Three things - (1) You need more positive people in your inner circle. You should feel supported not attacked by those closest to you. Even odd negative reactions from people not close to you should roll off your back since those people don't matter to you. (2) It's almost impossible that you can't find a faith-based group to socialize with, even if only online. (3) If multiple random people are getting in your face about religion, the fact you have to face is that you are being overbearing about it. Most people don't care what others think spiritually, and won't fight about it. It's possible you're surrounded by toxic childish people who take the energy to attack you. The simplest answer is that the common denominator in your convos is you.
Some wise words there. Perhaps some, especially towards the end I don’t completely agree with or think are circumstantial, but one thing I will say is that it can be difficult in religion to find middle ground. There is a large and vocal population that aren’t just not religious- but are anti religion. It became quite vogue.
For someone who isn’t a die hard religious type or who’s views don’t fit neatly into an established and common religion, it can be difficult to find people who they “fit with.” I have had this issue with past partners. Someone who strongly adheres to a faith and dogma will often have issues with a partner that doesn’t- wether that partner is accommodating or not, or wether that partner may even believe in their same overall faith but not be as devout an adherent.
Many denominations believe that one cannot get into heaven or live a “proper” “next life” etc. without following their tenants. Many believe that persons who deviate from their dogma introduce an…
.. inherent stain upon the “believer” themself and may jeopardize their soul or life or next etc. when we start getting into other matters- the religious often attend all manner of ceremonies and have social groups and gatherings and all manner of intertwining among them- and wether it is a partner thinking of future children or a parent thinking of a friend to their child etc- the idea that there is an influence away from the faith Can make many religious types leery. There are also manners and ways often involved in religions that are difficult to know or follow if one isn’t educated or participating in that religion- things that can make social and other interactions problematic and eventually derail things.
So a major problem that can be introduced when speaking of religion or other faith I clouding the faith in the falsity of religion (eg: the atheist faith), is where there isn’t just two boxes- in or out, or three boxes, in our and against- there are multiple “levels” and even within the same system of beliefs or root, people of different levels can have issues. One such issue being that someone who “causally” believes- let’s use Christianity. So someone who has maybe never read from the Bible or never read t themselves. They may never have been to a church, but they celebrated religious holidays perhaps and were raised on vague principles that a god watches over them and had a son who was crucified and they know the sort of “cliffs notes” of Christianity from vague teachings and inference from Christian’s around them and pop culture like watching “the tend commandments” movie or something on Tv. They might pray from time to time- unstructured prayers- a special occasion thank you or
emergency request. This person might not be comfortable around people who go to church one or more times a week and spontaneously best into hymn or pay for a religious cable channel or think Kirk Cameron is an actor and not a husk animated by hate and money.
Now we could argue this person is around the wrong people for them- but that sentiment does carry some inherent privilege in that not everyone’s circumstances make it practical or prudent to change the sorts of folks around them. There is an inherent contradiction in a sentiment that people should accept you and if they don’t they are the wrong people because, well, that same sentiment means that you would be wrong for not accepting them. Sometimes it’s just how it is. Certain people just don’t work and the best thing for all is for them to leave each other to live their their lives. It isn’t always an option in society though for us to be able to not del with someone because we are mutually incompatible.
One factor that really moneys this up is… here. The internet. You’re thrust into a portal that has all manner of folks from all over the world. That is the cost of entry to a global network. You can try to only go to sites that cater to a certain type- but not only does that not solve the issue so much as mitigate it, but then you are existing in a vacuum or echo chamber, and that still precludes your from access to much of what the internet and media have to offer.
If people are bigots that is always a them issue. Manners are at their core- the rules that allow freedom. Paradoxically freedom requires rules. To be able to enjoy a walk in the park you need to know that you won’t be skull f!$&ed to death with reasonable certainty. You need to have some assurances that downtown won’t be set ablaze by someone exercising their freedom to burn things or else investing in and building a business or career or even leaving your fortified bunker is a huge risk.
So we tend to set rules, official and unspoken, legal and social, to create societies where people have the maximum freedom. 99.9% of societies in recorded history have placed restrictions on your freedom to murder. Not only is the murder of another likely harmful or detrimental, but a society where everyone might murder everyone else at any time isn’t one that leaves you a lot of time from training and looming over your shoulder to live. While there is always some chance of these things happening, we still tend to feel shock and outrage- it is generally a noteworthy event when people get murdered. Murder is a general taboo. People decided their desire to not be murdered randomly and their desire to not deal with the instability of a society where that occurs is greater than their need for absolute freedom.
So the internet is… not a free place. There are places a person cannot go without feeling or literally being at risk of potential physical harm like stalking and assault, property damage, swatting, cyber attacks, thefts, etc. or psychological and emotional harm. People kill themselves as a consequence of internet interactions. It’s happened, or will likely happen again. So to be online even Can put you “around the wrong type of people” with no real recourse save to avoid the internet entirely. Resolving oneself to that being acceptable is like saying “oh, the city is gripped by crime and drugs and murders? Well.. guess you better not go outside then.” It’s like shrugging and saying that the answer to mass shootings is to either not allow masses of people to gather or to just say that it is the cost you pay to go to school or to an event that you should leave each day ready to be shot.
So I mean… maybe they could change the crowd they are with or find a group of people that are like minded or maybe not. But certainly I see truth I the sentiment that we shouldn’t let others enjoyment or criticisms of things we love detract from them or cause us stress. I don’t subscribe to the whole “war on religion” thing- religion just used to be more of a default assumed norm and policy tent pole and now society is much more accepting and accommodating to people of different or no religions. I do however believe that people Can and do often face biases and challenges for expressing religion. Assumptions their are bigots, lectures or challenges to their beliefs etc. personally I think religion and faith should embrace challenges to test their veracity and strengthen the resolve or correct misjudgments- but I can understand many may not feel great about having to defend a faith- especially one they only causally adhere to.
For someone who isn’t a die hard religious type or who’s views don’t fit neatly into an established and common religion, it can be difficult to find people who they “fit with.” I have had this issue with past partners. Someone who strongly adheres to a faith and dogma will often have issues with a partner that doesn’t- wether that partner is accommodating or not, or wether that partner may even believe in their same overall faith but not be as devout an adherent.
Many denominations believe that one cannot get into heaven or live a “proper” “next life” etc. without following their tenants. Many believe that persons who deviate from their dogma introduce an…
Now we could argue this person is around the wrong people for them- but that sentiment does carry some inherent privilege in that not everyone’s circumstances make it practical or prudent to change the sorts of folks around them. There is an inherent contradiction in a sentiment that people should accept you and if they don’t they are the wrong people because, well, that same sentiment means that you would be wrong for not accepting them. Sometimes it’s just how it is. Certain people just don’t work and the best thing for all is for them to leave each other to live their their lives. It isn’t always an option in society though for us to be able to not del with someone because we are mutually incompatible.
If people are bigots that is always a them issue. Manners are at their core- the rules that allow freedom. Paradoxically freedom requires rules. To be able to enjoy a walk in the park you need to know that you won’t be skull f!$&ed to death with reasonable certainty. You need to have some assurances that downtown won’t be set ablaze by someone exercising their freedom to burn things or else investing in and building a business or career or even leaving your fortified bunker is a huge risk.