Hmm.

So, reading and commenting on a

particular group site (referenced abstractly on left), I remembered something that happened awhile back of note. I was at the Flicks with two friends, when I mentioned something about church that morning. One of them commented, "It's so cute you still go to church."

I paused as I do now. How does one respond? I was puzzled and gave a sideways expression like my dog is fond of doing when something I'm doing interests her.

Again, I think my head works too much like a chess board, processing the moves of my opponent, and the moves I might make and what both of those things might mean towards the end result. In this instance, she hadn't been around much for a few years. Many things had happened and she was trying to reconnect to me and my other friend. [Our relationship had nothing to do with church, but for some reason I feel it necessary to to point this out; church isn't what I'm talking about in this example. What pulls my attention is the use of "cute" and "still", and all that is assumed/felt/understood by the speaker in the use of these particular modifiers.]

I hate even mentioning the word "church" in here; I don't talk about much of what I 'believe' in any shape or form with anyone, students and friends alike. With students it's simple; I don't believe my position of power, as that of professor to student, should be used in this way. So I'm always careful about what I say and what I do. This goes for everything, including some of my criticisms of particular works of literature. To a large extent, I think it important for people to think through what they believe and think about a particular text; thus, when a discussion ensues, it's as equals: a balanced exchange of ideas.

But when belief comes up, for some reason, a balanced exchange is nearly impossible. [And here I'm speaking of outside the classroom (ie, not with students).]

This is the same with politics. This might be especially true of politics.