Saturday, March 12, 2016

Could you talk to someone not like you?

Apparently, not if you are Evangelical.  From the Barna Group, a study to assess how comfortable different groups would be, having a conversation with someone not like them.
Evangelicals seem to have a particularly difficult time talking to those outside their group. They report higher tensions than any other group when it comes to having conversations with those who are different from them. For instance, almost nine in 10 evangelicals (87%) believe it would be difficult to have a natural and normal conversation with a member of the L[GB]T community, but only six in 10 in the LGBT community (58%) say it would be difficult to have a natural and normal conversation with an evangelical. 
This is consistent across the board. Evangelicals consistently report higher levels of difficulty toward other groups than those groups report toward them.
So, it's a La la la I can't hear you!

10 comments:

JCF said...

I would snark w/ superiority, but I'm not really that different. I ascribe it (Fundy-avoidance, be said Fundy theist or anti-) to high blood pressure (NB: I have no diagnosis of it). But it's really just a level of Extreme Annoyance I don't want to deal with [Isn't there something better on the telly? Couldn't I just go take a walk/pet the dogs, instead? Couldn't I just practice this Sunday's anthem, for choir? Speaking of which...]

PseudoPiskie said...

Fear? Their preachers never teach about the Jesus mainliners met in Sunday School. They use fear to control their flock. Fear of hell. Fear of Judgment. Fear of doing something wrong. Fear of being exposed to evil. They would never admit it, I suspect. But look at the Republicans. Do they have any other message?

8thday said...

It's interesting that you only highlighted the Evangelical stats from this article. I found it much more interesting that a majority of Americans (regardless of religion) would struggle to have a conversation with a Muslim (73%), a Mormon (60%), an atheist (56%), an evangelical (55%), or someone from the LGBT community (52%).

I wonder how well we would do if we could just eliminate the labels?

Marshall Scott said...

Sibling 8thday, I appreciate what you say about labels. I think it's about identifiable difference. After all, I expect that evangelicals and LGBT folks are talking all the time at checkout counters and in settings where they don't notice "difference."

Kevin K said...

I apologize if I have bored you with this story before. When I first meant my bride to be, she, a dyed in wool liberal and I were attending a Presbyterian Church that would be considered gay friendly and overwhelmingly liberal. We had gone out a few times when she asked me who I voted for. When I responded "George Bush" (the first of his name) she looked at me in amazement. She told me she had never known anyone who voted for a Republican and wouldn't have gone out with me had she known. Fortunately, by then she was already enthralled by my manly charms and we were shortly married.

Kevin K said...

Met not meant

IT said...

Sweet story, KEvinK. I wonder if that question would be asked sooner, in today's climate....

8thday said...

I believe that all the categories in this study would not be identifiable. And just as Mr. Marshall points out - we are all talking to each other when we haven't been made aware of the differences. Which is why labels are almost always used (very often on this blog) to set up a we vs. them mentality.

Kevin - my partner is also a registered Republican. She does more for marginalized people, especially marginalized children, than any other person I know. Go figure.

Kevin K said...

8thday and It,

I suspect my wife (to be) simply assumed that I shared her political beliefs because she thought I was a "good person" and therefore must share those. If we do limit our relationships (at every level) to only those we agree with it would be so sad.

8th day Good for your partner. I fear that we are reducing all political disagreements to existential threats and failing to see our common humanity and shared identity as children of God. It is both sad and frightening.

IT said...

As the culture becomes polarized, and one of the major parties structurally delusional (see recent post on this blog) , what does "Republican" mean?

One of my favorite bloggers is a Republican who goes by GOPlifer, and he's a sensible Republican, like KevinK. And even he's rooting for a collapse of the party so it can be reborn in the world of fact-based sober policy making. I suspect GOPlifer and I agree on a lot as I'm not nearly as progressive as some of my friends here.

I agree that labels are limiting and yes, I also agree that I use them. When conservatives appropriate "Christian" as a code word to mean anti-gay, that's a label, even if not all Christians agree. When the left engages in identity politics, that's labels run amok.

OTOH labels have utility because we do fall into groups, and groups have certain behaviors. Otherwise we are all atomized and you can't draw meaning.