Should religions intermarry?

Volkmare

You said I spew vitriol. I interpret your VERB spew to mean VOMIT, used as a verb, and I interpret your noun vitriol, to mean acid.

I interpret your rude, mean, and nasty phrase, "spew vitriol" to mean to vomit acid.

You may not like what I say. But my opinions ARE based on fact. And my expressions of my opinions ARE NOT "spewing vitriol."

What really is the difference between saying something like that about me and using profanity? Your religion forbids you from using four letter words, but it does not forbid you from concocting even worse things to call people.

What a great religion you have. Why don't I go right out and join up, seeing the great example that you have set?

DanielintheLionsDen

I know what vitriol means as a noun; it is what they used to call sulfuric acid. Vomit, on the other hand has as its primary acid hydrochloric acid, but I used it as a verb.
In that usage, it has a different meaning:

vitriol - subject to bitter verbal abuse
lash out, attack, snipe, assail, assault, round - attack in speech or writing.

As a verb, that is the impression you put out.

You are always attacking with statements that have no basis in fact (unfounded opinions): vitriol.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Don't do it, especially with Mormons.

You'll regret it later when your spouse wants to "convert" you. They're carrying too much baggage to compromise.

Volkmare

"So, go ahead and keep spewing vitriol."

When have I ever spewed vitrol?

What do you think that means? I think it means that acid vomit projects out of my my mouth under high pressure, like a volcano. That is pretty rude, hurts my feelings, and is completely untrue.

UNTRUE.

You like to project yourself as "l'il old me ... " who wouldn't hurt a fly, a good person, a good Mormon, a good Christian. That is not really how you come accross in you posts.

It is a little off-putting to see comments that are not true, from someone who says he always seeks the truth.

What I said in response to this question was that Mormons would be happier marrying Mormons. You are using your mariage as a personal refutation of my comment. Your response about your personal experience would seem to indicate that either you or your wife were not Mormon when you got married, but you have never made this clear. If you are seeking the truth, then be more clear and say if this is true or not. If this is true, then it helps prove me wrong in you particulcar case. If both of you were not Mormons when you got married, but now you both are Mormons, that you help prove that I am right.

The Bible does not belong to you, and you do not get to tell everybody else what it means. That is the gist of the vitrol which I constantly spew. If you do not like the many ways that people who read the Bible interpret what they read, then Christians such as you, should not insist that everyone read the Bible.

Most of what I know about the Mormon Church comes from a legitimate source, the army of Mormon missionaries sent to educate apostates, like me. If you do not want people to get such a mixed up view of your reliigon, then the Mormon Church should stop sending out their missionaries.

Yes, yes, yes, I'be heard it from every religious person, from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, I "don't know what I am talking about." I get it; religious people do not like to be criticized.

But, as I also always hear from religious people who don't like criticism, this is America, and I have freedom of speech, don't I?

Always Spew Vitrol

"So, if one accuses me of having "the vapors," they'll probably be right"

Perhaps our universe is someone else's case of the vapors.

"Hey, any perspective on the whole universe is opinion"

Yes, it seems that you and CounterWW went to the same "over stating the obvious" school.

"But that is my opinion."

Hey, any perspective on the whole universe is opinion. Scientists are now telling me it is their opinion that it's all a vapor. They used to think it was matter -- matter now being reduced to merely a tool of the vapors.

So, if one accuses me of having "the vapors," they'll probably be right.

COUNTERWW

"Again, that is your opinion"

I am well aware of that.

"From a empirical perspective, we are talking about opinions that can't be proven as fact or proven they are not face. The mark of a mature person is recognizing this"

Are you suggesting that I do not recognize that my opinions are just my opinions and are not facts and can not be proven? Of course I do. That's what makes me an agnostic. There is no such thing as a scientific fact in my mind. Everything is a theory. It all comes down to how much credibility we give to all of the various theories.

So I gave my "opinion" that there is nothing false about agnosticism. Now let's have your opinion on the same point. Is there something false about agnosticism? If so, what is "false" about agnosticism?

What is the nature of our existence? I say "I don't know"

You, however, offer the theory that the nature of our existence is God's purpose. That makes you a theist. I find your particular God theory (the Christian one) to be absurd and completely lacking in credibility so I do not believe it. That makes me an a-theist. But I offer no alternative theory. I'm sticking with "I don't know" until I have evidence upon which to believe in a particular theory. That makes me an agnostic.

While people can find all kinds of falsities and logical problems in your theistic theory, there are no such things as falsities or logical problems by saying "I don't know". Therefore there is nothing false about agnosticism But that is my opinion. What's yours?

'Only later did I discover that Jesus Christ really did die for my sins and for the world's sins, and that he was resurrected etc.'
__________

How does one go about discovering this? Where exactly is the evidence for the appearance of Jesus the deity, as an historical event?

As for Protestants, they really have to be grateful that Catholics did all the heavy lifting.....where, after all, would Martin Luther be without his estranged Catholic Church??

It's all really very suspicious......

Oh, and Timmy- no, my parents were not Christians. They made me go to church half heartedly and did not attend themselves. Rarely did they go. Only later did I discover that Jesus Christ really did die for my sins and for the world's sins, and that he was resurrected etc.

Timmy says

"Personally I don't push atheism, I push agnosticism. And there is nothing false about agnosticism.

Again, that is your opinion. From a empirical perspective, we are talking about opinions that can't be proven as fact or proven they are not face.

The mark of a mature person is recognizing this

You don't.

PSolus

The 3 Stooges are my favorate.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk,,,

Mark
Always seek the truth.

volkmare,

"too much television will corrupt you.
Try to get back to reality."

You are correct; I stopped believing in television, and it instantly disappeared (there's 500 buck down the drain).

Thank you for helping me to seek and find the truth.

I could not have done it without you.

Cool, "Cops" is on at 8:00...

Doh!

farnaz_mansouri2,

And here is another story about Peregrine Solus.

............ Slight Misunderstanding ............

Peregrine was getting his first driver's license.

After recording Peregrine's name, address, height, weight, hair color, and eye color, the DMV official looked at Peregrine and asked, "Would you like to become an organ donor"?

Alarmed, Peregrine jumped up, looked around, and asked, "What... you mean... RIGHT NOW?"

DanielintheLionsDen

She does always seek the truth, but then she's an RN. It's in her nature.

And my nerves are just fine, thank you.

I used to put the title after my name "OPP" after both of my sons joined the army in response to 9/11. That means: Obnoxiously Proud Parent.
Now between the 2 of them there are 3 purple hearts, and 5 army commendation medals. All fighting for your right to stand on your soap box and say what you want.

You wont hear me complaining that your blog name represents a very religious biblical event yet you attack religion at its finest? I think it’s funny.

So, go ahead and keep spewing vitriol, and I’ll stick with the truth.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

PSolus

too much television will corrupt you.
Try to get back to reality.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Dear Psolus,

Here is another story for you by Mullah Nasrudin.

............Promises Kept.............

A friend asked the Mullah “How old are you?”

“Forty” replied the Mullah.

The friend said “But you said the same thing two years ago!”

“Yes,” replied the Mullah, “I always stand by what I have said”.

PSolus

Yes, you've got it.

If I were in love with a Mormon woman, and wanted to marry her, and we lived in Salt-Lake-Mormonville, I would probably just save myself the trouble and convert. That's what they count on.

But, everyone is not so good-natured as me.

volkmare,

"...and what "complications" would that be?"

Think back to the Seinfeld episode when Puddy kept telling Elaine that she was going to hell.

Always be pompous.

Volkmare

Sometimes, religious intolerance is a big pain in the butt.

I know it is not an important point in the big picture for someone who is always seeking the truth.

Volkmare

What complications do you think I mean?

Perhaps a Mormon might be "concerned" with their non-Mormon spouse's eternal fate.

You are sort of a living example of what I am talking about.

What if your spouse ended every comment with "always seek the truth?"

A little trying on the nerves.

(No offense, intended).

DanielintheLionsDen

...and what "complications" would that be?

Mark
Always seek the truth.

"Duh."

Duh, indeed.

Stinker

I'm down with the general sentiment, but outlawed? Come on.

CARSTONIO

I was only ever talking about individual opinions, judgements, suggestion etc.

Opposite-religion marriages are just as disgusting as opposite-sex marriages. They should both be outlawed as the abominations they are.

Duh.

The use of "justness" is necessarily ambiguous. It seems to change with the times. But any given government has to decide for the moment what it thinks is just.

Of course the division of male and female is problematic as well: persons with fragile x, XXY, XYY, and other polypodies, along with transgender persons.

How about living things should not marry non-living things. Wait, we can't define what constitutes life either.

Perhaps best would be sentient v non-sentient but then someone may not be (in)sentient enough to marry.

hariaum

alltheroadrunnin

I remember Carol Lynley, and Susan Oliver, and Ann Francis.

What about intermarriage between ethnic groups? Like, can a person from North Carolina be happy married to a person from Ohio?

Can a person from Minnesota be happy married to a person from Louisiana?

jontomus

I like dividing the world into girls and boys. Then, no matter how old you are, you're either a girl, or a boy.

"It is only forcing if I force them which I would have to do physically or legally which would pretty much be impossible."

Valid point. It would be better to say that when a congregation comes down on someone for wanting to marry outside the religion, or a family or neighborhood comes down on someone for wanting to marry outside the ethnicity, that can sometimes feel threatening.

The world is divided into two kinds of people - those who divide the world into two kinds and those who don't.

Lynley.

DanielintheLionsDen :

Alltheroadrunnin

Don't you ever wonder about Britney?"

Nah, I leave her to my grand nephews. After all, I had Carol L.

When it comes to toilet paper I am not a mono-ideologist. I accept both ways.

The best solution is to get a vertical TP holder. Then I guess the left right arguments start.

Carstonio

"It can be construed as "forcing" if you offer it as unsought advice"

It is only forcing if I force them which I would have to do physically or legally which would pretty much be impossible.

People can be divided into two basic groups: those who roll the toilet paper under, and those that roll it over. (Paper towels, too).

I think that people of these two groups should not intermarry. It would only make for a life time of heart ache and trouble.

(I personally think that rolling the toilet paper over is the right way, and I often feel an uncontrollable sense of rage whenever I find one rolling under, and I promptly fix it, to set things back on the proper vibe).

Alltheroadrunnin

Don't you ever wonder about Britney? Like why does she spell her name Britney and not Brittany? I mean, she left out a whole syllable. What happened to it? (I guess we should ask her parents that; what happened to THAT syllable?)

Volkmare

Mormons should marry Mormons. If they do not, then there will be complications. Maybe they can be overcome, maybe not.

JUSTACOMMENT

You asked how old were Adam and Eve when they were created? I never thought of that question before, but I guess I always assumed they're weren't kids. I have always had a feeling that they must have been in their early 30's when they were created.

"If I give my opinion to a person who is getting married I am making a judgement and letting them know what I think they should do. I am not forcing my opinion or judgement on them, just presenting it for their own information which they can take or leave. "

It can be construed as "forcing" if you offer it as unsought advice, and as a general principle, giving sought advice is commendable and offering unsought advice is problematic. Much of this depends on the specific nature of the relationship. It's possible for the person to interpret your opinion as meaning that you (the generic you) would withhold your friendship if he went ahead and married the other person anyway. When someone hears "You should" from others repeatedly and constantly, the person can lose confidence in his own judgment.

"Government has to make a value judgment as to the justness of an act including contracts between individuals."

The word justness is too vague in this context for me. I would argue that government has a compelling interest in preventing specific marriages when those couplings cause harm. Underage marriages and incestuous marriages fall into that category, the latter because incest involves psychological manipulation through the exploitation of family ties. By the same reasoning, there is no compelling interest for government to ban same-sex marriage or interracial marriage, because neither of those poses intrinsic harm to society.

Carstonio

"I'm trying to articulate the distinction between having an opinion and having a judgment"

There isn't one. Every opinion is a judgement.

"the difference between "I think X" and "You should X.""

I think X = I think you should X Doesn't it?

If I give my opinion to a person who is getting married I am making a judgement and letting them know what I think they should do. I am not forcing my opinion or judgement on them, just presenting it for their own information which they can take or leave.

BTW

often women who are abused are unable to rationally free themselves from the abuse. They need someone on the outside to intervene. - its not just personal.

On a further note, if we see spirituality as the source of religion, as opposed to the religion as the source of spirituality, then whatever religion you bring to a marriage would be seen in terms of spirituality. Now the couple can move beyond religion and still face the usual issues of being married. For example, a Saivite and Vaishvanite may get married and have alters to both gods and still be tuned into the Brahman that is manifest in both and unmanifest beyond both. Or they could not particularly care which god's name they took that day.

But this still gets to living with each other embracing our differences and commonalities rather than picking and choosing the parts we like or dislike. Or as Gandhi once said, I do not love my friends in pieces.

hariaum

Well... I would agree that most of the time it should be ok for the individuals to make their own choices. But society can have a legitimate need for judgment. For example, no marriages of persons below 16 years old. Or any marriage is allowed between gays. Or a person who is licensed by the state to perform marriages who refuses to marry a black person with a white one would lose that license. Or a mormon living in sin without getting married is considered married by common law. Or bigamy is not allowed...

We might even value interference in individual choices: ban incest even if between consenting adults.

Further we can alter the economic nature of family: no inheritance tax or no inheritance allowed.

Government has to make a value judgment as to the justness of an act including contracts between individuals. If you don't like mormon judgment, leave the church and get married elsewhere. If you don't like the US judgment, leave it and go elsewhere.... (this gets into that whole issue of immigration).

But the subsociety does not have to follow the government. The US can say that homosexual and interracial and interreligious marriages are to be promoted (say - offer a tax break). But antigay churches don't have to perform those marriages nor do they need government sanction for their own religious marriages (and definitions thereof). Catholics can say they won't excommunicate a rapist of children, even if the government puts them in jails. Mormons can say they won't excommunicate a leader that failed to prevent the genocide of the Indigenous of Utah but they can still excommunicate a guy who puts together a calendar (and they can even think that is rational and clearly moral).

Society certainly has the obligation to regulate the interaction of its individuals. The balance of too much or too little is going to be biased by local interpretations of what is reasonable. I side with the more individual freedom and egalitarianism created the better. Others side for the greater ability to keep their wealth to their own genetic protoplasm. Others to keep power with their church identity.

We're in a dynamic, or as Timmy might say, a mystery. Let's play, let's talk.

hariaum

TIMMY2,

"Now we live to 100 years old and marriage can be an 80 year commitment.”

This is nothing as compared to poor Adam and Eve. They had an arranged marriage and Adam lived more than 900 years, probably most of them committed with Eve as long as she lived. If they had never tasted the forbidden fruit they were supposed to live eternally, but the bell saved them when God announced that as punishment they will become dust again. Phewwww...

BTW, at what age was Adam and Eve created? Were they 18 years old at DOB? At what age Eve died?

Uh, that should be "a parent who desires grandchildren..."

"We are all interested in what goes on around us. We can not help this nor should we try."

I'm talking about a different type of interest, where society says a given coupling is good or bad.

"Showing interest and having opinions is not determining what is good for a specific individual. It is just showing interest and having an opinion. "

Again, I'm talking about instances where society says that it's good or bad if Person X marries Person Y. That goes beyond mere opinion and constitutes judgment.

"Which particular opinion are you calling uninformed?"

Whether Person X should marry Person Y. Or more broadly, where persons of type X should marry type Y, which is the issue in this question.

"Really? The parents and close friends of those individuals have no valid opinion?"

Yes. By "valid" I mean that only the couple can and should make the final decision, even after listening to the opinions of the people close to them. And sure, there are times when those people may have different perspectives about the prospective spouse, and I would expect a rational person would at least consider those opinions. But such a person would also consider whether those confidantes may have self-serving reasons for wanting the person to choose or not choose a specific spouse. A devout parent may pressure the offspring not to choose a spouse of a different religion. A parent who desires offspring may object if the chosen spouse can't reproduce or has no desire to do so. Friends might falsely assume that the newly married person will abandon them or have much less time for them. And then there are the classic examples where the parents and friends object to the person marrying someone of a different ethnic background.

I'm trying to articulate the distinction between having an opinion and having a judgment, the difference between "I think X" and "You should X." Too many people seem to treat the latter as the former and end up shoulding on those around them.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN.

I don’t know where you get the idea that inter-faith marriages in Mormon and catholic faiths would require intensive counseling.

I know of Mormon-catholic marriages that are just fine and don’t require any counseling.

Although Catholics consider it living in sin (or so they told me), the Mormon faith recognizes civil marriages as valid and neither condemn nor interfere.

My marriage of 30 years was civil (in a Mexican resort) and is accepted by the Mormon Church. Although we did renew our vows in the form of a temple sealing (Mormon marriage) it was not a requirement.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Carstonio

"In the case of individual marriage (as opposed to the institution itself), what would be society's interest?

We are all interested in what goes on around us. We can not help this nor should we try.

"I'm not sure how one would make such an argument for that interest without implying that society knows (or should determine) what is best for a specific individual"

Showing interest and having opinions is not determining what is good for a specific individual. It is just showing interest and having an opinion.

"I would go further and suggest that such opinions aren't valid, even though one has the right to them, because the opinions aren't informed ones"

Which particular opinion are you calling uninformed?

"Only the members of the prospective marriage have enough information to form a valid opinion about the coupling"

Really? The parents and close friends of those individuals have no valid opinion?

"But society, and as we debate an issue we are attempting to speak in generalities / of society, does have an interest in what its members do and don't do."

In the case of individual marriage (as opposed to the institution itself), what would be society's interest? I'm not sure how one would make such an argument for that interest without implying that society knows (or should determine) what is best for a specific individual.

"We have opinions about the couplings we see about us, and have the right to have those opinions, but humility would argue caution in coming to conclusions based on partial information."

I would go further and suggest that such opinions aren't valid, even though one has the right to them, because the opinions aren't informed ones. Only the members of the prospective marriage have enough information to form a valid opinion about the coupling.

"collapse" of a marriage may be a happy or unhappy thing, even both.

Any individual, in the ethic of individual rights, has the right to make their own choices. But society, and as we debate an issue we are attempting to speak in generalities / of society, does have an interest in what its members do and don't do. So marriage as an institution is a legitimate target for analysis. It is our business.

Individuals can seek analysis for their marriage in a professional way or informally in their own communities. We have opinions about the couplings we see about us, and have the right to have those opinions, but humility would argue caution in coming to conclusions based on partial information.

I guess I am saying we don't need to make this personal, though the question certainly leads us in that direction.

hariaum

Jsmith - Unhappy as the collapse of areyousaying's marriage is, due to changes in religious pressures after 20 years, this article is an impertinence. It is hardly the business of the nosy public to voice their opinion about what were called, in the felicitous phrasing of my youth, "mixed marriages."

A spouse can decide to emphasize or de-emphasize religion, or career, or even fidelity, in the course of a marriage, and the partnership will adapt or fail. I watch marriages fail all the time (even some of my own) for many reasons.

And very few of them are anybody else's business, and an impertinent busybody sticking his or her nose into the matter still deserves the cogent reply: None of your damned business.

The other thing that should be noted is that marriage is a deeply flawed institution. Everyone who gets married is forced to make a promise that they have no control over keeping. One can not promise to love anyone for life because we do not control love. I can promise to stay with someone forever, but I can not promise to love them forever because people change and feelings change and we have no control over that.

Promising to love someone for the rest of your long life is romantic, but asinine because no one can control love. Also, when marriage was created, it was only a 20 to 30 year commitment max because we didn't live to more than 45 years old. Now we live to 100 years old and marriage can be an 80 year commitment.

TTWMFetc...

Marriages between people of different faiths CAN and DO work as long as one spouse is ot on a crusade to convert the other.
One of the many things that destroyed my previous marriage was my ex's refusal after we married to accept my constantly evolving religious beliefs, and his constant attempts to convert me back to Christianity.
I am now married to a man who does not follow the same spiritual Path that I do, and we have an arrangement that works qute well. Some of our beliefs and practices are similar. We celebrate those aspects together. Some are radically different. We give each other time and space for those practices, rituals, etc. that we do not share. Neither of us will ever ask the other to convert.

Thanks, Jsmith4.

"Marriage will never go away of course because it's right for some people. But it's not right for everyone. And the prevailing notion has always been that it is right for everyone except the weirdos. "

And it's wrong for society to push that prevailing notion. As long as you treat other people with respect and dignity, it shouldn't matter to other individuals or to society what you do with your life.

Counter

"The only thing I am aware of TImmy is your self deceit that anyone, anyone, that has faith in God must have not made a rational decision on their own because somehow their parents had that faith, which is a fallacy you have"

Actually the proof is in the pudding. Most children born into muslim families grow up to be muslims and most Christian children grow up to be Christians. You think it's a coincidence? Or do kids automatically take on the faith of their parents as a general rule. Don't embarrass yourself. This one is obvious.

"In my case, my parents had very little faith"

Describe "very little faith." You mean they aren't Christians?

"I only looked at the New testament and believed it is the truth. Nothing you can say will convince me that my parents had anything to do with it"

So your parents aren't Christians?

"Truth is something that people have, and pass on to their kids,if they possess it"

Do some people only think they have the truth and pass it on to their children? Like Muslims or Mormons? They tell their children that they have the truth but it's a different truth than the ones that other parents tell their kids. Someone is wrong. My guess is they all are.

"To think that a atheist does not attempt to pass on his false version of the truth is also fallacy"

Personally I don't push atheism, I push agnosticism. And there is nothing false about agnosticism.

"In the end, each one of us is accountable for making up our own minds on what truth is.... it is not a passed on thing"

Truth is not a passed on thing. But religious faith is most commonly passed on from parent to child. The statistics are overwhelming. It can not be denied.

" Is it my faith that is different from my love's faith or is it my parent's faith that is different from the faith of my love's parents?

For most people, their faith is the equivalent of an arranged marriage. Entering into a real marriage should help raise their awareness of that."

The only thing I am aware of TImmy is your self deceit that anyone, anyone, that has faith in God must have not made a rational decision on their own because somehow their parents had that faith, which is a fallacy you have.

In my case, my parents had very little faith. I only looked at the New testament and believed it is the truth. Nothing you can say will convince me that my parents had anything to do with it.

Truth is something that people have, and pass on to their kids,if they possess it. Some discover truth on their own, it does not have to be passed on to them. Some kids accept the truth of Christ and some don't keep their faith.

What you disagree on with religionists is who has the truth. To think that a atheist does not attempt to pass on his false version of the truth is also fallacy. In the end, each one of us is accountable for making up our own minds on what truth is.... it is not a passed on thing.

DITLD.

"I have wondered why Britney Spears got married, etc."

You're following Britney Spears's career and personal life?

Now, that's more like it. Maybe Jon and Sally will get the hint.

Timmy2

" ... people get married because that is what you do ..."

I have wondered why Britney Spears got married. There was no reason for her to get married so young; she only brought all kinds of trouble on herself; she was too dumb to realize that she did not have to do it; she just did it because that is what people do. She was a fabulously wealthy, internationally famous icon, yet she still had the mind-set of a poor person, compelled to get married and have children, because that is what people do.

"Overall point that strikes me: people get married for reasons that are intuitive and erotic"

Those are good reasons for why people mary who they marry, but most people get married period because that is what you do. Marriage is sold to children by both religion and society as what normal people do. This of course originally comes from religion. But it has become so ingrained in us over the millennia that secular society has also taken it on as "the norm". People who don't get married and have children are kind of weird. There's something odd about them.

Well that used to be the case but it is now changing. Mostly because of the empowerment of women. Marriage will never go away of course because it's right for some people. But it's not right for everyone. And the prevailing notion has always been that it is right for everyone except the weirdos.

The number one cause of divorce is marriage.

Navin and Carstino

good discussion. glad to see you talking to each other.

Overall point that strikes me: people get married for reasons that are intuitive and erotic, but it is also good to have a reasoning component involved at some point.

How to do so: tricky.
1. encourage later marriages (after 23)
2. have reasonable discussions about what marriage means, rather than the grossly materialistic glorification of WEDDINGS as the answer to our prayers that American society now promotes.
3. Read about Bistol Palin and Levi Johnson, and imagine being married to either.

Marriage is often a misunderstood institution. Many Americans see marriage as a religious institution purely and with that being the case we have various religions claiming to have the monopoly on who can marry who. Of course when two people of different religions decide to get married, people from both religions sometimes get offended.

First, I don’t really understand why Chelsea Clinton’s interfaith marriage has anything at all to do with this issue. It seems this has more to do with the Washington Post’s love of celebrity then it has to do with actual interfaith marriage.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m7d28-On-Faith-Interfaith-marriages-secularize-religion

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

NAVIN

"But, I also believe marriage is more than biology being sublimated into social ritual"

As opposed to all of those people out there who do believe that marriage is just biology being sublimated into social ritual?

Good thing you separated yourself here from absolutely no one. Just like when you point out that you for one do not believe that we are just biological chemicals reacting deterministically.

One does not need to believe in either transcendence or determinism. One can believe in neither and leave them the mysteries that they are for now.

Areyousaying

I read your comment about your Mormon wife. I have seen this happen to other mixed Mormon couples. It seems like a trend.

As to did slavery need to happen.

In principle no. Certainly a history without slavery would have been a historical diversion I would have applauded. But there is economic efficiency in cheap labor and capital - slavery and conquest/theft. Free markets incentivise those in power to use their power efficiently.

It takes an ideology of egalitarianism to stand up to market efficiencies and say that is not a sufficient cause to validate slavery.

hariaum

Carstino

I agree, and the contrary side, men are tired of working the long hours and not being able to enjoy the time to raise their children and develop intimacy. Thus more individual freedom, higher divorce rates to appropriately end marriages that fail to improve the person's lives.

I also agree on the difficulty of studying a non-normative basis for a natural divorce rate. The best marker we can have, in any statistical sense, has to be normative, but then which society is "right." To me that valuation is based on a society more egalitarian - x-axis egalitarianism y axis divorce rate in the society: null hypothesis: no correlation, curve shape (linear, log, Kuznets...). But you can see that my bias has already entered into the fundamentals of the study and thus is not "natural divorce rate."

hariuam

The first paragraph of my last post was a quote from Navin1 - I wrapped it in HTML italics tags but these weren't recognized.

The parallel of divorce rate with individual freedom and the acceptance that human's change how they define themselves, suggests that a high divorce rate may be natural.

That may be true, although I don't know offhand what kind of evidence might uphold or refute your theory. Marriage has had different meanings in cultures throughout history. From what I've read, the trait that crops up most frequently among those meanings has been the deliberate acquisition of in-laws.

My own working theory about the divorce rate involves the increasing egalitarian nature of American marriage. Perhaps more women are rightly refusing to put up with chauvinistic men who regard their wives as maids with benefits.

Psolus

Vishnu lives and makes me Vishnu, but my atman keeps getting in the way of my paratma and I just can't realize it. Damn that Vishnu who loves me so! :)

hariaum

But, I also believe marriage is more than biology being sublimated into social ritual.

When a person commits to another, s/he recognizes a transcendental relationship that goes beyond the material. When we raise children or take care of the elderly, we participate in the continued opportunity to love. As we build relationships, so we build societies, and thus become greater than ourselves in the here and now. So society is based on commitment. As a society, we want everybody committed to everybody - an ideal, yes, but the basis of contract theory etc.

And in a spiritual realm, with or without tantra, we become come face to face with the greatness and foolishness of our own egos when we are tied to another ego that reflects ours. In doing so, we have an opportunity to love and grow. Friends will accept you for who you happen to be for the few years they know you. Your children will accept you at least biologically. Your parents accept you. Your relationship with your spouse is earned and nurtured. The karma of marriage is the fire of life and society.

In Hinduism, a question is posed: of the four stages of life, which is the most important. The four stages are student/house holder/hermit/sannyasin. For a mytical tradition one would expect teh Sannyasin who renounces the world to merge with the Oneness. For a social tradition one would expect the hermit for seeking the welfare of others not just his/her own family. Students always see themselves as the center of the universe. But the answer given is the householder. For on the back of the householder the world runs. All other stages depend on the mere householder. The house holder daily sacrifices him/herself for the betterment of everybody else (and thus the midlife crisis later on). Thus sustainability of marriage is a social good.

But society can sustain marriage in more than one way. People can be acculturated to recognize that affection can be more than only in a single couple. We can see that raising children is beyond a single couple. We can see that financial security is built with contributors other than just the couple. We can see that the earning potential of a member is not the measure of their value, rather the mind set of the individual to give up income to have more time with the family is a measure...

When religion is a part of the solution, it promotes marriage. When religion demands a mono-ideological one way to the workings of marriage, it is an added stress to an already difficult process of self sacrifice. Certainly when religion allows the abuse of one partner by another based on the presence of a phallus (as it is in most of the world including christian/morman US), the religion (or at least that aspect) needs to go.

Further, marriages can fail in abuse, in failed partnering, failed spiritual advancement.... then if religion forces people to stay together that shouldn't be it is a problem.

The "failure" rate of inter-religious marriages is an indicator of the failure of religion(s) to be a part of the solution. That's a shame because it is such an important part of this human life.

hariaum

Navin1,

"Should individuals with different religious background get married? Well:

1) if it doesn't matter to the individuals (honestly that is) then sure.
2) if it does matter, then they have to answer how much. A lot, then no. A little, maybe sure."

Who died and made you Vishnu?

What a classically poorly stated question.

The question begins with the marriage of aggregates and ends with the marriage of individuals.

The answers are different.

Should religions intermarry. Yes. Absolutely. Ideologies should merge into one another, splice up ideas of being, and then produce novel, perhaps more accurate perhaps simple more diverse, views of the universe. And if ideologies go their separate ways after wards, cool yet again.

Should individuals with different religious background get married? Well:

1) if it doesn't matter to the individuals (honestly that is) then sure.
2) if it does matter, then they have to answer how much. A lot, then no. A little, maybe sure.

The odds seem to be against them. But that is using divorce as a metric of a failed marriage. Yeah sure, we are supposed to see it that way. But, as I see it (and this is definitely not a common Hindu perspective), two people come together for different reasons - sex, physical attraction, genetic compulsion to breed, social compulsion to breed, intellectual affinity, spiritual affinity, duty... To presume that these two people will always share what brought them together is to believe that humans don't change. There has to be, in my way of seeing it, a legitimate rate of divorce. Not necessarily a normative one, but a human behavior based one. As societies become more free divorce rates go up. (Though within the US religious people, psychiatrist, etc tend to have higher divorce rates.) The parallel of divorce rate with individual freedom and the acceptance that human's change how they define themselves, suggests that a high divorce rate may be natural. Further, if you only live to 40 (as most pre 1900 people did) then a single love that lasts a "lifetime" may be easier to achieve.

On the other hand, there is the "interfaith" marriage where one demands the other convert. This is incredible to me. The person demanding the conversion is demonstrating the mono-ideological hatred of his/her group (you are not worthy of marriage unless...). The person acquiescing to the conversion is demonstrating that they are willing to be disrespected for the rest of their life (take pieces of my identity and remove them, I won't need them because you fill them...).

But let's face it, most marriage occurs because immature brains are driven by biological urges and evolution doesn't care what you think.

hariaum

Yet another question from OnFaith that begins with flawed premises. In this case, the question wrongly focuses on religious affiliation and not on shared values both religious and secular. "Interfaith" marriages technically include couples with different religious backgrounds but with no religious beliefs or at least no current affiliations, such as between a secular Jew and what the Catholic Church arrogantly calls a "lapsed" Catholic. Many couples from different faiths do share numerous values, where they rightly see the affiliations as less important than the commonality of values.

I suppose one can argue that society suffers when couples marry who share few values, and that can include some interfaith couplings. Such an argument bears the burden of proof because "good for society" is a vague and subjective concept at best. Making that issue about interfaith marriage in general is woefully misguided.

And "good for religion" is even more nebulous. It implies that the couples would simply stop being religious, or that they owe loyalty to their religions or those of their families. Marriage is about two people building lives together, not about the health of religion in general or the health of any specific religion.

That statistic on the greater likelihood of divorce is meaningless without any basis for comparison. We would need a breakdown for the amounts of shared values for the couples, as well as for the couples whose divorces had little to do with religious differences. This topic falsely implies that religious differences are the cause when interfaith couples divorce. And even in cases when this is the general cause, the specific cause could be bigoted resistance from the families of origin. I've seen that resistance happen with inter-ethnicity marriages where the withholding of approval by the families causes tension between the couple.

Again, couples of different faiths getting married should ask themselves. Is it my faith that is different from my love's faith or is it my parent's faith that is different from the faith of my love's parents?

For most people, their faith is the equivalent of an arranged marriage. Entering into a real marriage should help raise their awareness of that.

The purpose of religion is to bind man and woman with God in the unity of the family, and the fruit of this affinity is the child whom God gives to the spouses love for each other and whose vocation, in return, is to prepare their child to accomplish his destiny in life, that is to return to God. If the directions are contradictory, the child will be confused and the preparation will be a failure.
_______________

What complete clerical hogwash! Second-hand experience counts for nothing. The Catholic Church is famous for knowing absolutely nothing about marriage in general or reproduction in particular.

Priests and nuns with first-hand experience have not been queried for their opinions...

Hopefully no one has the sanctimonious audacity to try and answer marriage-related questions until they have sung this little song to their beloved.....

ARE YOU EXPERIENCED?

If you can just get your mind together
Then come on across to me
We'll hold hands and then we'll watch the sunrise
From the bottom of the sea

But first, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

I know, I know you probably scream and cry
That your little world won't let you go
But who in your measly little world
Are you trying to prove that
You're made out of gold and, eh, can't be sold

So, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

Let me prove you...

Trumpets and violins I can hear in distance
I think they're calling our names
Maybe now you can't hear them, but you will
If you just take hold of my hand

Oh, but are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Not necessarily stoned, but beautiful...

Music and Lyrics by Jimi Hendrix

I believe that
No one
should be allowed to marry
who hasn't been married before.

This IS a serious issue, not an "impertinence," as AREYOUSAYING's admonitory story illustrates (my sympathies as an ex-Mormon myself).

Just as one should think many times before getting married at 18, one should consider carefully marrying someone of another faith, ESPecially if they are devout.

To ignore the odds (3 times more likelihood of a divorce) is stupid. I am involved with a secular jew who has the same attitude towards all religions as i do. In those situations there is *less* chance of this kind of conflict.

THE PHYSIOLOGICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SPIRITUAL:

“To the Christian, sex is inseparable from the person, and to reduce the person to sex is as silly as to reduce personality to lungs or a thorax. Certain Victorians in their education practically denied sex as a function of personality; certain sexophiles of modern times deny personality and make a god of sex.

The male animal is attracted to the female animal, but a human personality is attracted to another human personality. The attraction of beast to beast is physiological; the attraction of human to human is physiological, psychological, and spiritual. The human spirit has a thirst for the infinite which the quadruped has not. This infinite is really God. But man can pervert that thirst, which the animal cannot because it has no concept of the infinite.

Infidelity in married life is basically the substitution for an infinite of a succession of finite carnal experiences. The false infinity of succession takes the place of the Infinity of Destiny, which is God. The beast is promiscuous for an entirely different reason than man. The false pleasure given by new conquests in the realm of sex is the ersatz for the conquest of the Spirit in the Sacrament!

The sense of emptiness, melancholy, and frustration is a consequence of the failure to find infinite satisfaction in what is carnal and limited. Despair is disappointed hedonism. The most depressed spirits are those who seek God in a false god!

If love does not climb, it falls. If, like the flame, it does not burn upward to the sun, it burns downward to destroy. If sex does not mount to heaven, it descends into hell.”

Hence, Heaven, Hell, Destiny and Purpose of Life are the subjects of religion and are all directed to one's relationships in Marriage which is a tripartite fusion between God, the groom and the bride. The purpose of religion is to bind man and woman with God in the unity of the family, and the fruit of this affinity is the child whom God gives to the spouses love for each other and whose vocation, in return, is to prepare their child to accomplish his destiny in life, that is to return to God. If the directions are contradictory, the child will be confused and the preparation will be a failure.

My mother told me of the potential problems of marrying a Mormon and I did it anyway.

Before we were married my bride-to-be told me it would never be a problem if I didn't submit to LDS dictates. She changed her mind in the 20th year of our marriage and the following 8 years and the inevitable divorce were emotionally and financially devastating for me and she died.

MARRIAGE:

Marriage is both physical and spiritual. Therefore religion, the spiritual soul of marriage is the glue that binds the spouses. If the spouses aren’t in accord with their spiritual beliefs, the marriage is like a ship with two rudders and two Captains.

"There are two reasons for the primacy of sex over love in a decadent civilization. One is the decline of reason. As humans give up reason, they resort to their imaginations. The second factor is egotism.

As belief in a Divine Judgment, a future life, heaven and hell, a moral order, is increasingly rejected; the ego becomes more and more firmly enthroned as the source of its morality. Each person becomes a judge in his own case. With this increase of selfishness, the demands for self-satisfaction become more and more imperious, and the interests of the community and the rights of others have less and less appeal.

Love is primarily in the will, not in the emotions or the glands. The will is like the voice; the emotions are like the echo. The pleasure associated with love, or what is today called "sex," is the frosting on the cake; its purpose is to make us love the cake, not ignore it.

Happiness consists in interiority of the spirit, namely, the development of personality in relationship to a heavenly destiny. He who has no purpose in life is unhappy; he who exteriorizes his life and is dominated, or subjugated, by what is outside himself, or spends his energy on the external without understanding its mystery, is unhappy to the point of melancholy. There is the feeling of being hungry after having eaten, or of being disgusted with food, because it has nourished not the body,

There is no such thing as giving the body without giving the soul. Those who think they can be faithful in soul to one another, but unfaithful in body, forget that the two are inseparable. Sex in isolation from personality does not exist! An arm living and gesticulating apart from the living organism is an impossibility.

Man has no organic functions isolated from his soul. There is involvement of the whole personality. Nothing is more psychosomatic than the union of two in one flesh; nothing so much alters a mind, a will, for better or for worse. The separation of soul and body is death. Those who separate sex and spirit are rehearsing for death. The enjoyment of the other's personality through one's own personality, is love.

The pleasure of animal function through another's animal function is sex separated from love. Sex is one of the means God has instituted for the enrichment of personality. It is a basic principle of philosophy that there is nothing in the mind which was not previously in the senses.

Animals that have sex is purely physiological, there is no love. In man, human love is both physiological and psychological. Consequently, since Marriage is spiritual, religion is the compass to its spiritual destiny. Therefore, it is essential that we are going in the right direction, that the compass works proficiently, and the spouses are in unity with each other, viz. they are going in the same direction. Contradictory directions are a prescription that leads to contradictory destinies and crack ups.

What about Mary Matlin and James Carvel?

They're a strange match, a marriage made in Heaven: he's a headache, and she's a pill.

"and this track is what we deal with on a daily basis"

Yes slavery happened and we must deal with it. I was just correcting the assertion that we needed slavery to happen. It happened. But we did not need it to.

People of different faiths who want to marry should realize how dumb it is that they have different faiths. They should realize that what they really have is the faith of their parents, not a faith that they came to on their own.

In the true love of their real marriage, they should realize that their so called faiths were in fact arranged marriages. Most people's faith is the equivalent of an arranged marriage.

"my wife was an atheist, and I was an agnostic"

Was she eventually able to make you realize that agnostics are just polite atheists.

What about inter-marriage between gay people and straight people?

The question seems like an impertinence.

Rather like their positions on gender in marriage, religions can place whatever limits their doctrines require on sacramental marriages, but that leaves it up to the married couple as to whether or not to pursue sacramental marriage, and whether or not they adhere to the requirements of one church or another after the ceremony.

The most appropriate answer from couples confronted with the questions framed in this article really seems to me to be "None of your damn business."

In my first marriage,
my wife was an atheist,
and I was an agnostic.

We didn't know which religion NOT to bring the children up in.

It depends on the religious traditon of the people involved regarding tolerance of other beliefs, their personal feelings regarding tolerance, and how seriously they each take their religion.

Below the age of 25, most people are probably a little naive about the negative influence that religion can have on life and on marriage. The more mature a person is, the more likely they are to have thought of these things; the couple should definitley discuss it.

I think that a Methodist / Jewish interfaith couple should have no problems at all about how to work our their religious differences, because both traditions are tolerant and thoughtful about these things.

The same cannot be said for many other religions, say for example, Catholicism, Mormonism, the Baptists, and Islam. Intermarriage among such groups as these would require intensive and on-going counseling and work, and even then, there is bound to be a lot of religious problems.

Unless, of course, they decide that it is just not THAT important.

My philosophy is that love between two people is a sacred union and it adds a dimension of holiness to our world that cannot be categorized by religion or culture.

In my wedding ministry, time and time again, I meet lovely people who clearly are meant for each other but who do not come from the same background or faith.

It has become clear to me that love and commitment come in many packages, shapes, sizes, shades, languages, backgrounds and faiths. Love simply does not limit itself to existing only between people who are of the same faith nor does it merely join together people who have the same skin tone or accents. And it does not insist that a man born in one part of the world must only love someone from his country or culture, nor that a woman born into a religious household will find her beloved in the faith of her family.

There are people all over the world who would like nothing more than to love and be deeply loved by another. Many modern men and women are coming to see that true love is a gift, even when an adoring, committed partner does not quite fit the ideal of our fantasies or arrive in the outer package our parents imagined for us.

Are there challenges? Yes, and for some couples the situation is more complex than others. But I have also witnessed couples rise above the religious roadblocks to their relationship. The path will be very different for every couple.

I celebrate that Chelsea found true love, her "beshert." Marc and Chelsea are a responsible bride and groom who are fully capable of forging their own family path and including the best of both worlds. I wish them all the best.

Blessings, Rev. Laurie Sue Brockway
Interfaith Minister

"We may have needed slavery to get HERE, but who says we needed to get HERE? The place we would have gotten to without slavery might have been much much better. And no, by better, I don't mean financially richer."

Continuing the last thread -- or any of the threads Timmy and I have blogged on -- regarding his above statement, there it is.

Yes, humans, different behaving than elephants, wildebeasts, and many other species, got on a certain track, and this track is what we deal with on a daily basis.

Sally and Jon seem to running out of essay questions, in the coping.

For me, there is only anecdotal experience, at marriages. My first, in Ohio, religion never came up. My second, in Las Vegas, religion never came up. My third, in SoCal, religion never came up.

I've always said I am a lucky guy. Today, my marriages, in duration, total 39 years. That's not counting the ten years of live-in girl friends -- religion never came up in those relationships, either.

I've always been a one female at a time guy, and a never religion guy, all the time. Lucky lucky lucky.

Except, I was a slave, to females (and performers), and I found slavery to be a good thing.

"Is interfaith marriage good for American society?"

It's probably not bad for American society.

"Is it good for religion?"

If dilution is good for religion, perhaps.

"What is lost -and gained -when religious people intermarry?"

Some religious segregation is lost; some religious integration is gained.

Religions don't marry, people do. And if two people from different religions wish to marry, they should be able to without penalty or stigma.

That is not to say that there aren't issues that need to be resolved: how to raise the children, how religious practice will be handled in the home, and whether each spouse can really respect the beliefs of the other. These are really just aspects of issues every couple faces. Partners might agree on religion, but will often disagree on other crucial topics like finances or politics.

Ultimately, what makes or breaks a marriage is the ability of the adults involved to overcome their differences, treat each other with respect, and act maturely. These days, such well-rationed, level-headed couples seem rare. There's a good body of research showing that people who don't have children before marriage, have stable jobs, and are well-educated tend to do better than those who marry for the sake of a child or just after high school.

It really upsets me when I see members of religious groups attempting to pressure people into marrying only members of their own faith. Some religions are worse about this than others, but the idea is fairly universal. We live in a modern world in so many other ways that it seems like it's time for even the religious to learn some respect for other people as individuals and stop judging them for the religious beliefs of their spouses.

And yes, interfaith marriage is good for America. The more people mingle, the more they realize we're all human beings who want mostly the same things. There are good people in all religions, and without religions, and its a shame to limit your dating pool to just those who follow some creed that you inherited from your parents.

I think if most people went to a different church, they would never notice the minor religious differences between the protestant denominations. I've been to several of those, as well as Catholic and Jewish services, and its mostly just people droning on about the same basic concepts of being good on penalty of eternal damnation. The quality of the minister/rabbi/priest/imam is far more important than the overall denomination. Bad ones focus on old rules and morality from the bronze age, while good ones focus on how you can join with your community to help people and make the world better.

That being said, I think it is important to realize just how seriously your partner takes their religion. Just look at Mel Gibson, who thought his wife was a good person, but none the less damned for following the beliefs of her parents, rather than his own. That is a warning sign, and I'm sure a lot of people marry assuming (incorrectly) that their spouse will convert, or the children will be their religion. These things need to be thought out just like a joint checking account or a pre-nup, and thought out smartly, so that one partner does not sign away something precious to them out of love that they will later regret.

They can if their faith in each other is stronger than in their particularized traditions.

Who shouldn't marry is losers like Bristol and Levi.