Brass knuckles are expressive.

Yesterday afternoon, I hung out with some friends, and I had an exchange with one of them that really bothered me - partly because of what my friend said, and partly because of what I didn't say. This is a friend I've known for almost 20 years. We haven't been close in a long time, but we see each other at a regular gathering and keep up. Over the years, I've seen her and her husband change, as we all do. One area, in particular, where they've changed course is religion. When I first knew them, they were religious. They married in an elaborate church service with a full communion (not just for the wedding party, but for everyone in the congregation who wished to participate) and seemed to have a solid foundation of relationship with God and connection to church.

As time went by, their politics became fervently liberal and, in tandem with that, their religion fell away. Now, being liberal is not an indication of religious bent - several people in my Sunday School class who are very religious and involved with the church are also passionately liberal/Democrat, so one is not necessarily attached to the other. But for this particular couple, it seemed to be connected. Since I am a religious person, I decided as I saw this change happening that for the sake of our friendship, it would be best for us to avoid the religion/politics discussions. After all, we can still enjoy brats and football, even if we have different social and/or political views! And so it went. People growing and changing and moving in different directions, but finding common ground to enjoy together.

But yesterday, my friend breached the boundary that has been silently drawn over the years. As we sat at our social gathering, talking about books, my friend says to me that speaking of blockbuster books, she noticed driving to the gathering that a nearby church had a banner about a class at their church on debunking The DaVinci Code. I'd seen the banner and couldn't remember that it said anything about debunking - I thought it just advertised a discussion about the book, but I hadn't paid close attention so I didn't challenge her interpretation. Maybe she's right - maybe it did say that. But then she says that the fact they'd feel the need to do that shows, "They're really scared!" She said this with great enthusiasm - more than she'd shown for any topic discussed all afternoon.

I looked at her with a mix of surprise of sadness that this would be a point of glee for her. What happened exactly that made her not just decide that the church no longer held anything for her, but get to the point that she now wants to see it scared and, presumably, fall? Sci-fi isn't for me, and I don't read it, but I don't feel the need for it to be banished. I don't like olives, but I have no problem with other people enjoying them. And I'd hate living in the desert, but I don't suggest that the people who love it there should be forcibly removed. If my friend doesn't find a home in the church, there's no authority that forces her to go, so why would she be so pleased at the notion that religion might take a body blow from some piece of fiction? What is the desire to see the thing you don't agree with destroyed? I thought the liberal creed was tolerance?

And who, exactly, is "they"? This particular church? All churches? All Christians? Because I'm a Christian, and I'm not scared for the future of my religion because someone wrote a novel. My religion isn't like some, where we put out a fatwa on people who write books aimed at our religion. We don't riot when offensive cartoons are published about us. We talk about it. That doesn't sound like a religion on the rocks. And my church also has classes for discussing the novel, and I've not gotten the impression for a moment that my church is scared. It's just a really popular book about the very subject the organization is founded on - Jesus. So, why would they NOT discuss it? When The Passion of the Christ came out and was such a big deal, they discussed that. They have lots of classes discussing literature, so how weird would it be if they ignored the book that was about the subject they're most interested in? If the congregation is reading it, and may have questions, what better place to open up the discussion and address them?

I said to my friend, "Well, I don't think they're scared. Maybe offended." And she says, "Okay, maybe not scared. But they're threatened." Now, this is when I *should* have said what I just said above. But I didn't. I didn't want to get into some conflict at a social gathering, so I just mumbled, "I don't know. Maybe." with a tone that indicated I didn't really think "maybe" but wasn't going to discuss it any further, and I looked away as if I was suddenly very interested in the conversation happening across from me. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw her raise her hands and then let them flop back into her lap like "Whatever."

That was the end of the conversation, but it ate at me. It ate at me in part because as a Christian, I should've done a better job defending my religion and pointing out that the very fact we're talking about the book, whether to "debunk" it or just to talk about the issues it raises, is proof that we're not extremists. Instead of calling for the head of whoever wrote it, we're buying it, reading it, discussing it. We're enlightening ourselves, asking questions, looking for answers. That's not fear. That's not anger. You can be offended by something. But what comes after the natural, emotional reaction of offense? Apparently, it's the desire for enlightenment. I'm proud of my church for engaging in the world it lives - for discussing the issues of our day, be it tough social issues or literature. I'm frustrated that we're so very misunderstood or mischaracterized by the secular world. And there I sat, with an opportunity to at least try and put something else out there to counteract the negative spin, and I didn't take it.

I'm also frustrated because I do that alot. There are lots of times that I have opinions and thoughts and the opportunity to voice them and I don't. And I've found over the years, that sometimes people underestimate my intelligence or my seriousness because I don't speak up. Yet, I've sometimes been discouraged by the times that I have stood my ground and argued my side. Two times I remember specifically when I went ahead and participated in the debate. Once I was chastised later for it by my boyfriend (apparently I was supposed to just be pretty while his friends were allowed to spout off about the issues of the day), and another time a friend later told me that her husband described me as "crazy" because I'd shown emotion during the debate (keep in mind, I didn't yell or get physical, I didn't stomp out, I didn't name-call or tell anyone to shut up - I simply had passion in defending my side). Yet, strangely, she told me her husband enjoys having regular, spirited debates with one of her other, female friends who I know to be highly emotional, and she even told me he enjoys setting this girl off. So, I just don't understand that whole experience.

Usually, I don't engage because I'm in a social environment, and I don't want to ruin the evening by getting into an argument. And that's what debates feel like to me - arguments, aimed at convincing the other person of your opinion with no interest in learning anything yourself. It's about winning - not gathering information. A lot of people love debate. I don't. I hate it. I always have. I've learned as an adult to deal with confrontation when I have to, and I do, and I think I do it pretty well. But I despise conflict, and I feel things passionately, so when I get into a debate about some big issue, it's very hard for me to not take it personally when someone attacks what I believe or think or am, and it's hard for me to just dissipate all the passion and adrenalin and (often negative) energy that gets stirred up. So, while some people think debate is fun, to me it's torture. And I want to enjoy my time. Not to mention, I don't have an encyclopedic memory for all the facts, people, dates and history I need at my disposal to confidently support every opinion I hold. I try to gather information, hear both sides, and form an opinion. So, I have an opinion, and it's an informed one, but I just don't have the kind of memory where I can recite back every fact that went into consideration of the subject, and in a debate, if you can't pull up every little piece of data, you're often labeled as "uninformed" and your arguments dismissed out of hand when that may not be true at all.

(sigh) So, the bottom line is that I hate debate, yet I feel I do a disservice sometimes to the causes I believe in by not engaging in it. I love to learn, and I spend a lot of time educating myself about a lot of different things. I'm intelligent and thoughtful and have opinions, but I hate to fight. If enjoyment of conflict were an indication of intelligence, Mike Tyson would be a freakin scholar. I guess I need to spend some time thinking about how I can better handle those situations - when someone expresses an opinion that I patently disagree with and one that legitimately deserves a response, without having my whole day ruined by an unpleasant exchange. I'm tired of everyone else being entitled to express themselves without worrying who they'll offend, while I bite my tongue at my own expense.

Update: I learned today that a Catholic Cardinal is actually encouraging good Catholics to file lawsuits against the movie The Da Vinci Code because ... it offends their faith, I think? I don't even know exactly what the legal basis of the lawsuit would be, since I assume some sort of harm has to have happened. And it doesn't even really matter what the trumped up reason would be because it's just ridiculous to sue someone because their art offends you. I was as offended as the next modest female when I saw the "Britney Giving Birth" (or whatever it was called) statue, but you don't sue over it. Just don't go see it. And I think he suggested a boycott, too. Fine. Don't see the movie. That's fair. But really, let's not clog up the courts with this kind of absurdity. I'm not sure what country he'd want these lawsuits filed in, but in the U.S. we have a little thing called "freedom of expression." You're allowed to write or film something that some people won't like - particularly if people have to pay to even see it, meaning you'd have to go out of your way to gain access to the material. No, lawsuits and boycotts are not on par with fatwas and riots, but they're attempts to silence voices you don't like, and let's not play that game, shall we?