Politics, religion, and philosophy

[Laurentkd]

Why? It's not relevant to the testing material. It creates distinctions between the Christians and the non-Christians in the group. It almost inevitably leads to favoritism even if it's very subtle and unconscious. How does telling everyone what you believe improve the martial arts class or your own standing with the Creator?

Suppose you were in, oh just for instance, a Silat class run by Muslims where the teacher said "Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim. In the the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. I'm a Muslim. I'm an Imam. These other teachers are also Muslim. The head of the system is a Muslim. Now let's see if you guys know your stuff. Islam isn't a core part of the curriculum, but I want you to know that I'm one of the Faithful. We can only spread Islam by our good example. And while 'there is no compulsion in religion' I want to share the True Faith with you."

Would it help you learn? Would it make you more comfortable, more likely to trust the teacher? Would you feel as welcome in the class and organization as you would if it were never explicitly brought up? Would it help foster unity and camaraderie between you and your fellow students or you and the teachers?

Just at a guess, one of those "dollars to horse apples and I'll hold the stakes in my mouth" sort of guesses, I'd say the honest answer to all those questions would be "No". That being the case why do you inflict the same discomfort on your students?

I completly understand your point and I agree. However, sometimes I think it can be helpful to mention that instructors are Christian, although I don't see its relevance in a group setting as described above. Rather, I have had parents ask me (no joke, and I am sure others of you have simliar stories) "does any of our money go to buddha" or "do we have to bow to buddha"!! It is nice to be able to say. "oh no, actually the instructors here are all of Christian belief, however nothing we teach is religious, but rather we teach good character traits, such as respect and courtesy (similar to boy scouts) that should align with any religious beliefs." Of course, this works for my location where the vast majority of our student base (98%) are white, upper-middle class, and would probably define themselves as "christian" or agnostic. This may not work so well in other areas.

On a side note, there was a thread on bowing somewhere, and this may be a good place to mention- we have recently had a muslim student join us and rather than bow we decided he would do a one hand fist/one hand open salute (like kempo or kung fu). This has helped him be able to show respect in a "martial artsy" way without breaking any of his religious beliefs.

 

[foot2face]

I believe that it is imperative to teach morality and ethics alongside martial arts. As a martial arts instructor are you not imparting the knowledge and guiding the development of skills that can be used to seriously harm another human being? Would it not be immoral or unethical on your part to teach such things without also instilling the moral and ethical understandings that would prevent the misuse and abuse of this knowledge and skill? Morality and ethics cannot and do not exist in a vacuum; they have to come from someplace, a place with greater meaning. For most people it’s their religious beliefs and/or their political/social views. I’m not an instructor, but if I ever would teach my students would get and earful of my particular world view, what I consider right and wrong and why, especially with regards to the use of force and the skills I’m teaching.

 

[Tez3]

There is a great danger of sounding patronising if you start preaching to people about morality etc when you are instructing martial arts. In the children's classes we tell them not to use what they learn ourside the club unless it's for their defence or in defence of their family and friends. In the adults class we teach people to fight, we teach them how to hurt people and then we put them in a ring in cage and they fight. the majority of the adults training with us are military and they have their own morality. The civilians also have their own beliefs and morals, I don't believe we should be preaching to them. Other more traditional clubs I've trained in also haven't preached. I'm afraid foot2face if you gave me your views unasked for when teaching me, after I'd paid for instruction in martial arts I would walk out.
I believe that when instructing you can point out, though usually you can feel for yourself, how dangerous moves are and you can point out the legalities in your area of using the moves but I don't think we should be doing any more than that.

I would be very uncomfortable at a grading or seminar if the instructors told us they were Christians as I've come to equate that with people trying to convert me, again I would pobably walk out I'm afraid.

The armed services here aren't bothered by the padres trying to convert anyone, here they fulfil an important role of a shoulder to cry on/social worker/listener and someone to go to when you have a problem, religion tends not to come into it really other than they are acting as good Christians if you follow me? I think they are a good example of Christianity to be honest.

I believe that the teaching of morality and ethics in the dojo/dojang etc in Asian countries was aceptable to them because life in and out of the dojo was the same, they didn't differentiate martial arts training as being different from any other part of education.Religious, martial and academic training were part and parcel of the same thing, they all flowed round and into each other. I don't think it's somethng that would work in the west tbh.

 

[tellner]

I believe that it is imperative to teach morality and ethics alongside martial arts. As a martial arts instructor are you not imparting the knowledge and guiding the development of skills that can be used to seriously harm another human being? Would it not be immoral or unethical on your part to teach such things without also instilling the moral and ethical understandings that would prevent the misuse and abuse of this knowledge and skill? Morality and ethics cannot and do not exist in a vacuum; they have to come from someplace, a place with greater meaning. For most people it’s their religious beliefs and/or their political/social views. I’m not an instructor, but if I ever would teach my students would get and earful of my particular world view, what I consider right and wrong and why, especially with regards to the use of force and the skills I’m teaching.

It depends on your students. The stuff my teacher passes on could be pretty lethal. And there are some things he just won't teach until he's known you a long time like the attacking portion of using a knife. For the most part he doesn't give us any sort of moral instruction. It's a tight group. He knows us all. And most of the students are in their thirties or forties with families. If we haven't become armed robbers by now it's just not going to happen.

Most schools make their money from children and adolescents who usually don't have well-developed completely integrated values. What they're teaching isn't as dangerous, but it's in the hands of young people with poor impulse control. You have to do something to keep them in line. There are ethical codes, group identity, their regard for you, and warnings that can work wonders. If you're all the same religion that's great. You can invoke your sect's standards.

If you do that you run a serious risk. When you invoke your deity or your idiosyncratic political beliefs or anything like that as the basis for conduct you're placing some of your teaching authority there. If the student shares the views your authority increases proportionately. If the student does not your effectiveness plummets.

I've had teachers start by saying "I'm a Christian" or "As an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" or "I've been a soldier and a Marine. I'm the County Chair of the Republican Party". They lost this Jewish lefty right away by invoking something to which I'm inherently indifferent or downright hostile as the basis for their moral authority. Everything they said afterwards except the barest technical details was diminished. You might give them an earful. If it wasn't something they were inclined to accept to begin with all you will have done is diminish yourself in their eyes.

The very best ones said absolutely nothing about the matter. I did what they said because I respected them personally. Later I might learn something about their religion or politics. But it was in the context of a longer-term relationship.

 

[foot2face]

I would be very uncomfortable at a grading or seminar if the instructors told us they were Christians as I've come to equate that with people trying to convert me, again I would pobably walk out I'm afraid.

I've had teachers start by saying "I'm a Christian" or "As an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" or "I've been a soldier and a Marine. I'm the County Chair of the Republican Party". They lost this Jewish lefty right away by invoking something to which I'm inherently indifferent or downright hostile...

Are you really so sensitive that the mere mention of someone’s faith or political affiliation can engender feelings in you ranging from discomfort to hostility? Perhaps it’s just my tolerant nature (thanks to my religious and political/social views), but I can’t imagine feeling uncomfortable or hostile towards someone simply for mentioning how they worship or how they vote.

 

[tellner]

To the mention of their particular religion? No.
To the attempt to use it as a source of moral authority over me? Absolutely.

I'll state the point again a bit more clearly:

When you bring your religion into a discussion as a source of authority a couple things can happen. If the person agrees with your beliefs and if he thinks that you are using the religion correctly he is more likely to believe and do what you want him to. The power and authority of the religion give you a boost. If he thinks you're using it incorrectly or isn't part of your sect you come off much worse. He'll react more or less negatively to the belief itself. And he'll look down on you for pulling it in in the quite reasonable belief that you needed the rhetorical club since your message couldn't stand on its own.

Suppose someone said "Well, Marx tells us..." or "Because I'm a Priest of Satan..." If you're a Christian who votes Republican you'll immediately be turned off to whatever they're saying because the values are opposed to your own. And even if they weren't you'll be more skeptical than you were before.

 

[Marginal]

Are you really so sensitive that the mere mention of someone’s faith or political affiliation can engender feelings in you ranging from discomfort to hostility? Perhaps it’s just my tolerant nature (thanks to my religious and political/social views), but I can’t imagine feeling uncomfortable or hostile towards someone simply for mentioning how they worship or how they vote.

I dunno, but how many people flee from the MA's thinking that they're secretly being converted to some Asian religion from Christianity? Just for the practice of bowing alone, there have been numerous mindless lawsuits.

Random persecution tends to make people untrusting of such godliness.

 

[foot2face]

To the mention of their particular religion? No.
To the attempt to use it as a source of moral authority over me? Absolutely.

I'll state the point again a bit more clearly:

When you bring your religion into a discussion as a source of authority a couple things can happen. If the person agrees with your beliefs and if he thinks that you are using the religion correctly he is more likely to believe and do what you want him to. The power and authority of the religion give you a boost. If he thinks you're using it incorrectly or isn't part of your sect you come off much worse. He'll react more or less negatively to the belief itself. And he'll look down on you for pulling it in in the quite reasonable belief that you needed the rhetorical club since your message couldn't stand on its own.

Suppose someone said "Well, Marx tells us..." or "Because I'm a Priest of Satan..." If you're a Christian who votes Republican you'll immediately be turned off to whatever they're saying because the values are opposed to your own. And even if they weren't you'll be more skeptical than you were before.

What you are describing isn’t exclusive to religion or politics. Any opinion, no matter how seemingly benign, can result in a similar situation. What strikes me though, is the extra layer of distain and the quickness to take offence, displayed by some, simply because religion is involved. Quite frankly, I don’t understand this.

Good is good. Be you good Jew, good Christian, good Muslim, good Buddhist, good Hindu, good Republican, good Democrat, good Conservative or good Liberal. That “goodness” comes from a source, one that provides context. Without that context “good” is just a meaningless notion, an empty word. I don’t know about you, but every traditional martial art school I visited had some sort of plaque or scroll, hanging on the wall, detailing a strict code of moral and ethical conduct and the instructor held his students to it. Over time he would explain to his student why the words hanging on the wall were integral to the system and not just decoration, how the beliefs that they expressed gave the skills he was teaching meaning, allowing them to server a greater purpose. We often discuss the McDojo phenomenon on this board, the watering down of martial arts into a meaningless and often useless commodity that can be easily consumed by the masses. It is my opinion that the link between martial arts with morality and ethics (regardless of the source) is among the first casualties of this phenomenon.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not in the least sensitive, if I've paid my hard earned money for a martial arts class that's what I want. I don't care what religion you are, I don't want to know in this context and I don't want your views on anything other than martial arts I'm afraid, especially if it looked like you might try to convert me! I would find that very boring and bad mannered. In another place I could probably have a good discussion about religion with you but not when we are training martial arts.

I find the objections to bowing totally ridiculous, bowing is merely the Asian version of the Western handshake or continental kisses on the cheek. When greeting Gurkhas and their families here we bow to each other, why not? It's just good manners and good manners are the oil of society, easing us through life with each other.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Are you really so sensitive that the mere mention of someone’s faith or political affiliation can engender feelings in you ranging from discomfort to hostility? Perhaps it’s just my tolerant nature (thanks to my religious and political/social views), but I can’t imagine feeling uncomfortable or hostile towards someone simply for mentioning how they worship or how they vote.

Nice try, but sensitivity isn't the issue here. You wanna pray or proselytize? Go to church. You wanna train? Go to the dojo. Publicly volunteering un-asked-for information about your political or religious biases -- especially in a position of authority -- creates a power dynamic. It implies that there is an in-group and an out-group. It is inconsistent in an environment, like a dojo, where people are often told to leave the outside world at the door and train.

Similarly, as for the Muslim and bowing discussion, a martial arts teacher need only explain that the bow is not an act of worship. I like the analogy that someone suggested above -- it's similar to a handshake. In that context, it's merely a matter of dojo etiquette, like wearing a clean uniform. It does offense to no one's religious beliefs to tell them that in any given setting, there are rules and conventions.

 

[exile]

Nice try, but sensitivity isn't the issue here. You wanna pray or proselytize? Go to church. You wanna train? Go to the dojo. Publicly volunteering un-asked-for information about your political or religious biases -- especially in a position of authority -- creates a power dynamic. It implies that there is an in-group and an out-group. It is inconsistent in an environment, like a dojo, where people are often told to leave the outside world at the door and train.

Similarly, as for the Muslim and bowing discussion, a martial arts teacher need only explain that the bow is not an act of worship. I like the analogy that someone suggested above -- it's similar to a handshake. In that context, it's merely a matter of dojo etiquette, like wearing a clean uniform. It does offense to no one's religious beliefs to tell them that in any given setting, there are rules and conventions.

Another excellent post, Gordon, that gets at the fundamental problem: where there a power or authority asymmetry, assertions of personal beliefs
by the lower to the higher are very, very rare. Whereas assertions of personal beliefs from the top down are not exactly uncommon. That in itself tells you that the prerogative of catechizing, proselytizing or otherwise publicizing any personal credo—religious, ethical, political or even æsthetic—is part of a power relationship of a certain kind. To put it bluntly, the only reason you get to do that to poor old Joe Blow or Jane Doe over there is because they're the student and you're the instructor; if the situation were reversed, I very much doubt that you'd be quite so quick to preach your religion or whatever to them.

So let's drop the idea that the problem is `sensitivity'; the problem is that you're being forced to listen to something you don't necessarily want to hear—and, in terms of the subject matter at hand, certainly don't need to hear—because the person you're listening to has power or authority over you. If someone who's my peer in a certain social context wants to talk to me about their religious beliefs, I have the prerogative of either listening or politely telling them that I'm not interested; if someone who outranks me in that context wants to do the same, I don't have anything remotely like the same freedom to do so and am very likely having to listen to their professions of faith under duress. If an instructor in a university calculus class has the power to fail a student and forces his or her classes to endure a fifteen minute `chat' every class about the Ostrogothian Incarnation, or whatever the instructor's religious preference is, are we talking `oversensitivity' on the part of the students who are uncomfortable having to listen to this because their grade will very likely depend to some extent on keeping their mouths shut about their own views that the Ostrogothian Incarnation is a crock?

As far as bowing is concerned, there's another thing worth pointing out: people bow all the time, with no religious overtones implied or understood. Look at performers—theatre actors, concert musicians, circus acrobats, you name it. The audience applauds (a mark of approval of the performance) and the actors bow (an expression of appreciation for that approval). Bowing in itself need have no religious overtones at all.

 

[tellner]

And that, Exile my friend, is why they call them "boundary violations".

Whenever you enter into a relationship with someone there are areas of ceded control one way or the other. And there are boundaries which define the limits of that exchange. They may be explicit or they may be unspoken, but they are always there. When you cross them without permission you are violating the terms of the agreement and the integrity of the other person. When you ask for or demand more control than was originally agreed to you force the other person either to refuse or to give more to you than he or she had originally bargained for.

When I take a class be it economics, sheet metal work or martial arts there is an understanding that I am willing to sit and listen, speak when required and contribute to the smooth functioning of the class. In return for that and whatever fee is involved I will get the teacher's best shot at instruction.

That's it. That's the limit of the agreement.

When the teacher requires more by requiring that I listen respectfully while he tries to change my religion or politics that is beyond what we had agreed to. It violates the spirit of the relationship. And since I've already given over a certain amount of power to the teacher by putting myself under his authority in class the magnitude of the violation and my ability to react as between equals is compromised.

It's dishonest. It's an abuse of trust. It's not a matter of "sharing your faith". It's using power to compel obedience and violate the student. Even if it's for the best of reasons it's wrong.

There are cases when it's acceptable. If I go to a psychiatrist or on a religious retreat it's understood that that person will be messing with my inner workings under a strict professional code. When we teach a women's self defense course we are very upfront about some of the things we are trying to do. We explain that we will try to change the students' attitudes towards a number of threatening things.

It's all a matter of making the exchange open and safe and not abusing trust or power.

Some day I'm going to write a paper on the dynamics of ritualized power exchanges focusing on the deep similarities between martial arts classes and the BDSM world. I'm completely serious here. The parallels are uncanny. There are two sorts of people who wil be out for my blood, martial artists who aren't into BDSM and BDSMers who don't do martial arts. Of course, a bunch of the latter will find the former fascinating which will lead to even more MA teachers gunning for me.
:whip1: :jediduel: :uhyeah:

 

[exile]

And that, Exile my friend, is why they call them "boundary violations".

Whenever you enter into a relationship with someone there are areas of ceded control one way or the other. And there are boundaries which define the limits of that exchange. They may be explicit or they may be unspoken, but they are always there. When you cross them without permission you are violating the terms of the agreement and the integrity of the other person. When you ask for or demand more control than was originally agreed to you force the other person either to refuse or to give more to you than he or she had originally bargained for.

When I take a class be it economics, sheet metal work or martial arts there is an understanding that I am willing to sit and listen, speak when required and contribute to the smooth functioning of the class. In return for that and whatever fee is involved I will get the teacher's best shot at instruction.

That's it. That's the limit of the agreement.

When the teacher requires more by requiring that I listen respectfully while he tries to change my religion or politics that is beyond what we had agreed to. It violates the spirit of the relationship. And since I've already given over a certain amount of power to the teacher by putting myself under his authority in class the magnitude of the violation and my ability to react as between equals is compromised.

It's dishonest. It's an abuse of trust. It's not a matter of "sharing your faith". It's using power to compel obedience and violate the student. Even if it's for the best of reasons it's wrong.

There are cases when it's acceptable. If I go to a psychiatrist or on a religious retreat it's understood that that person will be messing with my inner workings under a strict professional code. When we teach a women's self defense course we are very upfront about some of the things we are trying to do. We explain that we will try to change the students' attitudes towards a number of threatening things.

It's all a matter of making the exchange open and safe and not abusing trust or power.

Some day I'm going to write a paper on the dynamics of ritualized power exchanges focusing on the deep similarities between martial arts classes and the BDSM world. I'm completely serious here. The parallels are uncanny. There are two sorts of people who wil be out for my blood, martial artists who aren't into BDSM and BDSMers who don't do martial arts. Of course, a bunch of the latter will find the former fascinating which will lead to even more MA teachers gunning for me.
:whip1: :jediduel: :uhyeah:

Yup. I think that post pretty much summarizes the state of things.

And please put me on your mailing list for that paper you're planning on writing. I've often felt very uncomfortable at the extreme subordination of the individual self that some people's view of the MAs entails, the cult of personality aspect which occasionally erupts in bloody lineage-legitimacy firefight—we've seen these before, eh? —and I'm wondering if the kind of thing you're alluding to might be connected with that cult aspect. There are certain aspects of the TMAs which, in the original Asian context, are perfectly normal expression of the cultural milieu, but which, transplanted to western societies, have a... strange feel to them...

 

[tellner]

the cult of personality aspect which occasionally erupts in bloody lineage-legitimacy firefight—we've seen these before, eh?

Oh Christ (peace be upon him). Tell me about it. A couple of my Silat brothers like Steve Perry (the writer, not the musician), Santiago, Mushtaq, Bobbe and I are engaged in a perpetual game of whack-a-mole or a badly dubbed Kung Fu Theater Movie. Take your pick. Guys keep popping up with lines like "Your kung fu is really very inferior to ours" and "We have studied with the Master and know the real secrets that your teacher never learned" or "Well yes, he's had forty years of martial arts, more black belts than a men's clothing store, founded the Black Karate Federation and is the personal bodyguard of people like Will Smith and the Sultan of Oman. But we have The Lineage. Ditch him and train with us," I kid you freakin' not.

I'm tempted to answer with "Come to the Dark Side. We have cookies."

That and severe health problems are the reason I pulled out of pretty much all on-line martial arts discussions the last few months. I just got tired of that sort of thing and was beginning to get, hmm, testy. Not to mention trips to the hospital were taking priority. Thank G-d that's over with at least for now.

 

[Flying Crane]

... "does any of our money go to buddha" or "do we have to bow to buddha"!!

Funny thing, in Tracy's Kenpo we actually have a self defense technique called "Bowing to Buddha". It's just a name, there is no religious intent in it, but I guess we are "Bowing to Buddha"! :rofl:

 

[Flying Crane]

A few years ago I used to do some of my private training in a section of the park where several other teachers would gather with their students to train on the weekends. I noticed that one teacher in particular would sort of preach to his students about various stuff. The one I actually overheard seemed like a political monologue. It was painful, even for me to witness. Training was over, there were 3 or 4 students left, and this guy sort of held them captive for like half an hour or more while he went on about his view of the current political situation. The students were sort of shuffling their feet, trying to look interested, but I could tell they were looking for an excuse to bolt.

My god, if I ever start teaching I hope I never do that to my students...

 

[Flying Crane]

Yup. I think that post pretty much summarizes the state of things.

And please put me on your mailing list for that paper you're planning on writing. I've often felt very uncomfortable at the extreme subordination of the individual self that some people's view of the MAs entails, the cult of personality aspect which occasionally erupts in bloody lineage-legitimacy firefight—we've seen these before, eh? —and I'm wondering if the kind of thing you're alluding to might be connected with that cult aspect. There are certain aspects of the TMAs which, in the original Asian context, are perfectly normal expression of the cultural milieu, but which, transplanted to western societies, have a... strange feel to them...

Aye, I second this, and please include me in the reading list for your paper. I'd love to see what you come up with, fascinating topic! Of course I live in San Francisco, so there's really very little that shocks me...

 

[Kacey]

Are you really so sensitive that the mere mention of someone’s faith or political affiliation can engender feelings in you ranging from discomfort to hostility? Perhaps it’s just my tolerant nature (thanks to my religious and political/social views), but I can’t imagine feeling uncomfortable or hostile towards someone simply for mentioning how they worship or how they vote.

Sensitive? Not really. Tired of being told that someone else's world view is better than mine because their own faith in their personal world view tells them that all who disagree should be brought to the truth? Incredibly.

I enjoy discussions of religion under two circumstances: 1) that they are discussions, and not attempts to tell me why my religion (Judaism) is wrong, and 2) that the time and place are appropriate. As a general rule (not always, but usually) people who find it necessary to inform others of their religion in non-religious contexts are also members of a religion that believes that others must be "saved" by convincing them that they should convert to the "true faith".

As far as MA goes - that is not the appropriate time or place for such discussions, as they take time away from training. If someone in my class or my sahbum's class wants to discuss religion outside of class, and we both have the time and interest - great! But religion has no place in the dojang unless the class is religiously oriented - in which case students should be informed of that orientation up front, and how strongly it influences training, before they step on the floor or pay for anything.

 

[Tez3]

Excellent posts! In this country perhaps we are "sensitive" to mentions of religion but there's good historical reasons for this. Over the centuries right up to the present day we have had wars and many many deaths. The Catholic v Protestant arguments were bloody and even today cause bitterness. There's still restrictions on what Catholics can do, the Royal Family cannot marry a Catholic and stay in the line of succession for example.

In this country we prefer quiet religions. We've never really felt comfortable with the 'happy clappy' type of worship, in England God is an Englishman, understated, restrained and not given overmuch to shows of emotion.To have someone announce at the beginning of anything that they are a Christian would cause people to think he'd probably lost his marbles. I can hear people muttering, "well it's all very well for them foreigners but we're English!" It's really not done! Why? because you are impinging on people's personal beliefs, it's being intolerant! If you claim to tolerance why would you mention your religion out of context?

In the Forces the type of Padres they have echo the sentiments of the country, they go to war with the troops offering comfort usually in the form of hot drinks, a listening ear and good /bad jokes, they're there for spiritual guidance if needed. They are admired and respected by all, they live their religion not preach it.Their deeds do the talking not their lips.