Responding to Proselytizing

Tags

proselytizing

*best sign ever*

It happens to nearly everyone, Pagan or not, though Pagans (as well as atheists, humanists, and some other religious minorities) seem to have a more visible target painted on their backs.

Sometimes its the knock on your door by well-meaning bicycle riding young men in white shirts and black pants or perhaps it’s the grandmotherly looking woman that sits next to you on a crowded bus. Sometimes its anonymous…as blatant and undirected as a shouting angry man on the corner with a sign proclaiming that everything you are is an anathema or it might insidious but targeted–a child sent your way to parrot everything they’ve been told by their parents and their church in an attempt to gain approval. But then there are the times when its personal. It comes from your doctor, or your coworker, or your child’s teacher, or a therapist. At best, you were taken by surprise and off-guard, at worst, you were cornered, vulnerable, and under attack. All too often you just don’t know how to respond, of even if you should.

It is a simple fact that a few religions believe in proselytizing, particularly certain Christian denominations.  It is also a simple (though annoying) fact that most of these people believe that they are doing you a favor (and doing themselves a favor) by informing you of their faith and its benefits (and often how they feel your beliefs are inferior). Therefore, the idea that (at least any time soon) we are ever going to convince (those) Christians to stop the oh-so annoying practice of proselytizing, is naught by folly.  This leaves us with the generally unpleasant (but sometimes not) task of figuring out what our response should be.

A while back, I wrote  a list of “Interfaith Etiquette Guidelines” of which #6 states “If you are in a mutual discussion of beliefs, don’t use your theological opinion as a tool for condemnation or insult.” If only everyone followed them, and if only proselytizing was about mutually discussing beliefs.  But, of course, its not…and they don’t.

Based on my own experience, proselytizers come in a couple different varieties.  Sometimes they are honestly nice and courteous people that think they are doing you a favor.  Assuming that your goal is to not engage them in conversation, these folks can generally be handled with good manners.   Something along the lines of, “I appreciate your interest and your concern, but I’m not interested discussing religion with you,” often works quite well in turning the conversation elsewhere.  An occasional response to this might be “Well, I’ll just pray for you then” or something…when polite and well meaning folks say that, I usually say thank you, I don’t care who they are praying to or how, if it is sincere, cool (if its not sincere, well-meaning, and polite, I generally tell them with hostility “I’ll be praying for you too”).  If your goal isn’t to avoid a discussion (maybe its a family member, or a child’s teacher, or co-worker, etc), I recommend following guidelines #4-11, and this might be helpful too.

Unfortunately, many proselytizers aren’t honestly nice and courteous people (although they still might be well-meaning, rather than malicious).  A discussion with them isn’t often a “discussion” so much as them attempting to mentally and spiritually (and sometimes physically) bludgeon their victim with their religion as the weapon of choice.  These people are not someone wanting to learn and share their faith with you in an equal exchange of information and ideas, or even to have a constructively critical comparison of religious beliefs.  These people want to bully you for your spirituality, either as a justification of their own faith, or to fill in the chinks of doubt in their fortress of dogma, or because it gets their spiritual rocks off.  Either way, YOU DO NOT OWE SOMEONE LIKE THIS ANYTHING.

Let me say that again so that it sinks in:  These people are not someone wanting to learn and share their faith with you in an equal exchange of information and ideas, or even to have a constructively critical comparison of religious beliefs.  These people want to bully you for your spirituality, either as a justification of their own faith, or to fill in the chinks of doubt in their fortress of dogma, or because it gets their spiritual rocks off.  Either way, YOU DO NOT OWE SOMEONE LIKE THIS ANYTHING.

When I meet these people, I remind myself that I don’t owe someone like this my time, I don’t owe them my conversation, and I certainly don’t owe them justification of my faith.  And neither do you.  My advice here is to simply say, “I’m sorry, but my religion is none of your business.”  To be perfectly honest, with people like this, I don’t even bother to tell them I’m Pagan, or to engage with them other than saying, “Thank you for your concern. I will keep that in mind, but right now, I have other matters to tend to.”

When it comes to proselytization, you are the one that controls this conversation (and not the proselytizer), and if it isn’t happening on mutually respectful terms with your explicit consent, you don’t have to have it.  I see so many Pagans that say that they didn’t know what to do or say in this sort of situation…that they got in an argument and got stuck, or felt hassled and harassed and couldn’t think of a response, or that they felt that they had an obligation to defend their beliefs.  But you CAN refuse.  You have to power to engage or disengage in these conversations, and if you aren’t prepared or comfortable, you don’t have to have them!

Sometimes remembering that is hard.  Sometimes, remembering that I don’t have to engage with the guy that comes up to me in the parking lot of the grocery story (true story) is hard.  Especially when its threatening, practically assault, and pushing all my rape victim fight-or-flight vibes and my momma bear/inviting my extreme ire vibes)–I have kids, and I’m busy, I don’t appreciate someone cornering me against my open car door and preach-yelling at me with my two small children in the back seat because I have a “Coexist” bumper-sticker right next to my “American Women Veterans: Not every GI is a Joe” sticker and the Darwin fish emblem (did you know that their Jesus hates evolution, other faiths AND women that dress up as men and serve their country? *rolls eyes*).  Actually, I believe my exact words were “if you don’t move your ignorant ass, I’m going to drive over it” after nearly slamming his fingers in my car door.  It probably wasn’t the best example of fostering ecumenical relations, but under the circumstances, I’m not entirely dismayed at my lapse in temper.

But…sometimes we falter.  We might forget that we don’t owe them justification of our beliefs in the heat of anger, or stress, or surprise. Or maybe we decide that we DO want to have the conversation, even though we aren’t sure of the person’s motives or behavior.  Hey, it happens–sometimes I will talk to missionaries…but only on my terms.  Enough people slam the door in their faces, that I think some hospitality probably goes a long way to fostering interfaith interactions (and Delphic Maxim #42 says “Have respect for supplicants”).  To borrow a bit of Jefferson, it neither pricks my pocket nor breaks my leg to let the Mormon boys in their suits on bikes or the nice JW ladies in their big hats in the summer have some lemonade and give me a brochure.  And, when we have a conversation in good faith, it acts to show them that we are people just like them..and, its a reminder (usually) that they people just like us, with out the specter of some scary caricature standing between us. Generally speaking, it ends up quite well.

And then sometimes it doesn’t…there are many proselytizers that can’t handle a truly interfaith conversation (in all fairness, there are also plenty of Pagans, atheists, persons of other religions, and other Christians that can’t either).  Some can’t understand and/or abide the idea that someone else’s faith could possibly be just as valid as their own (these folks often think that the practitioners of other faiths are “misguided” or “mislead”).  Some proselytizers that react badly do so because their very identity is threatened by someone questioning the authority of their faith.  Other proselytizers feel vindicated–any sort of challenge may be seen as “temptation” or as justification that their ideas and ideals are under attack.  In these sort of conversations, people can get mean and ugly.  When this happens, walk away.  Don’t lower yourself to their standard of behavior.

But somewhere between the conversation that goes wonderfully and the conversation that goes horribly, we should make room for conversations that are neither (or both?) (f anyone has these mastered, let me in on the secret!).

Etiquette and Religion, Revisited

Tags

interfaith etiquette, religious differences, religious discussions, religious tolerance, respect

Look, people are going to disagree in life.  And they are going to disagree even more about religion, which many consider a vital part of their identity, culturally and individually.  The problem is not disagreement, the problem is the oft-perceived idea that disagreement is a personal insult to oneself followed by the wielding of disagreement as a weapon as a result of that insult.  Disagreement is not a statement of unworthiness of another, or superiority of one’s self.  Really, its not.  

But maybe we need to learn to disagree with one another better.  This is where manners come into the picture.  I don’t think that having manners means leaving disagreement behind.  In all actuality, I think that part of having manners is being respectfully honest.  The honest truth about religion is that the only thing that determines “right” is belief.  It goes without saying that I believe I’m right (or at least more right than the next guy), or else I’d have different beliefs. It also goes without saying that people with diametrically different and even opposed beliefs believe that they are right as well.  This leaves us with the problem of having equal claim to “rightness”…and it means that we need to work on how we express ourselves in such a way that is compassionate and respectful to one another as people.

Two years ago, I felt compelled to write a list of “Interfaith Etiquette” guidelines.  Every once in a while, I feel compelled to post them again.  Heck, I even followed it up with a “Netiquette” version, specifically geared towards blog posting and discussion.  I’m going to repost the pertinent part to both of those  (again), but first, I want to direct your attention to this very excellent post over at Pagan Activist, which happens to be right in line with this train of thought.

Okay, now that you are back…without further ado (because we can all stand to be reminded from time to time):

Etiquette Guidelines for Interfaith Discussions

1.) If someone asks about your religious beliefs, share (respectfully and with compassion). If they don’t ask, don’t assume that sharing will be welcome and go out of your way to do so.

2.) If you feel compelled to ask someone else as a way to spark a discussion about their beliefs, back off if they aren’t interested.

3.) Make sure the setting is appropriate for the discussion so neither party will feel uncomfortable.

4.) Don’t act like your truth is everyone’s truth–it isn’t, because if it were, there wouldn’t be a conversation on the matter. When expressing your beliefs, use I-statements to express your personal beliefs.

5.) Refrain from using absolute or exclusive language, but don’t assume that absolute or exclusive statements are made with negative intent.

6.) If you are in a mutual discussion of beliefs, don’t use your theological opinion as a tool for condemnation or insult.

7.) Realize that the people who vocally use their beliefs about religion as an excuse to be a jerk are louder than those that don’t, if you want to be a good ambassador for your faith, act your ideals, and even share them, but don’t preach them.

8.) Language is imprecise–different religious and denominations have differing terminology; understand the limits of your religious literacy and ask for clarification if you are unsure of one’s meaning.

9.) Disagreement is not an automatic insult or attack. Try to refrain from taking offense to comments that may be well-intended, but poorly phrased.

10.) Courteously and constructively correct misinformation. Do not get drawn into an argument (as opposed to a debate). Be polite, even when the other person is not.

11.) If things start going badly, be the adult and back off. When this happens, don’t wait for the other person – do it first. If you are a person that has to have the last word, remember that walking away with dignity while the other person brays like an ass is its own last word.

A particular challenge in discussions about religious and spiritual beliefs is when they meet the internet.  In addition to blogging and other forms of social media, I’ve been a member and then a moderator,  and finally an administrator and co-owner of Pagan Forum for at least a decade now–I’ve had plenty of time to observe and engage in discussions of religion online.  Internet interaction, I think, calls for some extra guidelines…

Netiquette for Inter/Intrafaith Discussions

Responsibilities of the Writer: 

1)  Know your audience.  As a writer, you should know who your audience is–its just sort of common sense that one needs to know who they are writing to, and what interests and perspectives readers might have, in order to appropriately address topics.  But part of knowing your targeted or expected audience is also knowing that some of them might just be curious drop-ins…  If your goal is to foster thought and discussion solely within one’s community, that’s fine (though a consideration of how they could be taken by others might be a good idea)…but if your goal is to spark discussions across communities (either sub-groups within the same faith group, or between faith groups), then perhaps its a good idea to see what your words feel like from an outside perspective and model them appropriately.

2)  Strive for accuracy and honesty.  Try to emphasize when something is a personal opinion (albeit a hopefully educated one) as opposed to a fact-based statement.  Particularly when discussing contentious topics (in which case, try to acknowledge if not address different opinions) or in environments where you could be construed as a subject matter expert or a representative of a particular view.  If you know you are biased on a particular topic, ante up and admit it.

3)  Write  with respect.  The bottom line here is to write with respect for one’s subject matter and one’s audience.  Sometimes that can be a quite difficult balance to achieve.  There are a number of ways to do this: cite sources, admit bias, use inclusive language, make ‘I’ statements, and overall…be kind–or at least as kind as possible if and when criticism is necessary.

4)  Make it readable.  I admit, I’m totally guilty of tl;dr at times…and UAWA (using abbreviations with abandon–and yes, I totally made that one up as a joke), incredibly bad humor, and overuse of ellipses and parentheses. Look, it doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be able to be read and understood without too much difficulty.  If most people struggle to read it, there isn’t much of a point to have written it!  Things like format (hello, paragraphs!), punctuation and spelling, syntax and grammar matter, as does clarity and specificity in language (terminology matters!).  And for the love of all that you consider holy, use paragraphs–I won’t even bother to try to decipher a total wall of text, it hurts my eye balls and my brain.

Responsibilities of the Reader:

1)  Know the audience of the writer.   Lets be honest here, writers write with a specific audience in mind.  So be mindful of whose internet home you are walking into.  Don’t jump down someone’s throat for disagreeing with you when you wandered into their site (this doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with them).  Religious beliefs are opinions, and a person that wanders into a community with different opinions from theirs should expect to disagree with them.  Don’t automatically take disagreement, even at a fundamental level of how your own beliefs are viewed, as a personal insult.

2)  Read with an open mind and an open heart.  Try to see things from the writer’s perspective and experience.  You don’t have to agree with them, but try to see where they are coming from and why that background could lead them to see things as they do.  Don’t take a general opinion as a personal attack, even if that is how they feel…often people have opinions that they have absolutely no real world experience with (and usually those opinions are the most offensive ones!).  A decent person can still have a shitty opinion, so try to refrain from passing judgement on a person, instead of their ideas and reasoning.

3)  Give some “benefit of the doubt” to the writer.  Writing well can be hard and writing well on hard topics can be even harder.  Sometimes people say things in a way that is not immediately clear what they mean, or they give insult where none is intended because the words they use are not understood in the same way they were meant to be delivered.  In light of an entire post, try not to take single comments out of context, unless they are an illustration of overall disagreement.  Unlike a face to face discussion, where a person has instant feedback and can see that a conversation is starting to go off track and clarify points or ask questions, internet discussions are dependent on when someone can get back to it (and a whole lot can go wrong in that time).  On the other hand, the key word here is some–some comments need to be challenged, whether it be for their sheer offensiveness, or because the author is someone that should know better (and if they don’t they need to be told), etc.

Responsibilities of the Responder/Commenter:

1)  If you didn’t read it all, don’t comment/respond…9 times out of 10 I’m willing to bet it will leave you breaking my next “rule”.

2)  Don’t be an ass.  A responder/commenter is both a reader and a writer and is responsible for behaving as both, the only additional duty you really have is to not be a jerk when you respond.  Ask yourself questions like “Will this contribute to the conversation?”, “Am I voicing a legitimate concern or critique that shows alternative points of view and furthers the discussion?”, “Do my comments get the author and other readers additional insight into the situation?” and “Would I say this to my mother/spouse/child/best friend?”.   If the answer to questions like those is “No”, then perhaps a rewording or rethinking of the comment is in order.

Maxim Monday: Gratify Without Harming

Tags

#delphicmaxims, #paganvalues, an' it harm none, Delphic Maxims, empathy, harm none, maxim monday, Pagan Values, wicca

…eight words the Wiccan rede fulfill

A *gorgeous* banner from The Crackling Crows (check out her blog for more examples of her work, and keep tabs on when she reopens her etsy store!!)

I’d like to call Delphic Maxim #136 “the maxim for Wiccans”!

So, I’m a big fan of words (English or otherwise)–what they mean, where they come from, alternate and less popular secondary meanings, how they are used and how they can be used–subverted, if you will, etc.  The one, obvious term that these two sayings have in common is the word “harm”, and that is the word I want to focus on first.  Etymologically, “harm” means to hurt, it means grief, sorrow, insult, pain, and (interestingly to me) evil.

Evil tends to be an interesting subject in Pagan communities.  Views of what constitutes “evil” as a definition and as an action or behavior vary, but tend to emphasize the “I know it when I see it” subjectiveness of the idea of evil.  Of the many discussions (online and IRL) that I have encountered on the topic, my favorite definition comes from an essay on the Wiccan Rede from Proteus Coven—evil is a rip in the fabric of empathy.

We can only act with indifference towards the needs and feelings of others if they don’t seem to matter to us. When we are in a state of empathy, wholehearted and open awareness of our essential connection, then we know — experientially, not just theoretically — that our actions must inevitably come back on us. We cannot then cause harm without experiencing it ourselves.

(from the same essay)

I think it helps to look at harm in this way as well…as a rip in the fabric of empathy.  When we consider our actions on the level of empathy, what we do becomes personal.  It is hard to purposely cause harm when you know what that harm feels like.  As a mom, its my job to teach my children empathy–because (contrary to what some think) it isn’t actually a natural state (*cough* Ann Coulter *cough* Rush Limbaugh *cough*).  Empathy is something that develops over time and is a learned state of emotion, understanding and behavior.  Some kids ‘take’ to empathy more easily than others–Chickadee has an overload of empathy, and Sharkbait struggles with it (a common phenomenon in kids with ADHD).  As a parent of a kid with ADHD, I will admit that it can be downright hard to maintain an empathetic relationship with a kid with ADHD…in and of itself, maintaining that fabric of empathy is essential, not only to not harm our relationship, but to not harm Sharkbait’s capacity to develop socially (social skills are often a struggle for kids with ADHD as well).

The biggest problem with looking at harm (or evil for that matter) in this way is that it becomes subjective.  What I am sensitized to, in terms of my capacity for empathy overall and my ability to empathize on a particular subject specifically, differs from what and how another might feel.  For most Pagans, I doubt this is a problem (for most UU’s as well…I don’t think I’d be making an understatement if I said that defining moral absolutes is pretty low on the list for most of us)…but we all still differ here.  If the focus of my behavior should be to avoid or alleviate harm (and I think the latter is implied as a substitute) and my capacity to empathize is variable with the capacity of others, then what I perceive as undesirable behaviors will also differ.

To do as I will, or (in the Greek version) to gratify or seek gratification, depends on a subjective idea of beneficial (harmless, or at least relivable harm) actions.  Many a conversation that I  have engaged in or observed in the Pagan community has reached the eventual conclusion that causing no harm is an impossibility.  As guiding ideals, these are both wonderful places to start exploring one’s behavior as an individual and one’s place in a community.  But…as a practice, it is impossible to live to such a degree, where every action is harmless (as it seems some have interpreted the Wiccan Rede).  So thank goodness that ain’t what it says!

Both of these maxims come back full circle to the idea of “harm”–really of not harming.  For the Wiccan Rede its about the phrasing–“An it harm none”, literally, IF it causes no harm, do what you want.  And this phrasing brings it parallel to the Delphic Maxim–IF it causes no harm, indulge in that which brings pleasure and satisfaction!   Neither acts as a prohibition of harm, but instead both ask us to consider the results of our actions (of our whims and pleasures) and encourages us to choose the methods and madness that cause the least harm.

Netiquette for Faith Discussions

Tags

interfaith, interfaith etiquette, manners, religious discussions, writing about religion

A while back, I wrote a post on “Etiquette for Interfaith Discussions”, which was meant as a sort of guide to discussing faith with people of different faiths.  As a person of alternative religious beliefs that lives in an area where proselytism seems to be as popular as my beach on a holiday weekend, I’ve seen a lot of in-person discussions of religion go down the toilet very quickly–even when two people have seemingly similar beliefs from an outside perspective.  Online, its even worse…even in communities of people with similar (or at least similarly alternative) beliefs.

So…I thought it might be a good idea to talk about extending the conversation about appropriate etiquette for discussions about religious and spiritual discussion.   The assumption here is that our goal in these sorts of conversations isn’t to piss people off, in which case, I think it goes without saying that all of the etiquette points in the previous post still stand, though some of them are more specific to direct interpersonal conversation than others, and should be adapted a bit.  If, of course, the goal is to piss people off without regard for furthering dialogue, disregard the following…

Responsibilities of the Writer: 

1. Know your audience.  As a writer, you should know who your audience is–its just sort of common sense that one needs to know who they are writing to, and what interests and perspectives readers might have, in order to appropriately address topics.  But part of knowing your targeted or expected audience is also knowing that some of them might just be curious drop-ins…  If your goal is to foster thought and discussion solely within one’s community, that’s fine (though a consideration of how they could be taken by others might be a good idea)…but if your goal is to spark discussions across communities (either sub-groups within the same faith group, or between faith groups), then perhaps its a good idea to see what your words feel like from an outside perspective and model them appropriately.
2. Strive for accuracy and honesty.  Try to emphasize when something is a personal opinion (albeit a hopefully educated one) as opposed to a fact-based statement.  Particularly when discussing contentious topics (in which case, try to acknowledge if not address different opinions) or in environments where you could be construed as a subject matter expert or a representative of a particular view.  If you know you are biased on a particular topic, ante up and admit it.
3. Write  with respect.  The bottom line here is to write with respect for one’s subject matter and one’s audience.  Sometimes that can be a quite difficult balance to achieve.  There are a number of ways to do this: cite sources, admit bias, use inclusive language, make ‘I’ statements, and overall…be kind–or at least as kind as possible if and when criticism is necessary.
4. Make it readable.  I admit, I’m totally guilty of tl;dr at times…and UAWA (using abbreviations with abandon–and yes, I totally made that one up as a joke), incredibly bad humor, and overuse of ellipses and parentheses. Look, it doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be able to be read and understood without too much difficulty.  If most people struggle to read it, there isn’t much of a point to have written it!  Things like format (hello, paragraphs!), punctuation and spelling, syntax and grammar matter, as does clarity and specificity in language (terminology matters!).  And for the love of all that you consider holy, use paragraphs–I won’t even bother to try to decipher a total wall of text, it hurts my eye balls and my brain.

Responsibilities of the Reader:

1. Know the audience of the writer.   Lets be honest here, writers write with a specific audience in mind.  So be mindful of whose internet home you are walking into.  Don’t jump down someone’s throat for disagreeing with you when you wandered into their site (this doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with them).  Religious beliefs are opinions, and a person that wanders into a community with different opinions from theirs should expect to disagree with them.  Don’t automatically take disagreement, even at a fundamental level of how your own beliefs are viewed, as a personal insult.
2. Read with an open mind and an open heart.  Try to see things from the writer’s perspective and experience.  You don’t have to agree with them, but try to see where they are coming from and why that background could lead them to see things as they do.  Don’t take a general opinion as a personal attack, even if that is how they feel…often people have opinions that they have absolutely no real world experience with (and usually those opinions are the most offensive ones!).  A decent person can still have a shitty opinion, so try to refrain from passing judgement on a person, instead of their ideas and reasoning.
3. Give some “benefit of the doubt” to the writer.  Writing well can be hard and writing well on hard topics can be even harder.  Sometimes people say things in a way that is not immediately clear what they mean, or they give insult where none is intended because the words they use are not understood in the same way they were meant to be delivered.  In light of an entire post, try not to take single comments out of context, unless they are an illustration of overall disagreement.  Unlike a face to face discussion, where a person has instant feedback and can see that a conversation is starting to go off track and clarify points or ask questions, internet discussions are dependent on when someone can get back to it (and a whole lot can go wrong in that time).  On the other hand, the key word here is some—some comments need to be challenged, whether it be for their sheer offensiveness, or because the author is someone that should know better (and if they don’t they need to be told), etc.

Responsibilities of the Responder/Commenter:

1. If you didn’t read it all, don’t comment/respond…9 times out of 10 I’m willing to bet it will leave you breaking my next “rule”.
2. Don’t be an ass.  A responder/commenter is both a reader and a writer and is responsible for behaving as both, the only additional duty you really have is to not be a jerk when you respond.  Ask yourself questions like “Will this contribute to the conversation?”, “Am I voicing a legitimate concern or critique that shows alternative points of view and furthers the discussion?”, “Do my comments get the author and other readers additional insight into the situation?” and “Would I say this to my mother/spouse/child/best friend?”.   If the answer to questions like those is “No”, then perhaps a rewording or rethinking of the comment is in order.

Maxim Monday: Deal kindly with everyone

Tags

#delphicmaxims, compassion, Delphic Maxims, golden rule, kindness, monday maxims

Delphic Maxim #93
Deal Kindly With Everyone
(Φιλοφρονει πασιν)

Yes, I know…I’m posting this on a Tuesday. Its because I was about to fall asleep trying to type last night…I seriously nodded off  on the keyboard to find that my nose had replaced what I had written with nonsense.  I figured that was my sign to call it a night.  Better late and “legible” than on time and nonsensical!

There are a number of the Delphic Maxims that I consider analogous to the Golden Rule (I wrote about another one of them a few weeks ago)..including this one.  Since I’m not going through the Maxims in order, I’ve been browsing the list to see whatever speaks to me at the moment, and in light of my post yesterday, I thought that the timing was good to talk about this one.  Delphic Maxim #93 asks that we Deal Kindly With Everyone.

How can we do that in our everyday lives?

We need to ask each other and ourselves what actions and traits and values show kindness.  Then we need to figure out how to know which kindnesses are needed, when, and by whom (is an unwelcome “kindness” really kind?).  We need the capacity to know if we are really responding to an actual need for kindness and not our own projection of need (or lack of it).  And, I think that perhaps there is a need for us to learn (relearn?) to accept kindness at face value without projecting a negative intent that might really originate in our own personal biases on to it.  Of course, we first need to hash out an operational definition of what it means to be kind.

Thalassa’s Wordle of Kindness

Before I start pontificating on what it means to be kind, I’d like to point out one thing.  The maxim says “deal kindly with everyone”, not “deal kindly with others” or “deal kindly with people like you” or “deal kindly with people you like”.  Everyone means yourself, it means people you don’t like, it means people you don’t know, it means people that aren’t like you…and (personally) it isn’t even necessarily exclusive to people in the first place (is it weird that I tilt my head to the side when I click on the italics button?).  So…deal kindly with yourself, with your neighbor, with your family, with your friends, with your enemies, with strangers, with the gods, with your pets, with your flora and fauna–well, with EVERYONE!

Since I think we all have the picture now, back to kindness…

For me,  the most basic kindness for others that we can do as we go about our lives is to first, do no harm.  Now, realistically, I doubt that it is possible to never do harm.  Its one of the problems I have with people that take a literal reading of the Wiccan Rede, as even the best of intentions and the actions resulting in the most good can cause harm somewhere.  But avoiding harm or minimizing potential harm should perhaps be the most basic, default kindness setting we have.  To me, living kindly on an everyday basis means living as sustainable as possible and to strive for a radical acceptance* of others.  And really, this is pretty easy to do on a surface level with the people you encounter on a daily basis, but don’t actually *know*–a smile and some polite words is the most basic demonstration of kindness you can show someone.

Secondly, to practice kindness that goes beyond what I consider common courtesy, I think we need to learn to listen with compassion to the needs of others.  We need to look within ourselves to acknowledge our own places of privilege that make it difficult to hear what is actually being said (rather than what we are biased to hear).  We need to learn to ask questions in a way that seeks and honest and respectful understanding of the challenges of others.  And, when we offer criticism** it needs to be without ego, period (if you can’t manage that, just put a lid on it).  Finally, we need to work together to balance competing needs (of ourselves and our cohorts with the need of others) and to “share what we can spare” (as my momma used to say) to meet the actual needs (rather than our perception of them from our place of privilege) of those we deal with (don’t forget, this includes ourselves).  Most importantly, while doing all this, we need to remember that the actual needs of individuals may not be what we are willing or able to give them–and that needs go beyond the material.  We also need to know our limitations and when it might be better to do nothing at all (in an effort to cause no harm, or to minimize the harm we might cause) because our idea of kindness might not be what is needed or necessary.

Okay, lets get some realism in here.  I don’t think it is either necessary, nor practical to do all of that all the time for everyone we encounter on a daily basis.  I’m no paragon of perfection, and I like my sanity.  There are quite simply too many people with too many challenges to care for them all.  With that being said, I believe that we should strive to deliver the first “level” of kindness to everyone to the best of our ability, but I don’t think that we automatically “owe” the second, more in depth level of kindness to anyone other than ourselves…with one caveat.  When we choose to enter into conversation or congress with others, we ought to do so as kindly as we can manage…and if we can’t do so kindly (which should be measured at least in part by how kind–or not–we are being perceived as), we should probably rethink ourselves and our egos a bit.

And that’s how a simple idea gets all sorts of complexified.  Thanks for tuning into another episode of Thalassa Overthinking Things (otherwise known as Maxim Monday)!

*Probably another topic for another day, but to hit the highlights, when I talk about radical acceptance, I mean radical in the myriad of way the dictionary defines it (outside of a chemistry term) rather than the limited way that it is generally used in conversation.  To me, radical acceptance means an open minded and open-hearted non-judgmental valuing of the inherent worth of all persons.  It doesn’t mean that you have to agree with them or approve of them, but it does mean that they should be treated with dignity and that they have  intrinsic rights which should be respected.

**Ever walk out of a restroom with your skirt hem caught in your pantyhose?  If we are honest with ourselves, criticism (when done well on both ends) can be a damn good kindness.

A post-script thought…One thing that I didn’t talk about was being the person being kindly dealt with.  I think it goes without saying that someone might be well-meaning and *think* they are doing a kindness, and even in a best case scenario where they are honestly trying to set their inherent prejudices aside, etc…and still ultimately fail.  I think we, when the recipient of “kindness” that we *don’t* find “kind” then find ourselves in a position where we need to evaluate how to deal with that person in a manner that is kind.   This might mean some gentle criticism where we need to put our own egos aside.

~this has been part of a series of posts on the Delphic Maxims~