Lessons from a Buddhist/ Jewish/ Hindu/ Christian family
Chelsea Clinton, raised Methodist, and Marc Mezvinsky, Jewish, will wed this weekend.
Statistics show that 37 percent of Americans have a spouse of a different faith.
Statistics also show that couples in interfaith marriages are "three times more likely to be divorced or separated than those who were in same-religion marriages."
Is interfaith marriage good for American society? Is it good for religion? What is lost -and gained -when religious people intermarry?
An interfaith marriage will fail or succeed, it seems to me, on the same foundations that underlie the much vaunted exercises in interfaith dialogue so often held to bring together experts in various faith--usually to celebrate profound agreement. Favor religious orthodoxy and even triumphalism, and the dialogue fails; privilege pluralism or even agnosticism, and faith does not adversely impact the accord. But it is when the children come, that discord can color discussions of faith that seemed happily extraneous in the carefree bliss of courtship.
A child of Hindus, I married a Hindu and raise my children Hindu, leaving me an interloper in these negotiations of interfaith child-rearing. So I present here the reflections of Sachi Lamb, a member of the Executive Council of the Hindu American Foundation, and daughter of Prof. Ramdas Lamb, a fellow panelist here on On Faith. Her unique experience provides, I believe, insight into the dichotomies of what interfaith truly means when it involves Dharma faiths or the exclusivist interpretations of the Abrahamic traditions.
Sachi Lamb:
Statistics that show interfaith marriages are more likely to fail indicate that religion might be a more powerful source of contention in a marriage than couples initially think. While many pre-wedding couples believe that love will conquer all, they might be dismissing the most unlikely obstacle - religion. Deeper feelings may surface eventually when encountering traditional rites of passage (especially those involving children and family), but sometimes disagreement or resentment may ensue right from the start with decisions about the wedding ceremony itself. That said, inter-religious marriages are not necessarily doomed, and when successful (i.e. managed properly), it may actually have a positive effect on not only the couple, but the families and children involved.
I speak from personal experience on this matter. My mother was raised in a Buddhist family, with all the specific cultural trappings of the Japanese community in Hawaii. My father was raised in a traditional Italian Catholic family in South Central Los Angeles. However, for nearly ten years of his young adult life, he lived as a sadhu (Hindu monk), in India. I was raised in Hawaii along side the Japanese/Buddhist side of my family, but home life was primarily Hindu. Mine was a multi-faith extended family as well -- one of my mother's sisters (who started attending the Methodist church down the road from my grandparents' house at an early age) married a Christian, and her other sister married a Jew who both now live in rural Japan and maintain a Kosher home.
As a child, the differences between all of the world's religions were never spelled out for me. Rather, the similarities were highlighted -- much in line with the Hindu philosophical teaching of Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadhant -- that the Truth is One, the wise call It by many names. Techniques to navigate right and wrong - be it in thought, action or speech - were taught to me, and fingers were never pointed towards any particular group of people in commendation or condemnation. This has had a profound effect on me and has continued to help shape my worldview. I find myself open and respectful to the ideas and beliefs of others, and eager to dialogue with those who have a different background than I in hopes of finding our common ground.
I also believe that members of my extended family have benefited tremendously from the diversity of religious beliefs among us. It would not be surprising to find my family - including Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and Christians (Catholic and Protestant of many denominations) - gathering over Christmas dinner or a Buddhist funeral service. We have all found a way to love and accept each other for the individuals that we are.
Granted, my experience might fall out of the statistics, and I recognize that it is sometimes difficult for people to feel comfortable with cultures and traditions they were not raised with. In general, individuals who are members of religions that hold their way as an exclusive path to God (i.e. many Abrahamic religions) will likely have a harder time accepting a lifelong relationship with those who of more pluralistic faiths which teach the existence of multiple paths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shinto, etc. However, the degree to which each individual adheres to the various practices and teachings of each religion makes all the difference. An orthodox follower of almost any religion will struggle to reconcile a marriage with someone of another faith, while two liberal followers of differing religions will more easily overlook any religious disparity.
If a couple with differing religious backgrounds comes to a mutual agreement that, despite their differences, the underlying truths of what they both believe are the same, and that neither party has a fundamental objection to the traditions and values of the other, then a successful long-term relationship is possible. This, however, will take sincere dedication from both sides to learn about, understand, and accept the other. It also takes complete honesty about one's feelings and comfort level with the issues at hand, which is difficult for many people to express.
A common problem for many marriages that fail is a lack of open, honest communication - both during the marriage and before. Religion and faith are, sometimes subconsciously, important to a lot of people, and too many do not take the time to discuss how they feel about specific lifestyle ideals before they get married. Unfortunately, however, many people get married before they decide how important their religious traditions - or other aspects of life - really are to them, so openness becomes difficult. Situations that arise after marriage - children, financial obligations, career changes, living locations, etc... - have the potential to uncover hidden feelings which, when they conflict, can be detrimental to the future of the relationship. Should the child be baptized? If a boy, will he get circumcised? Will we give up a promotion opportunity to stay near family and friends who can guide the children's religious upbringing? Furthermore, how will we encourage the child(ren) to maintain a connection with their spirituality while explaining our differing traditions?
Creating the space for open minded thought and tolerance is of utmost importance. Fortunately for me, my parents were able to do so. Through direct experience I have been able to see and understand many different religious traditions. With the careful guidance of my parents and extended family members, I have learned to see positive elements of faith as well as the negative effects of exclusion and prejudice. Being brought up in a multi-faith family has been a blessing for me. I can see the potential for confusion, frustration and resentment in a inter-religious marriage, but I can also attest to the benefits.
By
Aseem Shukla
|
July 28, 2010; 2:02 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The logic of Christian marriage |
Next: Interfaith marriage statistics are funny things
Posted by: AnAmigo | August 6, 2010 6:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If one is a Believer in Jesus the Christ, one should not marry anyone who is not also one.
Posted by: joe_allen_doty
------------------------------------
Not even if it were an opportunity to covert your partner to HIS exclusive club? Would you prefer HE fry them in hell for eternity?
Posted by: areyousaying | August 1, 2010 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry for this misappropriate response, but Aseem Shukla didn't have the balls to take any criticisms of his odious anti-pakistani post and closed the comments section after all his hindu/indian posters had posted their anti-pakistan blather. So here's my response to the following post by Shukla;
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/07/a_wikileak_earlier_this_week.html
Why is this upper cast Hindu Bigot, who supports the "Butcher of Gujrat", Narendar Modi allowed to spew baseless hatred against Pakistan time and again? Is a Pakistani origin author allowed to shred to pieces "The Shining India" farce of 1 billion hungry naked Indians? Why do the small minded Hindus of this blog have this obsession with Pakistan?
Oh and the Shameless liar also says that the expulsion of Hindus and death of 100,000 innocent Kashmiris is entirely to be blamed on Pakistan! Kashmir has the most number of soldiers per sq. feet than anywhere else in the world. 600,000 soldiers and para military in just one state! They rape Kashmiri women, kill their youths, torcher their men and when they protest they open indiscriminate fire on the protestors. If Pakistan is responsible for all the trouble in Kashmir why do the Kashmiris chant Pakistan Zindabad (long live Pakistan) in all their protests? Why did India renege from its promise of holding plebicite in Kashmir? Ofcourse Indians know which side the Kashmiris would want to go in the case of a free referendum so they sent half a million soldiers to the state to suppress a popular uprising.
Cameron is a bumbling new comer who has even embarrassed his own foreign office. The chest thumping of Indians after the amateurish comments of Cameron was expected, but it counts for nothing. Cameron's style of diplomacy is playing to the gallery. He will say pleasing things to the Turks when he visits Turkey, does the same in US and now in India. He'll probably bend over backwards when Zardari visits London soon. As such he has rendered himself irrelevant.
I dont wanna argue on the role of ISI with the hate Pakistan crowd of Hindus who has gathered on this blog. No point reasoning with you guys. You make your stories any way you want. We know your creed like the back of our hands.
"Money can't buy love, certainly, but it surely can feed and arm those who hate."
Who knew? A bigot trying to be sophisticated! Would the author shed some light on cooperation of his Hindu America Foundation and the mass murderer Narendar Modi? Has HAF been funneling funds to Gujrat buying Modi's love and feeding hatred at the same time?
Posted by: yasseryousufi | August 1, 2010 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
joe_allen_doty,
So, you're the one in charge of all of this?
Who knew.
Posted by: PSolus | July 31, 2010 2:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Again, I think the (non)term "Abrahamic religions" is meaningless.
As for Judaism, it is not "exclusivist." It holds that Hashem has a covenant with ALL peoples, and that it is not for Jews to question it.
Really, Aseem, it is a good idea to know something about that of which you write.
That said, I think the Dalit, of whom you wrote previously, merit more attention from you, no?
Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | July 31, 2010 6:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If one is a Believer in Jesus the Christ, one should not marry anyone who is not also one.
It is written in the Bible that one is not supposed to be unequally yoked with unbelievers.
Chelsea Clinton being "raised Methodist" means absolutely nothing if she didn't make a personal decision to accept Jesus' free gift of salvation.
Lots of people claim that they were "raised Catholic" and yet they are still unsaved sinners.
I have Jewish ancestors; but, I was raised to be myself by parents who believed in Jesus. I wasn't raised to be a member of a church denomination. I was raised and told to make my own choices.
Their belief in Jesus didn't make me a "Christian."
Posted by: joe_allen_doty | July 29, 2010 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter










yasseryousufi, your highly inappropriate post is packed with so many mischaracterizations, false claims and lies that it will take several comments to expose them.
1. 'If Pakistan is responsible for all the trouble in Kashmir why do the Kashmiris chant Pakistan Zindabad (long live Pakistan) in all their protests?'
In a recent (May 2010) poll by an American research team, only 2% (that's TWO %) of the people in India's Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) state said that they would vote to join Pakistan. Therefore, whatever "Pakistan Zindabad" chants you talk about are staged nonsense. JKers do not want to become part of the military and elitist junta-run failed/failing state of Pakistan.
2. 'Why did India renege from its promise of holding plebicite in Kashmir?'
Conditions for a plebiscite no longer exist for three reasons: a) Pakistan did not vacate the Kashmiri land it is illegally holding (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) = "Azad" Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan), as the UN resolutions in question (from the late 40s and early 50s) required Pakistan to do immediately, as a first step. b) Pakistan packed PoK with migrant Punjabi Pakistanis, making a vote in that part no longer meaningful c) The 20,000 Islamic militants that Pakistan injected into J&K since 1988 ethnic/religious-cleansed 400,000 (nearly all of) the Kashmiri Hindu Pandits from their 5000+ year homeland of the Kashmir valley, making a vote in J&K meaningless as well.