Why Only on the Front Porch?

It has often been said that there are three things you shouldn't talk about in polite company--religion, politics, and money (some lists include sex instead of money).  Who exactly wrote this rule has remained anonymous to the annals of history, though this saying is nearly elevated to equal prominence with the Ten Commandments.  One could easily wager it was someone who shunned disagreement, had a hard time explaining themselves or feeling understood, or maybe was just downright unsure themselves of where they stood on these issues.  This is all fine and dandy, but as I hope to argue in this article, not only are we all entitled to our opinions, but we shouldn't be afraid to share them openly, honestly, and respectfully with anyone we meet.

What happened over the course of time that relegated the most interesting things to talk about to the list of things not to talk about?  I'll tell you what happened (of course, I may be wrong)--rather than engage in a stimulating conversation with an open mind, people started preaching their views with a closed mind.  What's wrong if someone you are talking with disagrees with you?  A view different than your own isn't going to make your head explode; trust me, I disagree with my wife on things every day and she hasn't donated my headless body to science quite yet.

For the sake of this argument, I'm only referring to conversation you may have with a neighbor, friend, or someone you meet during the normal course of a day.  Obviously, certain business or professional environments adhere to a completely different set of social guidelines not applicable in average social situations. But when it comes to a casual encounter with a neighbor, family member, or even stranger, why must we dogmatically refuse to discuss anything of importance?  How does refusing to discuss anything of meaning with someone convey to them we value the meaning inherent in their uniqueness as an individual?  Does avoiding these matters of importance and replacing them with trite, trivial, and frankly boring and pointless small talk somehow convey to that individual that you care about them....just not enough to actually talk with them about anything that matters? 

Ultimately, self deception and doubt are one of the culprits of promoting the banal small talk that many are forced to engage in every day.  If only people could be more confident in their self identity, and more aware of their convictions, they would not only be able to more confidently, clearly, and respectfully discuss them with others, but they would not be so reticent to do so based on the fear that they may realize they don't know themselves and be thrown into a tail spin of self discovery forcing them to navigate the waters of self awareness in which they may not comfortably function.

As for me, I am ready and willing to discuss religion and politics any time, any day, so long as it is a conversation and not a debate.  Small talk and chit chat aren't my strong suit, and I hope they never are.

An Analytical Paradox...Or the Absurdity of Labels?

Are liberals who are worried about maintaining their ideology without allowing it to evolve or change really conservative?  Are conservatives who wish others would be more open and liberal towards their ideas really, well, liberal?  Could it be possible that ALL of us (gasp), are both conservative and liberal at the same time?  Or could it be possible that labels serve more to distract than to delineate?  Do letters after names really illuminate the vastness of the complex and unique character of the individual whose name precedes that R or D?  Republicans, democrats...liberals, conservatives....  A classical liberal is really, in today's political world, a conservative.  In other countries, the liberal named or classified parties mirror the American Republican platform.  So isn't it more productive and worthwhile when judging an individual to approach our understanding to them as we would a complete stranger recently moved into the neighborhood?  Assessing the qualities and character of an individual should be based on their own actions and words, not those of others we would naively and ignorantly lump into the same category as them simply because the label we give them happens to be shared by someone else.