faith

religion seems to be a constant point of conversation in malaysia. the interesting thing is that it’s not a discussion of the religion itself, but of what religion someone is and how that helps others build expectations around the person. when it comes to discussing religion i am used to a discussion of the points of religion, i take this as natural coming from the compare and contrast environment of catholic college. that doesn’t seem to be comfortable here in malaysia, although there are many who do not have deep knowledge their own religion or of the others around them. you would think it would cause people to ask and question, but that desire seems to have been squeezed out of many malaysians. maybe malaysia is afraid of what i saw as a kid, i remember my highly devote nana talking about religion with my much less devote father. the conversations would tend to end with raised voices and strained feelings. its true this country does not need more bad feelings.

religions are built on a set of beliefs shared among a community. within my area of the US we used to discuss the rights and wrongs of one religion verses another. in most cases, those differences were minor procedural issues between christian sects; closer to each other than they are different. the world has grown for the US, today it is made up of christian, jewish, asian and islamic groups who are attempting to live side by side. they do this by replacing the religious belief that separates them, with a secular set of shared beliefs that keep them together as a whole. this may only happen for the secular parts of their lives, but it’s the duality that allows the groups to US to be multi-cultural.

secular beliefs are easy, they have been written down, and many times they are open to change with the times. a process of change was built into the constitution of the US. it allows the government and its people to pass or repeal laws as previous laws become outdated. as the people find that laws are no longer applicable, they are changed. as the government finds that a law unfairly affects a minority group, it is systematically reversed.

this is what i like about secular political beliefs, at least in the stable western world, they adapt to the times and the situation. they are living and breathing and are applied to the problems at hand, not to the situation they were written to address. the core belief that holds this together is in the openness of the process. everyone knows there is a process, one that is applied fairly no matter who you are or what your other beliefs may be. the process is a guarantee that you are treated as fairly as the next guy, no matter who either of you are.

you can contrast this with religious belief. the core tenets of a religion do not change easily over time. many of the core beliefs of judaism, christianity and islam are shared and from older religious traditions. the christian church with its many schisms has had a good track record of growing with the times, but even with the marketing message of these as progressive change with the times, there is a real history of blood shed in the name of stopping heretical views from growing. fundamentalists are still closely tied to a classical or literal reading of the text. this literalism is what attempts to stop change over time, or as history shows what makes it a dangerous and painful exercise.

western religious beliefs are normally based on revelation of one or more prophets which are hard to later contradict. this prophetic message is then tied to belief based on faith. you are told as a child or a convert the words of god, and are expected to follow his directions. failure to do so can put your soul, or your life, at risk.

faith is commonly defined as belief without proof. within the religious realm it is this tradition of faith that helps us accept that we are told things, made promises of salvation or inner peace, which can be ours if we believe with our complete hearts. there is also a tradition of assigning the failure of the promise as one of faith. the believer who did not trust deeply enough was the cause of the failure rather than a failure of the god.

all of this has been rolling around in my head as i compare these two traditions secular and religious faith with the idea of having faith in people. we know people, some we know very well and we have faith that we can trust them. but how reasonable is that? how many people in the world do you have faith in?

i am sure the answer is, it depends on what kind of faith we are talking about. is it faith not to steal your hand phone if you leave it on your desk? is it faith that they would never tell you a lie? is it faith that they would go out of their way to help or protect you, even if it put them in a difficult position? is it faith that you have the shared goals and will always move together?

relationships are more personal than the religious experience. you know these people; you have the ability to judge for yourself if they are making promises they are able or willing to keep. relationships are less formal than the secular environment. there is no constitution or set of laws that are required to be followed, no set of judges to prosecute offenders when disagreements over behavior happen.

relationships change over time, you grow towards or away from people, and you gain or lose connections. we do this without formal rules on how it’s done. relationships come with faith, in the person, their intentions and motivations, the process, the future and the shared agreement. but there is no distant and unseen god who can remain blameless. when things go wrong it is the fault of one or both of the actors.

believing in church, community or close personal friends are all difficult for the cynic to do. but how do you live your life without trying, without giving someone the benefit of the doubt and then watching what happens. now add that you come from different communities, you are from different religions and you have differing views on the rules of interpersonal relationships. things can get difficult quickly.

bonding

i am returning from my long and tiring trip. i have been in 6 countries in 3 weeks, two of the countries i have come and gone to twice. i have spent time with friends, family, co-workers, associates and strangers and have had a wonderful time. one of the repeated themes have been the ability to bond with people simply by sitting across a table, by sharing a drink, by helping to prepare or order a meal.

in the past few weeks, i have connected with an ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend, the guy who took my job when i left the US, the guys i left behind in that job and who have grown into new roles and have done a wonderful job without me. i have spent time with my ex-wife, with my kids, with friends who have left the company; and a few who have come back. i have discussed the stresses of a distant marriage that is clearly heading into danger and have talked to a friend who has a new bundle of joy coming into her life. i have met people who i may never meet again, but who i am glad i had the moments we shared together.

it’s amazing that these people come into our lives. they are friends or family of others you know and you are both invited to a party. they are working in a company you are using and are randomly assigned to you. they are simply sitting at a table in an airport you should have left many hours before, but delays have forced you into a shared meal that is easier passed while talking to the japanese tour guide who is sharing her meal with you.

relationships start, evolve and end without you even knowing it sometimes. how does spending prolonged time apart, or together, change a relationship? how does a chance to sit and talk to your teenage son for 45 minutes alter your lives? when does making that phone call, or sending that sms matter for a relationship and when is it just forgotten noise in your longer and deeper life?

when you meet a person, you find things out about them that are personal, and may just be an interesting story for your trip, how does that alter you? should the chance meetings alter you in any way at all? is it just a conversation that passes the time between planes?

i met a man of indian decent, who was born in africa, raised in britian and who has traveled the world for work and pleasure. we shared a conversation about expatriate life, travel, politics and struggles on the world stage. we both live in the same country, we shared a 3 hour delay locked on an airplane and neither of us seemed phased or concerned with that. we did not exchange cards, but i know this is a man i could be friends with. this is someone i could have dinner with, or share a drink. should i go over before the end of the flight and offer a card?

as a semi-gregarious, okay extroverted, american i am comfortable with meeting people and telling stories. i was accused by someone i love yesterday of having spent time in my life when i was unable or unwilling to socialize. i honestly do not remember it this way, but this is a rap that i feel i may carry the rest of my life. if i ever was this person, where did they go? how was i able to change so radically?

if this is not a fair assessment of my prior self, how is it that someone i was so close to, and who i gave complete trust in my life could so completely misunderstand me. how could they see me so differently than i was? as is usual, i doubt that it is a binary answer. i normally lean toward the middle ground. i was skeptical of meeting people with whom i was not able to hold a conversation that would have been interesting for at least one of us. i did not know or care about the local baseball team’s most recent game. i did not know anything about town politics, or why so and so was spending more time drinking than working.

i was unable to find a way to connect with people who did not know where prague was, who tony blair was and why it was interesting that a labour party PM would be so closely aligned to a republican president viewed world wide as a expansionist aggressor set on world domination. i also had issues sitting idly by and listening to people make statements built on a narrow world view that that did not take historical reality into account.

i have had times when i was unable to bond with people for these or other reasons. i now seem able to do it with people i completely disagree with, who grew up in cultures dramatically different than my own. it is almost as if the differences allow me to find points of connection.

there are times when i need to be careful though. sitting amongst a socialist party demonstration and incorrectly using the term communism… okay, honestly i did it for effect, was a moment when it was better not to point out that i am strongly capitalist and believe that history is quickly moving to show that the socialist days are numbered.

i think i have learned that bonding is based not on an overt action, but on the passive act of listening. we can only hear and understand what someone is trying to share with us if we sit back and allow them to make their point. maybe i should have spent more time listening and i would have found this out earlier.

but maybe those bonds were broken because both of us had lost the ability to truly listen.