Basic Instincts

  Remember what I said about tolerance a while back? Forget all that. Just kidding. [PS: Apologies for not posting lately. My internet's been down ): ]
    Why is that we feel it's okay to stop tolerating people? Or not tolerate certain people. Certain people "bring it on themselves" or "have a bad attitude" or are just "different" that they don't deserve our acceptance. At least, this is what we like to tell ourselves. I'll admit, as preachy as I may get, I'm guilty of this one. Every now and again, I'll meet a person who I immediately just don't like. This dislike may occur for various reasons--while I like to blame it on pheromones, that may not be the entire truth of the matter. It's physiologically possible for us to dislike people based on the pheromones they excrete, just like it's physiologically programmed for us to be attracted to certain people based on their pheromones. It's a tactic we've evolved to help us find the most suitable mates and most evolutionarily compatible (i.e. non-threatening and non-harmful) companions. But pheromones may also warn us to stay away from certain people the way taste buds warn us about harmful foods.
    I'm no scientist, by anyone's standards. So, take this scientific speak with a grain of salt based on my limited understanding of how the body, and brain, work. If something is bitter, our taste buds let us know, and many times we will tend to avoid that food in the future. If someone's pheromones are distasteful, so to speak, our brain tells us we may want to avoid that person. Here's a question: should we trust our initial physiological instinctive reactions, or should we give people a second chance and try to let them overcome their biology with their psychology?
    Normally, I'd say the latter, but these physiological reactions exist for a reason--self-preservation. Maybe these people aren't all axe murderers or evil geniuses, but what is the reason that our bodies react against them? Perhaps they aren't physically harmful, but psychologically, it's possible. Misery loves company, as they say, and these people we instinctively dislike may be psychologically harmful, if they are negative people, pessimistic people, or just unhappy people. The question is, does our biology pick up on this negativity and send a message to stay away from them so as not to pollute our own psychological well-being? Or am I just whistling dixie out of my ass to justify why we dislike some people?
    As much as I'd like to believe that we all have it within us to be kind and generous and good-hearted towards everyone and anyone, I do believe that there are some people that we will just never like. We may be able to be civil to them and put on a good face, but there will always be something about them that will rub us the wrong way.
    While there aren't too many people out there, I'm talking real people that you meet--not celebrities, politicians, or athletes--that I honestly dislike for whatever reason, there are a couple. I can get along with most anyone, and I try to. I hate confrontation, and I suck at arguments, so staying on people's good sides is something I work very hard at. But every now and again, there comes a person that I genuinely just don't like. I can never put my finger on exactly why. I can give reasons, they have a bad attitude, they're too cocky, they're disrespectful, etc, but those things are not the whole story. They're reasonable reasons for not liking someone, but the dislike goes beyond that. There is just something about them, a je ne sais quoi, but in a bad way, that turns me off about them.
    Clearly, I haven't really made much of an argument for either side of this topic, whether we dislike people for a real physiological reason or whether we make up reasons for why we dislike them, and then there's the further thought: do we trust our instincts about people or should we give them the benefit of the doubt?
    Personally, I think we do dislike people for physiological reasons sometimes, and when that happens, we ought to give them a second chance, or even a third, to redeem themselves. Sometimes they'll surprise you. But sometimes, you're not going to like them no matter how hard you try, and the most you can do is just be nice to them as best you can, and not let the negativity you get from them eat away at you.

Attraction or aversion: which is more easily overcome?

Deus Ex Machina

Anyone with delicate sensibilities regarding the topic of religion, you may want to leave now (*sigh* there goes my bounce rate). I'm about to delve into it, head first, no tiptoeing around anyone's feelings--so if you have any inkling that you can't handle some honest evaluation of this topic, again, it may be best if you return to Insistent and Persistent on another day when there's a different topic posted. No kidding, exercise your self-control if you think you may find yourself offended by any of the following. I will not apologize. And I will not publish any excessively nasty comments, should you feel the need to voice your opinion in a particularly vulgar way.
    Still here? Don't say I didn't warn you.
It occurred to me today that perhaps religion is merely an attitude and not a belief or system of beliefs--at least for some people. What I mean is: some people have the attitude: Jesus--Yay! or God--Boo! This attitude or expression of feeling is different from the system of beliefs which can be outlined as something like: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth..." and so on (quoted from the Nicene Creed according to Catholicism-text found through Wikipedia). While an attitude is changeable and dependent, a belief system is inflexible and independent of opinion. You can't say, I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't believe in the Holy Spirit, when you claim to subscribe to a particular belief system. It's all or nothing. An attitude, however, such as feeling positive about God and Jesus, and negative about the Holy Spirit seems perfectly acceptable. (Note: As you've probably remarked, this discussion will revolve exclusively around Christianity, as I believe it is most relevant to a discussion of religion in the US today, and also because I have more experience with it than with other religious paths.)
    The problem I would like to address here is that there are way too many people holding religion as an attitude rather than as a belief system, but still claiming to hold it as an end-all belief. Every system is flawed (systems in general, I mean), and religion is no different. There's always going to be something that you're not one hundred percent comfortable with. But an attitude can change, even from one day to the next. Find twenty bucks on the sidewalk--Yay God! Lose your job--Boo God. Attitudes are fleeting. Holding religion as an attitude is as arbitrary as liking a flavor of ice cream. Monday I like vanilla ice cream. Tuesday I had an upset stomach from the vanilla, so on Tuesday I like chocolate. Many people seem to believe in God, and whatever bits and pieces of the religious system they prefer over others that involve God, as it suits them. They can quote scripture. They can reprimand you for whatever hot topic is the order of the day. They can claim that they know more about the loving arms of Jesus than sinners like you ever will. But so many of them would drop that God-loving attitude like a hot potato if the shit really hit the fan.
    The issue here is not that people shouldn't be religious. The issue is hypocrisy. Religion is a commitment that too many people take too lightly. Kind of like marriage. (But that's another discussion for another day, dear readers.) I have no problem with people who are religious. In fact, I find many of them fascinating (although I find many more of them misguided). I have a certain soft spot for religion, no matter how increasingly implausible it may become for me. So, this isn't an anti-religious finger-pointing session I'm running--rather, I want to examine those people who use religion as an excuse for their actions, as a bolster for their intolerance, and as a simple means of argument for the sake of argument.

    Those kinds of people have no business maintaining religiosity. God is not a pawn in your argument against abortion. Jesus is not a reason to be for or against the death penalty. And neither of them can be used in a discussion of gun control, primarily because guns didn't exist 2000 years ago. We've veered into politics now--dangerous waters, I fear. But, it seems that the two are inextricably tied because people refuse to separate them. Politicians use religion to support their ends, and private citizens use religion to support their politics. In any case, it's wrong because doesn't make their arguments stronger. It weakens them. Your religious life may in fact play a role in which issues you support or reject, but you cannot use religion as the explanation for supporting or rejecting those issues. Using religion to explain your non-religious beliefs is like trying to explain trigonometry with Shakespeare. The two are completely unrelated. As a result, it seems that people who do employ this tactic may either be ignorant of aspects of their religion, or may be one of those people who hold their religion as an attitude, dependent only on its helpfulness at that particular moment.
    I believe I've gone far enough now to provide my conclusion: (1) Be religious if you must, but don't half-ass it--we can't all be saints, but we can't purposely be sinners and claim that we're still saints because we say we're "sorry" for it; (2) Be political if you are so inclined, but keep your religion out of it--certainly there are other nonreligious arguments that can support your opinion that you agree with: use them. I won't say I'm right about all this. But I hope those of you who made it this far will at the very least consider religion and people who claim to be religious and examine these concepts a little more closely for yourselves.

Rub-a-dub-dub, thanks for the grub. Yay God.