In a 1998 Chicago Tribune article, Judith Martin issued a now-famous list of topics to avoid in social conversation. Most importantly: politics, money and religion.

It’s easy to see why her advice has endured. Though maybe less frequently at the political monolith of Yale, we’ve all wished we could melt into our chairs at a red-faced political shouting match that was once a friendly dinner. God forbid my unknown seatmate in Introductory Macroeconomics asks me about my tuition payment plan. But would it be such a faux pas if after a lecture on unemployment, they mentioned the Bible’s verses on social welfare?

I’m not a Christian. I’m not looking to be converted. But I bring up this annoyingly specific hypothetical to introduce my point: we should normalize talking about religion.

At the Catholic high school I attended, talking about religion was a pretty normal thing to do. This makes sense, it being a Catholic school and all. But our conversations were so much more than just preaching. For example: every day, I sat at lunch with a Catholic, a Sikh, a Muslim and an atheist. As one does at school lunch, we ritually conferenced about the contents of our meals. This was far from a secular conference.

Our atheist loved the school chicken nuggets. Yet, to our Muslim friend’s frequent annoyance, the school chicken nuggets weren’t prepared in the halal tradition, and as such, a no-go for him. As a result, our Muslim friend brought his own delicious chicken to lunch. Yet our Sikh friend couldn’t eat the halal chicken, since Sikhism prohibits the consumption of ritually-killed animals. At the same time, our Sikh friend knew never to offer me, a Hindu, the ground beef he often brought from home. These religious undertones were made clear at our very first lunch, and they were never really far from mind.

I think this was an incredibly powerful exercise. It set a precedent for open conversation and acceptance, and it laid a foundation for future friendship based on deep mutual understanding. It was a natural consequence of a school where talking about religion was directly encouraged. Social conversation is about building understanding between newly meeting people. Therefore, how can we exclude from social conversation a topic which is often so worldview-shaping? This is different from social discussion of politics, which inherently lends itself to conflict. I’m not calling for an open debate between religious groups at Yale. I’m just asking people to consider openly talking about their religion, or lack thereof, in social conversation.

What bothers me is not that Yale students don’t talk about religion. They do. Indeed, the Chaplain’s office has noted an increase in religious engagement amongst students post-COVID-19. Even then, the religiosity of students is beside the point. The issue is that the religious discussions that do occur are primarily taking place in mono-religious spaces. Yale boasts a strong Christian Union, Muslim Students Association, Slifka Center, Hindu Students Organization, Buddhist Students Association, Humanist Community and many others. I think these groups perform a wonderful service for the community in providing religious spaces for students. I just don’t want them to be the only place where students feel comfortable talking about their religious beliefs. These religious centers are great for creating strong individual religious communities. But if students only express their religious beliefs amongst students of their own religion, it will be a great disservice to our broader campus community. 

What could this social expression of religion look like? On a major religious holiday, consider inviting a friend to your respective campus religious group’s celebration, if possible. Some of my most treasured friendships have been strengthened with visits to friends’ religious homes. At these visits, I witnessed my friends in what was to me a novel location, but for them a core aspect of their life. If you’re under a religious dietary restriction, consider being open about the technical, doctrinal specifics of said restriction. Help others understand why you live life a certain way. In the casual discussion of an issue on which religion shapes your perspective, don’t secularize your truly held position: be frank about your point of view. And if you’re not religious like the majority of Yalies, it’ll be worth your time to listen.

If Yale’s mission is to “train future leaders,” as per its mission statement, then Yalies better understand the three in four Americans that are of faith. If Yale is to be George Pierson’s “society of friends,” then we ought to understand our friends’ most closely held beliefs. Either way, we need to talk about religion.

ROHIL MOHAN is a first year in Morse College studying Economics and Political Science. He can be reached at rohil.mohan@yale.edu.