Me, too. Sorta. Raised hard-shell Calvinist, but I couldn’t tell you today a single thing I learned in Sunday School, other than Anita Wilson wore a blue lace bra that you could see through the arm hole of her dress now and then. Left at 13 and never looked back.
As for the adults converts…well, I know people who vote Republican, too. Crazy isn’t a respector of age, it seems. 
I dont see anything in the story about her being forced to make that promise under duress, it reads as her making the promise of her own volition, as much as any promise to parents can entirely be viewed as such.
I have no problem with her not keeping it simply because the promise is founded on changed beliefs from my perspective. If one decides its no longer a sin, the promise really has no foundation any more, other than not hurting her parents which again is no longer an issue. Even if they were alive, I wouldnt see this as something one should keep. It can hardly be said she rushed into it after all.
I voted options 3 and 4, and I do think this is different than the ashes question. Why? Because the promise to cremate the man and dispose of his ashes as he wishes was his wish, and his wife was honor-bound to go along with it because it affected what happened to him (even after death).
Whether Sandra pursues a relationship with Cordelia does not affect her dead parents in any way, save one–and that’s assuming that their religion is correct and they are in Heaven: it means that Sandra will not be with them in Heaven when she dies. But asking her to promise to give up her own happiness to ensure her parents’ happiness (and when you get right down to it, that’s what this is) is just plain wrong, selfish (on her parents’ part) and unenforceable. If Sandra decides for herself that she’s willing to risk Hell for happiness (or if she decides that her religion is wrong, there is no Hell, and she might as well be happy now) then that affects only herself and Cordelia.
I voted for the third and fourth options. The reason I voted differently to your previous hypothetical is because it’s none of their goddamn business, and because there’s an uneven balance of power between a young adult and their parents, especially when the parents have warped the child’s worldview with false claims.
Most of it, yes. Because as others have said, a lot of religious teaching is false claims made when the person is too young to know the difference, and because the nature of the claims mean that they are unlikely to stick unless you’re exploiting some weakness.
Its interesting to see how much emotional duress is a factor in peoples decisions. I would see a persons dying wishes as pretty heavy emotional duress as well - it can be hard to say ‘I cant promise Ill be able to do that’ to someone in that situation.
Otara
My option wasn’t presented in the poll.
Rebuff Cordelia because she’s a bit of a flake. She had no business hooking up with a guy and initiating a sham marriage.
Promises should be kept . . . but sometimes circumstances can change.
The promise was made to, and by, well meaning people who believed homosexuality was both inherently wrong and had horrific future consequences for her. If Sandra no longer believes that is so, then the circumstances have genuinely changed, and she’s ethically free to break it. (I believe the tradition is to say something like “I’m sorry, Mom. I tried . . .” in some setting where there’s a pleasant vista for the camera to politely cut to once the kissing starts)
After sufficient self-searching to insure she’s not just trying to weasel out of it because she feels like it, of course. Intellectual honesty is a harsh mistress. It helps that there are no other obligations involved.
If she does still believe that it’s inherently wrong and has horrific future consequences, then she shouldn’t pursue it. Aside from the practical reasons, and not to be pedantic, but people shouldn’t do things they think are wrong without a good reason. Even if they feel as good as sliding your cheek against the soft skin of a woman’s stomach assuredly does. And even if I don’t personally see what the problem is.
In the abstract, anyway. Well-reasoned out ideals tend to fare poorly in the face of Starbucks-flavored open mouth kissing. And she’d be hardly the first person to change their mind as to what was and wasn’t acceptable behavior after actually experiencing some of it.
A promise is a promise . . . but promises aren’t all there are. Sometimes, the other things are more important. Some promises can’t be kept.
–
“Some promises can’t be kept . . .” would be a totally badass think to say before engaging in a John Woo-esque final battle of blood and revenge. Just for the record.
Before Sandra does anything with Cordelia or anyone else, she needs to get her own head on straight about who she is.
Therapy.
If Cordelia’s willing to wait, great. If not, there will be other women. Or not, if it’s not something she can put her head around.
I agree with this. There’s no sense in her starting the relationship now, while she loathes herself.
A person has the right to decide what happens to their remains, but not the right to control someone else’s life. It was unreasonable for Sandra’s parents to ask that of her in the first place, so she shouldn’t stress out over not keeping the promise.
I can agree with this. Your safe, sane and consensual sex life isn’t the business of anyone but those you’re involved with.
Her parents lied to her and brainwashed her, she has no reason to keep a promise to them. Hopefully this will break the hold the church has over her, and allow her to be herself.
Oh, to answer a question asked earlier, yes, all religious teaching is by definition brainwashing. It’s training people to believe in lies.
These are getting easier. I think, if this promise was sincerely made, there’s no way for it to EVER be binding, parents dead or not. The promise is implicitly contingent on thinking being gay is WRONG. But that’s up to HER religious beliefs, not her parents. Unless she specifically said “I think being gay is ok, but I’m going to give up any hope of love, marriage, or self-respect for the rest of my life because YOU want me to”, which would be a whole different kettle of worms, she can, and should, change her mind if she wants to.
The difference with the burial case is that people generally have some right to decide how they should be buried, and the question is “should she keep the promise at all”. But people don’t have any right to decide who their adult children should sleep with. So the promise shouldn’t be to the parents in the first place. If she makes the promise on the assumption that gay sex is evil and will send her to hell, and then decides it won’t, then the promise is clearly changed.
(A relationship may or may not be a good idea, but I don’t think the promise should prevent it.)
Such a promise should never be exacted, and therefore it is not morally wrong not to keep such a promise.
Not really, no.
Right: hence the “ignorant” part. Also, it’s possible to be well-meaning and a bigot.
It is also entirely possible to be both homosexual and homophobic.
Getting back to the OP - the oath to the parents is meaningless. No oath to harm oneself, or others, is ever binding. As to whether Sandra should hook up with Cordelia, I’m going to go against the grain here and say that she should, but with a few caveats. She needs to be upfront with Cordelia about her conflicts over her own sexuality. It sounds as if Cordelia has recently worked through similar issues, and may be able to help Sandra learn to accept herself. But Cordelia needs to know about that before they enter a relationship, so that she can decide if being with Sandra is worth dealing with Sandra’s baggage. If Cordelia’s willing to take that risk, then the relationship could potentially be very healing for Sandra, although as others have suggested, therapy is a must. Finding a gay-friendly church and talking with the pastor there about her problems would also be a very good idea.
Bullshit. A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Teaching something you honestly believe to be true is not lying.
In the first place that isn’t true. A soldier’s army to fight in the wars of his country is implicitly an oath to be willing to do harm, and is binding, no?
In the second place, I’m not convinced that remaining forever celibate is harm.
A soldier’s oath is to defend his country, not to harm others, which I feel is a significant difference. His oath could be (and, ideally, would be) fulfilled without ever hurting another person.
Not everyone is emotionally equipped for celibacy. For most individuals, it would absolutely be harmful. Sandra may be an exception to the rule, but the distress generated by the conflict between her promise to her parents and her natural desires indicates otherwise.
I chose the “dead parents’ wishes matter less than her happiness” option. Though, as others have said, Sandra probably isn’t ready to date yet.
It’s completely different than the Jack/Hannah hypothetical. It’s not about moral absolutism, the mitigating circumstances of the J/H weren’t sufficiently compelling to break a promise.
Sandra needs to do some soul-searching. She’s devout and she made a promise to her folks, it could very well be that Sandra will always feel too guilty to engage in a healthy relationship with a woman. Hopefully Sandra can figure out what will make her happy without hurting Cordelia but that’s probably aiming high.
The most insidious lies are the ones perpetuated by authority. Most religions and many totalitarian regimes work this way. Once you locate and train a group of zealots they then become a self sustaining force. The original group trains the populace, the most zealous of whom become their replacements. After a few iterations lies become tradition and it’s almost impossible to break the chain lacking outside intervention. You are left with the truth being heretical.
Teaching what you honestly believe to be true can indeed be lying.
I’m sorry, but the bolded sentence is incredibly stupid. It removes all meaning from the word lie. If that word is to mean anything, it has to be “to deliberately attempt to deceive another by uttering a false statement.”
If I honestly believe that all dogs go to heaven and all gays go to hell, then it is not lying to say that. It is lying to say otherwise.
I don’t think there is anything immoral or unsavory about homosexuality, but I can’t say that a person who believes otherwise is lying, because both my statement and his are value judgments.
You are attempting to privilege your view of the world over all others when there is no why to verify or disprove your position. Which, I might point out, is exactly what the religious do.