___________________________________
This is one to keep in mind as you gater with your friends and families.
Who is G.K. Chesterton?
Gilbert Keith Chesterton KC*SG (29 May 1874 – 14 June 1936) was an English writer, philosopher, Christian apologist, and literary and art critic. He has been referred to as the “prince of paradox“. Of his writing style, Time observed: “Whenever possible Chesterton made his points with popular sayings, proverbs, allegories—first carefully turning them inside out.”
Chesterton created the fictional priest-detective Father Brown, and wrote on apologetics. Even some of those who disagree with him have recognised the wide appeal of such works as Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man. Chesterton routinely referred to himself as an “orthodox” Christian, and came to identify this position more and more with Catholicism, eventually converting to Roman Catholicism from high church Anglicanism. Biographers have identified him as a successor to such Victorian authors as Matthew Arnold, Thomas Carlyle, John Henry Newman and John Ruskin.
Chesterton’s socio-economic system of Distributism affected the sculptor Eric Gill, who established a commune of Catholic artists at Ditchling in Sussex. The Ditchling group developed a journal called The Game, in which they expressed many Chestertonian principles, particularly anti-industrialism and an advocacy of religious family life. His novel The Man Who Was Thursday inspired the Irish Republican leader Michael Collins with the idea that “If you didn’t seem to be hiding nobody hunted you out.” Collins’s favourite work of Chesterton was The Napoleon of Notting Hill, and he was “almost fanatically attached to it”, according to his friend Sir William Darling. His column in the Illustrated London News on 18 September 1909 had a profound effect on Mahatma Gandhi. P. N. Furbank asserts that Gandhi was “thunderstruck” when he read it, while Martin Green notes that “Gandhi was so delighted with this that he told Indian Opinion to reprint it.” Another convert was Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan, who said that the book What’s Wrong with the World changed his life in terms of ideas and religion. The author Neil Gaiman stated that he grew up reading Chesterton in his school’s library, and that The Napoleon of Notting Hill influenced his own book Neverwhere. Gaiman based the character Gilbert from the comic book The Sandman on Chesterton, while the novel he co-wrote with Terry Pratchett is dedicated to him. The Argentine author and essayist Jorge Luis Borges cited Chesterton as influential on his fiction, telling interviewer Richard Burgin that “Chesterton knew how to make the most of a detective story.”
I love that quote and it makes so much sense. Why wouldn’t you discuss the two things that are most important to people. Everyone has an opinion on both including those that say they don’t.
It’s true! Of curse, the fact that everyone has an opinion is why it’s generally frowned upon to bring up either topic. Lol. I think in a society where it’s possible to vehemently disagree, without ending relationships, then you can talk about those things. In one where you can’t though, avoiding the things that have meaning is the thing that keeps the bridges from being burned.
I don’t know how deep a relationship you can have with someone who you don’t discuss those things with. But friendly acquaintances have value, too. It’s a tricky balance knowing when to risk the relationship with a friendly acquaintance to potentially develop a deeper relationship.
That’s true, I think with acquaintances we don’t care about too much since our relationship isn’t too close but with people that are an important part of our life it’s hard to keep those deep relationships without discussing either. I know it burns bridges but I would rather burn them than not know I guess. Just a personal preference though.
I agree that people should talk about religion and politics to have a deep relationship with each other, but I also think trust should be established first. We walk before we run.
The problem with discussing politics and religion first is that the other person has no reason to believe you or change their mind; most people are more likely to make up reasons to continue believing “their own opinions” no matter how manufactured most people’s opinions are by the media. What we need to do first is establish our credibility by talking about other things. This is a great weakness of social media; we don’t start with getting to know each other, we just jump into the arguments.
I think this is a good point, but it assumes the goal of wanting to bring someone around to your own way of thinking. Sometimes the goal might be to sort like-minded from not, sooner than later.
Generally speaking, I prefer bringing people around to my way of thinking but there’s something to be said for the other, too. There can be a lot of wasted time (or the perception of wasted time, at least) when two people erroneously believe themselves to be “on the same team” only to learn later that they were not. You can sometimes figure that out quickly by jumping into a divisive topic.