livI've had fairly regular visits from Jehovah's Witnesses in the last few months. I know a lot of people like to play headgames with them, or respond with outright rudeness; I've tended not to go down that route. I am not completely convinced I'm making the right decision, because I really, really dislike proselytizing, and I think there's a strong argument which says that missionaries are already being rude by knocking on your door and telling you that your religion is wrong, so you're perfectly entitled to be rude back. The reason I've decided against that is because as a general rule I don't want to be rude to anyone unless it's really necessary, and also because I feel that these people are doing something that they sincerely believe to be a religious requirement, and as long as it's annoying rather than hurtful to me, I'm willing to extend them a little compassion.
The main Witness who shows up is called Rachel, sweet girl, just out of university, and terribly sincere and all that. She sometimes brings her father, who is a reasonably sharp cookie, and sometimes random teenagers who stand around trying not to look uncomfortable. I don't ask her in, but I do allow her to stand on my doorstep for a quarter of an hour or so spouting Biblical verses at me. I don't argue, I take a quasi-interfaith stance saying things like "oh, it's really interesting that you read the Bible that way, in my tradition some people believe this and others argue that". We've actually had some quite useful discussions about our communities' experiences of the Holocaust, and contrasting the JW's habit of saying (what they believe is) God's name every sentence with the Jewish tradition of avoiding pronouncing the Divine name. Anyway, not surprisingly given her religious background, she quickly steers the conversation towards the topic of the afterlife. The previous time she visited she said something about how of course everybody is going to be resurrected in the prime of life, adding with an overt sneer:
After she went away I thought a lot about how to respond to this ableism. I definitely wanted to say something, and I wanted Rachel to take it seriously and remember it, not just regard it as the typical rebuff that door-to-door missionaries are trained to ignore. I thought about giving her a long rant about how derogatory her language and attitude were, and how I'm close to several people with disabilities including immediate family, and how I did not want anything to do with a religion that denied the basic humanity of some people. And I thought about just closing the door in her face. When she next appeared, I had to make a split second decision and decided on the latter course; I didn't want to debate the issue, and I was fairly sure she wasn't going to let me get through my rousing speech without starting to argue and justify herself. So I just told her I wasn't prepared to talk to her any more after what she'd said about disabled people, and I closed the door before she could argue.
In response, she sent me a really sweet card, with a proper apology and a lot of Biblical verses her people interpret as showing that God loves everybody regardless of what their body looks like. So, as a small piece of advocacy I think that counts as a reasonable success. I don't know if and how I should follow this up; should I write her an email (she asked me to contact her by email so we can discuss things), or should I agree to revisit the subject if she shows up at my door again? In some ways any communication I might undertake is slightly deceptive because I obviously have no intention at all of converting to her religion, but if I can make sure she doesn't throw around terms like "crippled" when proselytizing to total strangers then I'll have achieved something.
Feeling energized by this, I posted a Twitter status that makes it obvious I'm Queer. These get cross-posted to my Facebook feed, which is read by lots of people I've met at various stages of my life, including my schoolfriends who were pretty heterosexist / homophobic when we were actually in eachother's lives. I have always been out on Facebook to the extent that my profile says that I'm interested in both men and women, but since it also says I'm only looking for friends, it's somewhat ambiguous in interpretation. Nothing much happened, which is about what I expected, but it's one more small teaspoon worth of visibility in the ocean of straight people running everything.
Then there is the whole fraught question of Remembrance poppies. I'm generally a bit uncomfortable with wearing a visible symbol that shows you've donated to charity, and the peer pressure to do so. I'm also largely anti-war by inclination. However, I think the poppies are part of something bigger than, say, the pink ribbons which show that you're "aware" of breast cancer. I am willing to wear a symbol that says not only that I gave a pound to the British Legion (not exactly my number one charity in any case), but that I join others in remembering those who fought for this country, and those who were killed in wars they didn't choose. I don't want to wear a white poppy, because I'm generally anti-war rather than being a committed pacifist, so doing so feels like slactivism. It's a symbol which shows that I'm too cool and too independent minded to wear a popular symbol. I don't feel strongly enough that the ideas behind the red poppy are wrong and evil that I'm willing to risk offending those who actively choose to wear them.
My compromise was that I would wear a poppy on 11th November and today, Remembrance Sunday, but not for the whole of October and November as is becoming the custom these days. On Thursday we had a 2-minute silence in the medical school, which was surprisingly moving as the noisy, crowded department foyer fell silent and the students stopped chattering and paid attention. And I wore my poppy and took part in the ceremony (rather than making sure I was somewhere else at 11 o'clock), and that felt appropriate.
The problem is that I forgot that many Jews keep this Saturday as Remembrance Day, rather than Sunday; this makes sense given that Saturday is the day when we have major public services anyway. So I didn't wear my poppy to shul on Friday evening, and the community were a bit peeved at me for showing up without one. They have the right to be; many of the community are actual veterans, not just people who wear a poppy because that's what everyone else is doing. The Singers (Orthodox) siddur we use doesn't have any liturgy for Remembrance, so I just mentioned it and allowed a moment of silent prayer. And apologized profusely for turning up without my poppy. Apparently there is some home-grown liturgy buried in the archives somewhere; I've made a mental note that I'll make sure that gets unearthed by this time next year.
The main Witness who shows up is called Rachel, sweet girl, just out of university, and terribly sincere and all that. She sometimes brings her father, who is a reasonably sharp cookie, and sometimes random teenagers who stand around trying not to look uncomfortable. I don't ask her in, but I do allow her to stand on my doorstep for a quarter of an hour or so spouting Biblical verses at me. I don't argue, I take a quasi-interfaith stance saying things like "oh, it's really interesting that you read the Bible that way, in my tradition some people believe this and others argue that". We've actually had some quite useful discussions about our communities' experiences of the Holocaust, and contrasting the JW's habit of saying (what they believe is) God's name every sentence with the Jewish tradition of avoiding pronouncing the Divine name. Anyway, not surprisingly given her religious background, she quickly steers the conversation towards the topic of the afterlife. The previous time she visited she said something about how of course everybody is going to be resurrected in the prime of life, adding with an overt sneer:
Nobody's going to be old or crippled, of course.
After she went away I thought a lot about how to respond to this ableism. I definitely wanted to say something, and I wanted Rachel to take it seriously and remember it, not just regard it as the typical rebuff that door-to-door missionaries are trained to ignore. I thought about giving her a long rant about how derogatory her language and attitude were, and how I'm close to several people with disabilities including immediate family, and how I did not want anything to do with a religion that denied the basic humanity of some people. And I thought about just closing the door in her face. When she next appeared, I had to make a split second decision and decided on the latter course; I didn't want to debate the issue, and I was fairly sure she wasn't going to let me get through my rousing speech without starting to argue and justify herself. So I just told her I wasn't prepared to talk to her any more after what she'd said about disabled people, and I closed the door before she could argue.
In response, she sent me a really sweet card, with a proper apology and a lot of Biblical verses her people interpret as showing that God loves everybody regardless of what their body looks like. So, as a small piece of advocacy I think that counts as a reasonable success. I don't know if and how I should follow this up; should I write her an email (she asked me to contact her by email so we can discuss things), or should I agree to revisit the subject if she shows up at my door again? In some ways any communication I might undertake is slightly deceptive because I obviously have no intention at all of converting to her religion, but if I can make sure she doesn't throw around terms like "crippled" when proselytizing to total strangers then I'll have achieved something.
Feeling energized by this, I posted a Twitter status that makes it obvious I'm Queer. These get cross-posted to my Facebook feed, which is read by lots of people I've met at various stages of my life, including my schoolfriends who were pretty heterosexist / homophobic when we were actually in eachother's lives. I have always been out on Facebook to the extent that my profile says that I'm interested in both men and women, but since it also says I'm only looking for friends, it's somewhat ambiguous in interpretation. Nothing much happened, which is about what I expected, but it's one more small teaspoon worth of visibility in the ocean of straight people running everything.
Then there is the whole fraught question of Remembrance poppies. I'm generally a bit uncomfortable with wearing a visible symbol that shows you've donated to charity, and the peer pressure to do so. I'm also largely anti-war by inclination. However, I think the poppies are part of something bigger than, say, the pink ribbons which show that you're "aware" of breast cancer. I am willing to wear a symbol that says not only that I gave a pound to the British Legion (not exactly my number one charity in any case), but that I join others in remembering those who fought for this country, and those who were killed in wars they didn't choose. I don't want to wear a white poppy, because I'm generally anti-war rather than being a committed pacifist, so doing so feels like slactivism. It's a symbol which shows that I'm too cool and too independent minded to wear a popular symbol. I don't feel strongly enough that the ideas behind the red poppy are wrong and evil that I'm willing to risk offending those who actively choose to wear them.
My compromise was that I would wear a poppy on 11th November and today, Remembrance Sunday, but not for the whole of October and November as is becoming the custom these days. On Thursday we had a 2-minute silence in the medical school, which was surprisingly moving as the noisy, crowded department foyer fell silent and the students stopped chattering and paid attention. And I wore my poppy and took part in the ceremony (rather than making sure I was somewhere else at 11 o'clock), and that felt appropriate.
The problem is that I forgot that many Jews keep this Saturday as Remembrance Day, rather than Sunday; this makes sense given that Saturday is the day when we have major public services anyway. So I didn't wear my poppy to shul on Friday evening, and the community were a bit peeved at me for showing up without one. They have the right to be; many of the community are actual veterans, not just people who wear a poppy because that's what everyone else is doing. The Singers (Orthodox) siddur we use doesn't have any liturgy for Remembrance, so I just mentioned it and allowed a moment of silent prayer. And apologized profusely for turning up without my poppy. Apparently there is some home-grown liturgy buried in the archives somewhere; I've made a mental note that I'll make sure that gets unearthed by this time next year.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 07:10 pm (UTC)It's a bit like the solicitors who approach me with something like "Can you spare a couple of minutes for gay rights?" which, if you say yes, turns into "Give us money for our very mainstream lobbying group." ("Can you spare a couple of minutes" would be honest if they were asking me to sign a petition to the governor, or to vote for a specific candidate.) At this point, my answers there range from "I'm not giving you money" to "not until your group starts paying attention to bisexuals and trans people." The college students with the clipboards who are doing this as a summer job don't have an answer for that. What they've been given is a spiel and probably answers to a few easy questions like "what issues are you working on?" or even "What's the status of that lawsuit in California?" but not "why did your leadership decide that it was fine to exclude transgender people from ENDA?"
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 07:46 pm (UTC)The gay rights example is a pertinent one. I disapprove of the JWs as an organization but I don't think for a minute that Rachel has the authority to change how her religion works. And since I object to proselytizing I'd be a hypocrite if I tried to convince her to stop being a Witness! But she does have the authority to change her own attitude towards people who are not young and pretty like she is, so that did feel worth arguing about.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 10:54 pm (UTC)Yes, it's a funny idea, but only to people who actually deserve it, and most people who are in the position of bothering you really DON'T deserve it. Even if the religion or telesales company sponsoring them does morally dubious things, it's not typically the fault of the person you're talking to. If you're incessantly bothered, I can't certainly understand the reasons to retailiate, but don't actually think it's a good idea.
And certainly, someone bothering you out of the blue is being a tiny bit rude, and so a justified response of "I'm sorry, I'm busy right now" which would be rude under other circumstances, is entirely appropriate (and people who don't accept that without good reason ARE being rude), but if they're polite about it, then they don't typiocally deserve a deliberately rude response.
ETA: Although, on the other hand, someone explaining their religion to you is literally inviting you to ask questions about it, even ones which are difficult to answer, as long as you're not just deliberately offensive, even if a more balanced approach would be nicer.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 10:29 pm (UTC)I don't ask missionaries poser questions mostly because it isn't any fun, rather than because I have a moral principle against it. I haven't yet met anyone from a tradition that values both intellectual rigour and proselytizing, although I believe that some Catholics in some contexts do both.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-16 02:28 pm (UTC):) That's a good point. It's definitely useless to ask hard questions when I'm sitting on a slate of five possible resolutions to it, but don't want to do their half of the conversation too.[1] Your approach of finding something they MAY be able to talk about is definitely more positive.
I think it's just instinct. If someone asks me to believe in a religion about the sky being red, it's almost physically impossible for me to bite back a question about why it doesn't LOOK red. And if someone wants to tell me about God's goodness, it's almost impossible for me not to ask about the Eurythro dilemma -- that was literally one of the first things that occurred to me. And I don't think it's unanswerable, I have lots of perfectly consistent answers, including "we don't know why, but doing X seems to make the world better so we do that". But that if someone wants me persuade me of something, I find it hard to be persuaded if they don't seem to have spent five minutes thinking through the most obvious and unpalatable consequences.
[1] Man, I wonder how well I could do as a Christian missionary to atheists? I don't imagine I would be convincing, but I hope I could at least have consistent answers to the hard questions!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-16 02:30 pm (UTC)You know Rob :) And I suppose for that matter, you know me, although it's not Christianity I'm pushing.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 12:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 10:45 pm (UTC)There's a whole bunch of things that I do that some people might find shocking, and I vary in how much I'm willing to spare their sensibilities (depending on whether I find the sensibilities reasonable, I suppose). Like, one possible way that pursuing the conversation with my JW might go is: I feel really strongly about this issue because my mother, my brother and my ex-girlfriend[*] all have disabilities. And she might well be shocked by that, which I don't think she has a right to be, but then again it might detract from the point I'm actually trying to make.
*Ex-girlfriend may not in fact be an accurate description of this relationship, but it's the one we've agreed to use for avoidance of horrifying anyone who doesn't need to be horrified.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 07:22 pm (UTC)Go you!
Rather than talk to missionaries, I generally politely ask them to go away and not come back. They generally listen.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 07:55 pm (UTC)The reason I actually started talking to this girl is that the first time she showed up she interrupted me just as I was about to start davening on a Saturday morning. I answered the door (which has a fairly obvious mezuzah) wearing my kippah and tzitzit, and she launched straight into her opening question: do you believe in the Bible? I was so surprised by the total lack of observational powers that could lead her to ask that question that I felt answering "yes, of course" was more important than getting rid of her...
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 08:40 pm (UTC)I think this perfectly illustrates the narrowness of experience which the leadership of organisations like the JWs foster and rely on. The individuals can be perfectly well-meaning and all the rest, but they've been deliberately ill-equipped for dealing with the wider world - even the bits of it which share their common heritage.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 10:50 pm (UTC)As far as I can tell all she knows about my religion is that Jews object to people saying "Jehovah" and prefer the OT over the NT, which isn't even entirely accurate. Her dad seems to be rather more clued in, though, but I suppose there's a limit to how ignorant a fifty-year-old can be kept even in a cult-like situation.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 10:47 pm (UTC)(OTOH, if I'd seen it and looked at it, or seen a kippah, I imagine I would have known what they implied. And I'd certainly see the funny side if I hadn't and started with a question like that :) And also a sucker for giving the perfect reply :))
ETA: And I don't think I would even have believed you if you'd told me about the four-cornered garments :)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 09:23 pm (UTC)The missionaries, of course, do not like debating religion. They like proselytizing, and in order to get in their sales pitch, they're willing to pretend to discuss or debate. That's fine with me; I like the debating enough to put up with fake debates where I know perfectly well that neither side is going to change a bit of what they think. Kinda like re-reading a much-loved book. If they don't know that, that's their problem; I do tell them "I have a religion and I'm not likely to be persuaded to change it." I have no idea what they think that means.
My current game with JWs, when I find them (they don't visit my neighborhood), is to talk about David's infant son being killed for David's sin. I have a Cunning Plan for if they ever bring kids to my door again (I gather this practice has fallen out of favor because of the Shocking Things approach): I will address the child and say, "In my religion, we believe some children can still see the fairies. Can you see the fairies?" ... and see how long it takes the parent-type to haul the kid away from me.
Re: ableism--you might bring it up indirectly, by starting with other forms of prejudice and bigotry. Ask if there will be sexism ("of course not!"), and if there will be two sexes anyway (JWs don't acknowledge intersex people, or probably believe they'll be "fixed"), and what will be done with the people who honestly believe that men are smarter and more emotionally stable than women? (There will be, if pattern holds, some fascinating doublespeak about mind-editing with changing a person's true self.) Ask why God wouldn't just turn everyone into one sex.
Point out that most of the problems with having disabilities are not the disabilities themselves, but the way society reacts to them. If their God is just and kind, he'll fix the aspects that keep people in pain, but other conditions that we consider "disabilities" might not be problems at all. (Being unable to walk may only be a problem if you can't get to where you want to be. We don't consider "unable to fly" to be a disability, nor "unable to breathe water"... nor even "unable to run a mile in four minutes.")
FWIW, I have vague memories of JW's promising that in heaven, everyone would have superpowers, but they didn't use that term.
All of which is entirely separate from the use of the term "crippled." That, you might be able to point out problems with in a two-minute conversation, without getting into any theology. They might easily amend the sales pitch to "nobody will be old or have disabilities." Which doesn't fix the main problem, but at least makes them less offensive while they're proselytizing.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 09:30 pm (UTC)Yeah, I think I have a similar thing with missionaries. I'm not keen on debating religion but I do love talking about it and comparing my beliefs and customs with them, and even though missionaries aren't sincere in engaging in that kind of dialogue, I can still learn something. I suppose on some level I'm trying to set an example of how discussing religion from a place of honest curiosity is more fun than trying fruitlessly to convince eachother, but I very much doubt that subtext would be detectable over the noise of massive cultural conditioning.
I like the idea of tackling some of the David stuff (so far my JWs haven't been interested in the historical / narrative parts of the Bible, focusing more on Psalms and eschatological prophecies, but it's worth a try). And the fairies thing is lovely. I admit I was tempted to take up the proffered bait for a debate about evolution, but instead pointed out that my visitors probably didn't want to venture that subject with a professional molecular biologist...
Wow, mind-editing, that's possibly even more creepy than body-editing! I have the impression that JWs hold that there's only a very small number of Saved people, so I imagine they're more likely to argue that anyone who holds "bad" beliefs isn't going to make it to the promised future anyway.
Yes, ideally I'd like to point out that many people with disabilities would rather the prejudice went away than the difference or impairment. That's a pretty complicated argument though, and I don't know how well I can advocate for that view. (I was convinced that Dave Hingsburger had a really accessible piece about people saying that someone will be able to walk in heaven, and he responds, no, in heaven there will be wheelchair ramps everywhere, but I can't now find more than a vague allusion to that concept.) So yeah, getting her to change her offensive language would be a very good start, and more attainable. I'll continue to give it thought.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 09:59 pm (UTC)I ran across it from a different direction: I asked some of them, "if I believe you, and convert, what happens to my friends? They go to hell?"
"Yes, sadly, if they won't convert."
"But then won't I be unhappy in heaven without them? I love my friends."
"Oh, God will make it so you don't miss them. You get a new body and a new mind!"
"... then how will I still be me?"
"Pardon? Now, let's get back to this other verse, where..."
The JW's believe in a very small number going to heaven;* the rest of the saved will be on "the new earth" (the one with the vegetarian tigers).
many people with disabilities would rather the prejudice went away than the difference or impairment
Many that I know want the *pain* to go away, and the exhaustion that keeps them from doing things, but they're not so much interested in "being able to walk for 8 hours" as "being able to get where they want to go," whether that's on foot or in a powered chair.
Maybe ask the JW's if they think being less than five feet tall is a disability that needs to be fixed.
*144,000, all of whom are known to them, of which, last time I checked, less than a hundred were still alive. As soon as the last one of those dies, theoretically we get the Rapture.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-14 11:06 pm (UTC)Conversely, I assume she literally had only the vaguest idea why people find "cripple" offensive, and no idea at all why people would find the idea that in paradise we'd all be "fixed". (I think it's actually not obvious to most people, even if it should be.) And her apology was sincere that she didn't mean to offend you, but not that she actually knew how to avoid doing so to other people.
I mean, it was very nice that she wrote a very sweet apology card, and obviously sincerely meant it, but I didn't feel it really changed things -- before she sent it, I assumed she genuinely regretted offending you, and yet was sufficiently far from understanding why she did that no amount of feeling bad about it was going to make her spontaneously figure out WHAT was offensive -- and after she sent it I assumed the same.
I think you'd be entitled to respond however you most preferred and however was most compatible with your time. However, my guess is that most useful -- if you have the energy to spare which you are obviously not obliged to do -- would be a short email saying thank you very much for the very sweet apology, and you don't hold it against her, and here is a short intro course on how many people feel and which she should probably be aware of.
And then add whatever you would say otherwise -- either a polite invitation to continue to visit occasionally, or a polite suggestion that while you appreciated the thought, you really don't have the time, ever, and it'd probably be a waste of her time.
*hugs*
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 10:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 11:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 10:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-16 09:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-16 02:21 pm (UTC)You said to lizzip "whether having a long conversation at this point would actually be effective".
What I would have meant was saying enough to actually explain the point of view you wish she would understand and preferably internalise, but that expanding beyond that may be still positive, but definitely into diminishing returns.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 09:58 pm (UTC)I agree with you that I haven't completely got the message through to Rachel. If I can convince her to change her terminology that's a start, definitely. And honestly I'm not too, too worried about the issue of whether people want to be fixed. That's a difficult concept and I'm not sure I even know how to explain it. Though I think you're right, just letting her know that this is even a possible opinion to have would be something.
Mainly I want her to stop sneering when she mentions disabled people (whatever term she may use). I mean, I could put an argument that whether or not she's right about the kind of bodies that people will have after God redeems the world, in this world right now there are people whose lives are being made miserable because people treat them as disgusting.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 09:24 am (UTC)The thing I always want to ask about is the rationale behind the choice of content in their pamphlets: those I've actually read seem to basically subscribe to the 'take our word for it' school of conversion: 'We believe God exists and [has these properties]. So, now that you know that, hadn't you better [do the following stuff about it]?' with no section in the middle giving evidence or reasons to hold those beliefs rather than others. And I always want to know, is this a deliberate strategy? Are they intentionally targeting people who can be convinced without actual argument (e.g. people who were on the cusp of believing already), or intentionally not worrying about anyone who's going to put up a fight because they had no realistic hope of winning it anyway? Or is it part of their religious dogma to believe that this particular conversion technique is effective regardless of what the evidence suggests (
Unfortunately, the JWs I've had in the past have tended to either call at really inconvenient times (e.g. interrupting a meal) or else stand there in the rain looking really miserable and proffer a pamphlet with a clear air of 'let's get this over with one way or the other as fast as possible', so I've never had the leisure to ask.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 09:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 11:08 am (UTC)But I'm also sure the leaflets are designed somewhere fairly central and the individual at your door won't really know anything about it.
I obviously don't know specifically what they believe, but I think it's very common in prosetlyisation of all sorts and is almost always not deliberately calculated, but that most causes are NOT adopted by people due to convincing evidence (and many don't have any), and so people don't instinctively think of those, they think of the passion which convinced them.
Some organisations (scam cults, PR campaigns, etc) are sufficiently cynical to promote things independently of what the organiser really thinks, but most people -- even sincerely evangelising people -- aren't that objective, and promote in a way consistent with (or that they can tell themselves is consistent with) what they really believe.
After all, Jesus occasionally flaunted the power of God (eg. the coming-back-to-life-bit) but was mostly "This is How the World Works" which people believed because it resonated with them.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 11:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 12:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 10:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-16 01:31 pm (UTC)Fascinating, thank you! That does make it all make sense.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 10:50 pm (UTC)2. I don't think you need to feel that you're deceiving her; as you say, she'd have to be trying quite hard to have not noticed! I also don't think you need to feel any particular obligation to keep talking to her; you might be able to drive the point home better with a longer conversation, though? Not that that's your responsibility.
3. You continue inspiring.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-15 11:07 pm (UTC)So the question is whether having a long conversation at this point would actually be effective. I suspect it might not, because it might dilute the emotional impact of my initial bit of quasi-theatre. Also it's very likely to get bogged down in her cognitive dissonance; arguing with someone about whether they're a good person is rarely productive. Still mulling over it (hence the long DW discussion, I tend to think best by debating with as many people as can be bothered to join in, which is one of the reasons I love blogging!)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-16 02:14 pm (UTC)But if she asks you to talk about religion, talking about religion isn't.
In theory it's a difficult question, because someone evangelising is implicitly saying "even though you don't think you want to convert, spare me some time anyway", but you think you know better than her that you WON'T. So, if you want to be considerate, do you go with your impression (which is right) or hers (which she asked you to entertain, in case she actually did know more than you, however unlikely).
But it's unlikely to come up. I think anything from nothing to the amount of time you are ever likely to spend is fine from a "being polite" point of view.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-18 10:59 pm (UTC)Remembrance Poppies.
Date: 2010-11-18 11:38 pm (UTC)____________________________________________
I take issue with you but I understand your problem.
Particularly for a high profile charity such as the Royal British Legion, a significant number of people intend to contribute but never get round to it unless a collecting tin is rattled under their nose. Peer pressure is not to be despised as a method of fund raising.
More significantly, the widespread display of such a visible and recognisable symbol raises public awareness of the support provided by the Royal British Legion and of the needs of our servicemen. Such awareness is very important, independently of the fund raising aspect. I agree, however, that the poppy can become a fashion statement if overused.
Southernwood
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-19 11:07 pm (UTC)And the adorable age-ism, too! Who gets to define "old" by the standards of heaven?
"In response, she sent me a really sweet card, with a proper apology and a lot of Biblical verses her people interpret as showing that God loves everybody regardless of what their body looks like."
She can't believe this and also believe that "no one in heaven will be 'crippled'". If the Divine loves you as you are, then why do you need to be fixed?