Why Politics & Religion Make Good Table Topics

Popular wisdom has it that politics and religion should not be discussed at the table, and some extend this to other times and places, too. The reason given is that they tend to be too controversial for situations that call for composure and pleasantries. Of course, the subjects that usually take their place –notably sports and economics– are at least as contentious as politics and religion, and have taken at least as many lives.

Be that as it may, what is important to realize is that rule in question appeared for historical reasons that are gradually disappearing, leaving politics and religion as prime topics for many social situations, as I hope this article will show. The process by which this change is occurring can be divided into three stages, which have to do with our understanding and practice of the interplay between uniformity and diversity, between unity and division.

1. Unity in Uniformity

During the first stage, unity depended on maintaining uniformity, and social coherence was preserved by forcibly removing diversity and promoting or imposing uniformity. Politics and religion were dictated by civilian and religious powers, and up until a century or two ago, people did not choose their own religions, much less their political leanings. They had to accept those of their king or emperor, and those who refused to do so risked losing their livelihoods, or even their lives.

In the West, for example, Christianity was imposed throughout fourth-century Rome by fire and sword, followed by ‘holy wars’ against neighboring ‘infidels’, the burning of books that did not agree with official doctrine, the use of torture to test the faith of new converts, and public execution of those found guilty of heresy. Medieval kings were at once the legislative, executive and judicial branches all in one, the sole owners of all things and persons within their kingdoms, and dispensed death to all who spoke out or acted against their will.

Therefore, to discuss either religion or politics at the table or elsewhere was not only pointless but dangerous, as prudence dictated concurrence with the status quo of the official position, or the risk of being denounced –even by friends and family– and publicly executed.

2. Division in Diversity

This situation was gradually turned around by a plethora of historic events such as the European Renaissance, the Cartesian Revolution, the invention of the printing press and mass availability of reading material, the rise of an educated middle class, the French Revolution, the liberalization and democratization of governments, the loss of political power by the church, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and so on. Even in science, the authority of objectivist positivism was put to doubt by subjectivist postmodernism.

Suddenly, everyone was entitled not only to have and state their own opinions, but also to attack that of others –whether friends and family, or the official position of the Church and State. The tonic became division in diversity, as our differences increasingly pulled us apart. When these diverse elements were brought too close, there was always a risk of uncomfortable confrontation or even violent clashes.

Of course, unity in uniformity persisted in in-group situations, as people tended to aggregate around common ideals and lifestyles. This helped avoid situations of conflict while enabling self-validation among peers. People were apt to shun those different from themselves and to steer clear of potentially controversial topics to avoid possible –almost inevitable– clashes.

Politics became all but a battle ground. In its primitive form, democracy was merely representative, consisting mostly of voting for nominees. In this early form of democracy, politics was defined as a power struggle among vested-interest groups called political parties. The topics of political debate became so and polarized that people felt obliged to take a position in one of two opposing extremes.

Their mutually-exclusive arguments were presented as complete packages, so one could not simply pick and choose the best elements from each side of an issue. In any case, politicians ended up making most significant decisions, limiting the usefulness of discussing politics to one’s choice of candidates.

During this stage, religion also swung from one extreme to its exact opposite. From being an almost entirely state-determined, social phenomenon, it turned into a mostly individualistic affair. It was no longer anyone else’s business what others believed in.

Therefore, inquiries as to their belief systems were taken by many as unwelcome intromissions or meddling into something so private and intimate that it could justify the harshest of responses. Likewise, any offer to explain one’s own faith was often taken as an unwarranted imposition, proselytizing, or pushing one’s religion on others.

Under such an arrangement, there was also little or no point in talking about either politics or religion, as among those who thought alike there was not much to add to any discussion, and among diverse thinkers it was deemed impolite to raise potentially controversial topics.

3. Unity in Diversity

All of this is beginning to change, however, as a new culture of peace gains momentum in the world. Both politics and religion are undergoing profound changes in people’s conception of their purpose and roles in society and in their practice of those roles.

Politics is being seen more and more as the science and art of achieving long-term wellbeing for all, through consensus-building processes and win–win solutions that benefit society as a single, unified, albeit richly diverse system to which all sectors are essential contributors.

In such a system, the win-lose power struggles of traditional party politics are actually anathema to the best interests of the body politic and therefore, according to our definition, actually anti-political. In a culture of peace, then, ‘discussing politics’ at the table is a marvelous way to further the essential process of seeking innovative win-win solutions to common issues.

Our perception of religion’s role in society is also changing. Instead of a cause of division and strife, religion is increasingly being seen as a force for much-needed social change and unification. Ecumenical and inter-faith movements and activities are proliferating as religious organizations join hands to fight poverty, protect the environment, and address many other social issues.

Growing numbers of people of all religions or no religion are studying the various holy books making up humanity’s spiritual heritage. A broad array of autochthonous belief systems are being explored through both ‘etic’ and ‘enic’ studies aimed to deepen both insiders’ and outsiders’ understanding of their essential verities.

Followers of the different world religions are joining with co-religionists of their various denominations to identify commonalities, question the significance of their differences, and learn how to work together for common goals, sharing temples and even some services.

Grassroots inter-faith prayer meetings and improvised devotional spaces are springing up in thousands of neighborhoods around the globe. Base communities and study circles for the joint discussion of how to apply religious teachings to the social and spiritual needs of humanity are replacing the vertical authority of traditional priest-centered sermon approaches.

The growing recognition that God is one and the same for all religions, no matter the name, concept or form of worship, gives all faiths the same center and focal point. More and more people realize that there are valuable life lessons to be learned from all faiths.

In such an environment, discussing religion is an essential part of each person’s own spiritual enrichment and of society’s overall coming together as a whole, both of which have always been considered central aims of religion in the first place.

4. Conclusions

The watchword is now unity in diversity. Unity is no longer seen as uniformity, but a recognition of the organic oneness of diverse elements. Likewise, diversity is no longer viewed as a cause of division, but rather what enriches our unity.

This principle is being found to apply to all aspects of life. The dynamics of a market are not detracted from but strengthened by diversifying its products and services. An ecosystem is no less an organic unit because of its biodiversity. The human body is the most highly diverse unitary organism on the planet, but nonetheless its health depends on the harmonious functioning of all its cells, tissues, organs, and systems.

Likewise, our political and spiritual life is not imperiled but can only be enriched by dialogue, at once frank and courteous, courageous and careful, to which all can contribute and from which each can glean food for thought and action as needed at every step of the way.

As we overcome the false dichotomies inherited from former stages, the divorce between unity and diversity can now finally be reconciled. And as we bridge age-old rifts, we can open unsuspected doors to mutual understanding that will greatly enrich the subject matter of today’s table talk.