Your view of religion is simplistic and utilitarian. Some people see decision of religion not as a search for what feels best, but for what reflects universal truth. And amongst those people, the religion that they come to regard as the best reflection of those truths may not see “life here on this Earth” as the be-all and end-all of life in general. In fact, almost every (if not every) well-known religion does not.
RexDart:
Well, perhaps you see marriage as that sort of thing - two separate lives connected by a mutual-benefits arrangement in limited ways. That’s not how I see it. I see it as a partnership of two people working together toward the same goal in the same life endeavor. And, let me remind you, that’s what the original post asked - whether those of us who believe in a specific religion would marry someone who was apparently of similar mind in all matters other than religious.
Is anybody so desperate for someone else’s company that for fear of losing it they’d withhold information that they believe to be beneficial…and consider that an act of love?
Of course the whole issue disappears when the idea of “what’s best for you” is shared in a marriage to begin with.
EchoKitty again:
If it’s truly a solid belief, it’s not an “arrogant assumption.” To the believer, it’s a FACT.
I never said it wasn’t possible. As I pointed out to RexDart, your original post asked if any of us would do it. I wouldn’t, because doing so would deprive me of a partner in achieving the goals that I, as a religious person, believe to be the purpose of my life.
Once again, you are limiting religion to only prayer (it’s not), and making a statement about ultimate judgment that is doubtful at best. The results of a shared effort could very well end up being greater than the sum of the results of two individual efforts. Even if judged on one’s own, leading to that person only receiving “credit” for half the shared effort, he/she still ends up with a more favorable judgment.
Neither are my wife and I carbon copies of one another, even though we’re from the same metaphorical “branch.” But when you say that you “grow together” do you mean that you both happen to be growing…or that the growth you’re doing is growth in the same direction? Perhaps for you, the former is what you are loking for in a marriage. Not me.
I’m in a mixed-religion marriage. Airman is Roman Catholic, and I’m Jewish. Religion isn’t something we agree on, nor do we argue about it. For both of us, it’s what we put down on the form.
That said, our respective religions have formed our worldviews. I believe certain things because they’re part of Judaism, and he believes certain things because they’re part of Catholicism. They make for good dinner-table discussion, but we don’t really make a big deal about it.
Of course, we do have a child now. Aaron had a bris (which some of you may remember). Airman wasn’t terribly comfortable with the idea, and I would have been perfectly happy having Aaron circumcised in the hospital, but my parents pushed for it. At the bris, my various family members mentioned what a “nice Jewish baby” Aaron was, and that they expected to be invited to his bar mitzvah. Quite honestly, if a decision had to be made now, I’d say that he will not have one. For the moment, we plan to celebrate all holidays, but postpone any religious education. Mainly, we want to emphasize that he comes from two distinct cultures, and that it’s not an either/or thing.
I think what it comes down to is respect for each other. I’m never going to convert to Catholicism, and I doubt he’d convert to Judaism. Nor would we expect that. His family is okay with my being Jewish (his Aunt Peg asked if I wanted turkey instead of ham at Christmas), and my family is okay with his being Catholic.
Of course, we’ve been married less than five months, so what do I know?
CMKeller said, “But when you say that you “grow together” do you mean that you both happen to be growing…or that the growth you’re doing is growth in the same direction?”
It’s both. We grow together and individually. He has interests that I have no interest in, and vice versa. But we share in many other things.
Then he said, “Once again, you are limiting religion to only prayer (it’s not), and making a statement about ultimate judgment that is doubtful at best.”
Maybe I should have said “worship” instead of “pray”. I suppose I should have chosen a different word to encompass the “religious experience.” I fully realize that your religion involves more than prayer. As far as ultimate judgment goes, are you saying that your religion believes that god judges groups rather than individuals?
Your intolerance of others feelings toward their prospective mates is boorish and asenine. Everyone you attacked as being bigotted or small-minded were talking about who they feel would be best for their own mates. Not yours or anyone elses. And you are right, religion is personal. If you do not think marriage is personal, then I don’t think you have a clue where they are coming from in their assertions about how they feel. And your soliloquized rant makes me wonder if the Op and other posts struck a personal chord.
To the OP
Yes it is possible.
But it is hard (or challenging, however you want to put it). I am pretty much convinced that the more indocterined they are in their relgions, the harder it is. Particularly, to state the obvious, those religions with tenets that go against such a union. I do agree with what most of the posters said on both sides. The plus is that you get “challenged” in the sense that you have the opportunities to reafirm your faith, or not, on a more personal level with soemeone who beleives different than you, yet closer than pretty much anyone else. You also get the opportunity to have a closer look at another belief on a more personal level and can learn alot. The negative is that there is something missing. And though some may claim it as bigotted or close minded, if your faith is important to you and you cannot lean on someone with an understanding of your faith, assuming your SO is the one you tend to lean on, then you may feel a little remorse, ifnot regret.
My wife is from Thailand, and a Muslim. I am from the south and was raised Pentecostal. Obviously I have had issues with that denomination, but I am a reaffirmed Christian. I would state myself a non-denominational Christian in a difinative sense when asked. She would state herself as a Muslim when asked. And although neither of us are strictly devout in our rituals when it concerns religion (to me is the only thing allowing our union), we still practice them and respect each others faiths. She will fast during Ramadan, I will not bring pork into the house, and we both celebrate Christmas, one as a seasonal celebration and the other as a religious. Just to give you and idea.
We have been married for three years. The past year has had some ups and down more that the other two for obvious reasons, but just like any personal issues it can hurt and help our relationship.
I do not know if I would have done it defferently if I had know then what i know now. But I do not regret marrying her. And I still plan on living the rest of my life with her because I love her more than anyone or anything. I can understand why someone would chose not to do what we did, but I would not trade her for anyone else either.
Thanks for the asinine vent. I have no actual intolerance for the people whose approaches to marriage I attacked, so put your spleen back where it belongs before you spew all over yourself. I’m not the one who will enter into a long-term partnership with the prime condition being the person’s religion. That is lack of tolerance (and, frankly, an excess of arrogance), not my pointing out these things and commenting on them.
Whether you happen to think its denouncement is insensitive, what we are talking about here is, very simply, judgment and selection on the basis of religion.
You probably misunderstood my comment that religion is personal. In spite of the communal approach to religion, it remains a set of undemonstrated beliefs and claims that exist solely in persons’ minds and in their writings. Codified appropriately for mass use, but an inherently personal phenomenon, with each person coming to the faith in his or her own manner and submitting his or her own interpretation, as we have seen.
If Bob’s interpretation is that it is only possible for Bob to be with a person of the same faith, that seems a manifestation of intolerance towards other systems of beliefs (something that, by the way, is built into practically every religion, there is always the stuff about the chosen people, their moral superiority, etc.). Dress it up or justify it as much as you want, but it’s still pseudo-tribal intolerance towards groups that Bob feels have qualities of “otherness” (which in turn are threatening). So it’s really quite worrying that something as ephemeral and personal (private) as one’s faith ought to impose (through codex or interpretation or whatnot) on the real, macro world sets of restrictions that are detrimental (schismatic, particularly) to the larger human society. For example, mixed marriage ideally both exposes and educates the parties involved (and hopefully their immediate community) on the real values of diversity and on the myth of goodness through religious homology.
What about some religions that specifically claim adherents must marry within the faith? Well, I submit that in many cases the church or authority involved (at any point in time) cares more about boosting the numbers of their faithful and preserving itself or its tribe than about any serious (real) issue with differences in religion or ideology. Many religions preach tolerance and understanding of all others, but some of these religions also stop abruptly and reverse course: they actively discourage or even try to prohibit partnerships with different faiths, partnerships that can result in tolerance and understanding more practical and effective than pronouncements to the effect that all are created equal and all are worthy yet you can only marry so and so.
Sheesh, you’re one to talk. But yes, I do find bigotry highly unnecessary.
That’s the problem, isn’t it? Even if the believer thinks it’s fact, it’s still opinion and always will be, at least until some real facts emerge. It is indeed arrogant to hold that a theistic opinion (even if it masquerades as fact) should be any better than another theistic opinion when there isn’t any frame of reference to make a value judgment. If Bob is convinced beyond doubt (as too many are) that his way is the best way, he certainly is lacking in humility. I mean, look at just one of many examples in this thread:
The word “truth” is bandied around so frequently in this kind of debate it has lost all meaning, case in point made by the above poster going on about the truth and how he will bring people to it, give it to them, etc… The term you’re looking for here is opinion of the truth, since this Truth that is mentioned so frequently thus far resides solely in the opinions of believers. Hoisting themselves by their bootstraps, as it were.
A tired, beaten-down response. I’m surprised people still think it constitutes a valid answer. Anyway, regardless of the above point, you pretty much said that your choice in this matter does depend on bigotry, which is the original point I was making. How you rationalize your beliefs, bigoted and non, is your business.
Clairobscur brings up an interesting, if in my opinion misleading, point. One has to be compatible with a partner, and it would be difficult for, say, an ultra-leftist and a radical right-winger to co-exist in harmony. I agree completely, but I don’t see this as illustrative in the religious debate. Political ideology has a strong effect on our lives, which are dictated to a large degree by politics in the first place. It’s only natural to take an interest in this, and the applications and results of such activity are usually observable. I don’t think the same can be said of religion, which is a personal matter. Policies have a direct impact on our lives and society, and only an uncaring fool would be completely without input or position on this topic.
Conversely, personal religion has a more indirect impact because it arises from personal opinion rather than concrete issues. Since not much of religion is verifiable or has any demonstrable (non-artistic) value beyond the philosophical, and since it has no practical application beyond the religious itself, it seems wise to keep such a thing a personal choice and not lend it the bellicose capacity of matters that determine things such as health care, gun availability, carbon emissions, and so forth (to use the political example).
We tend to do the exact opposite, and assign to religion values as great or even greater than matters of the here and now. Religion is just one of many interests a person may have, along with literature, history, meditation techniques, self-motivational tapes, etc. Selecting for or against a person on the basis of religion does not do justice to the person, it reduces him to his system of religious belief and nothing more, when there is in fact a wealth of other facets to any (or almost any) person. The reason Clairobscur would never marry a right-winger is that a right-winger’s sum position (including, possibly, religion) is diametrically opposed to Clairobscur’s. Is a difference of just one of the issues in the sum position cause to select for or against? I don’t think so, and I’m pretty sure you would marry someone even if they had political beliefs that differred from yours but that are (in broad terms) very similar. Most religions share more similarities (particularly in the organization of social structure) than differences.
It’s possible that two people from very different cultures would have so little in common that a long term relationship might be very difficult without a sufficient understanding. We’re not talking about culture though, but religion. Someone of your same community, perhaps, a product of the same culture, speaking the same language and maybe even brought up in the same neighbourhood, but who happens to be of a different religion (is “how different” an issue?) the same way you happen to play the piano or like cats or have faith that one day you will win the lottery. If anything, religion is more personal than any of these, stimulating strong and private responses, yet there is the possibility that it is less relevant in all manners except as a human construct.
(Abe)
The point comes so close to you, yet seems to stride right by unnoticed. The crux of your argument is this:
And there is, of course, the possibility that it’s the only important thing you actually do with your time on Earth. (Not that I believe that myself, but some people do.)
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but most of us here are humans. Human constructs are important to us. Likewise, religion may indeed be a very personal thing, but that’s the idea of marriage. Marriage is a very personal choice based on each individual’s beliefs, opinions, preferences, etc. If there is ever a place to play according to your own personal prejudices and deeply-held beliefs, it is in marriage.
Allow me to be Captain Obvious for a moment: To some people, religion is more important than it is to you. Not everyone sees it the same way you do. Not everyone thinks it doesn’t have much of a demonstrable value beyond the philosophical. Not everyone sees it as merely an opinion or an interest. Not everyone thinks that it’s arrogance to believe strongly in a certain way of thinking. Not everyone agrees with you that the evidence is not there to support their position. Not everyone agrees with you that “tolerance” is the correct choice for them to make in their personal relationships. Your stating empirically that belief is only an opinion and that the real truth is elusive does not make it so. Even if you are correct in that sense, it doesn’t mean that everyone is on the same page you are.
Simply put, people are different, with different opinions and different priorities and different ways of thinking. It doesn’t make your position any wiser as applied to their marriages. They are not you and your positions on the matter do not necessarily apply to them.
Maybe you will be (or have been) great at choosing a mate for yourself. I don’t advise you to play matchmaker, however. You appear to be quite insensitive to what others need in a mate. I doubt I’d marry a girl who wore ascots, who has ever waved her hands in the air like she just didn’t care, or preferred Summer to Winter. My choices don’t have to be logical to you - they have to be logical to me. There are often reasons behind the reasons for people’s choices that may not be self-evident to outsiders. Me going by your standards would be the most unwise thing I could do, and vice versa.
I’m Catholic. My ideal husband would be, too. Why? Because I feel that not only the faith, but the actual practice of the faith is important, both to me and in a spiritual union. In fact, it would be far more inportant to me that we were bonded religiously than sexually, as an example. Although sex is important to a marriage, one can live without it. But the daily practice of my faith is something that I’d feel incomplete if it wasn’t done as a family. Perhaps in part because I look at marriage as a sacrament, sanctified by God. I remember my mother once saying that she never felt closer to my father then when they were at Mass together. Living their joint lives moving toward a goal that is more than the sum of this life.
And that’s fine…it’s true of me and my wife as well. However, I chose to make certain that the thing most important to me - my relationship to G-d - would be in the “shared” area, and would never have considered marriage any other way. Because my religion teaches that more spiritual growth can be achieved by working toward it in partnership between a married couple, I would not have wished to deprive myself of that opportunity by considering a non-believer/practicer as a spouse.
Abe:
But there is a frame of reference. Just because that frame of reference is not held by another party does not make all opinions equally valid.
When one believes a certain point of view, he/she feels that the reasoning and/or evidence offered to him is compelling. The fact that someone else does not find it compelling does not make it arrogant for that person to maintain his beliefs as fact.
So if I were to debate the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier, I would be arrogant to state unequivocally that the Holocaust did happen? If I were to debate the moon landing with one of those folks who believe the photos were faked, I would be arrogant to state unequivocally that the Apollo 11, 12 etc. landed on the moon?
Pardon me, but in the case of Marlae the Tygr Cub, my wife and I were present and joined in the promises to help her grow in faith.
Certainly she has every right, at any point once she reaches the age of reason, to make up her mind on matters of faith. As does anyone else. And Tygr, as her father, JKayla as her mother, her godparents, and all of us who promised to be enablers to her faith journey, are there to help her to find the right course for her – which hopefully will not be far removed from her parents or from mine. And she is free to reject this, even to the extent of refusing, once she’s 18, to have nothing to do with her parents.
I think you’re making an issue of religious freedom out of the idea that the individual person in loco parentis has the right and responsibility to bring the child to whom he bears that role up in what he considers a proper worldview. I am in no way offended by the idea that David B, as a sincere atheist, is not raising his children to believe in what he considers a superstition. And I think that Marlae should be brought up in the ELCA tradition of her parents – and then make her own free choices of what to believe and why, guided by the wisdom of her parents and others whom she respects, as she matures.
My experience is that culture and religion are closely linked. I’m Jewish. My most succesful relationships have always been with Jewish girls. I’ve dated non-Jewish girls, but the vast differences in our cultural background always made things so much more difficult. With Jewish girls there’s always a common basis of understanding. I don’t have to explain every little thing I do. I don’t have to explain every little Yiddish phrase I toss in. Most importantly, I don’t have to explain the burdens that come from being the child of Holocaust survivors.
I’m an atheist who married an atheist. I would not have married a religious person. To me, it’s not one of the differences I want in my marriage, just like I would not want to be married to someone who was obsessed with his career or who wanted to live off the grid in Montana. I can’t understand why anyone would have a problem with me making that a common opinion I share with my husband.
For those of you who don’t think a difference in religion is important (which is fine, just not my personal opinion), certainly you DID have some sort of make-it-or-break-it items on your to-marry or not-to-marry mental list. I mean, if you’re a musician who wants to pursue a serious rock career and decided that the really nice, super smart corporate lawyer may not be heading in the same life path as you, would that make you a bigot? Or is that an important thing to base a marriage on and religious beliefs are not? Or, do you think the romance should be the guiding rule in the manner of love conquers all?
Maybe I’m just too practical, but I prefer not having to struggle so much with huge ideological differences. It’s one thing to have friends with a wide array of differences…you don’t have to buy houses, raise children, or plan traditions and rituals with them. You can be enriched by their opinions and experiences without having to compromise about things that are extremely important to you. I personally prefer to have the differences in my husband and I confined to the details and not the basics. YMMV, of course.
Let me clarify that…it didn’t come out the way I wanted it to. Not that a really nice, super smart person wouldn’t be someone a musician would want to be with, but that someone who in all other ways was desirable but who didn’t have the same major goals in life as you may not be desirable.
(Okay, I’m still new enough that I’m fuzzy on some of the posting effects here; I hope this doesn’t double-post like some of my more recent things have done. If it does, I’m sorry for the nuisance-value, but the blinkin’ thing won’t let me edit them to delete the extra.)
My faith carries within it the presumption that all people perceive the divine in their own way, and that therefore it is entirely possible for different people to interact with the same divine presence in different ways, and still have those separate practices and rituals recognized as valuable and legitimate means of worship.
The only person with whom I have been involved in the past where religious differences were significant was the person who had uttermost contempt for religion and spirituality in their entirety. Which I think is an example of “both parties respect the other”.
(As a note for context, I was raised by parents of different faith-paths, who came to the conclusion that they could not ethically initiate me into either as an infant – they believed that my religious course, my conceptualisation of the divine, was something that could only be legitimately be chosen as an adult. When I reached adulthood, I took a path that matched neither of theirs. My current family includes Christianity, paganism, and agnosticism, without problem; in fact, my closest religious similarities are with the person whose label does not match mine at all – it’s clear to both of us that the “differences in our beliefs” are more accurately described as differences in the phrasings we use to present identical ideas.)
I think you can have respect for the person without necessarily respecting his or her religion. I think the hypothetical question is what the “same religion” camp is tripping over. If you already loved someone, it would be much easier to accept them as having a different faith. Just as it would be very difficult to divorce someone you love if their faith changed.
very little time and a lot to cover, so I apologize in advance for typos and the like.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sacrilegium *
The point comes so close to you, yet seems to stride right by unnoticed. The crux of your argument is this:
Very amusing, Sacrilegium, but explain how I have in any way missed the point, when in fact it seems clear to me that you’re guilty of that oversight. Observe:
This kind of belief, as pointed out earlier, is opinion, i.e., not fact. I believe I’ve covered this and its ramifications already. Regardless, thank you for the observation, it does highlight that people do have wide spectra of beliefs. It still doesn’t make a difference as far as what we know is concerned (i.e. fact versus opinion). Whether one person or one billion persons believe in something that is thus far undemonstrable makes little difference to that something’s veracity.
This is true to an extent, but you will notice it’s not an argument that invalidates my objections to judgment and selection on the basis of religion, you are merely explaining why people DO marry in their faith. Religion isn’t even a construct in the same way that, for example, “justice” is, because justice is (generally) rooted in the real world, and religion is rooted in myth. You’re essentially saying that religion is important to many people, and that somehow justifies these people using religion in judgment and selection. It does not justify the excessive importance assigned to religion in this matter, which is my point.
Pointless objection: until something is actually demonstrated, such claims remain unsupported opinion whether or not the people who hold the unsupported opinion would like to accept so.
Yes, same thing for astrology, and that argument doesn’t stick there either. It’s not about what people think–people think all sorts of stuff–it’s about what things are (or are not) to the best of our knowledge (not opinion). Religion is, objectively speaking, purely an opinion. It HAS to be–that’s what faith is. Belief, without evidence. I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, but if someone is convinced otherwise, they’ll need arguments and evidence, not their opinion, to defend such a position.
Nor do I, although this may need to be clarified. There is a degree of arrogance (egocentrism?) in being convinced, as I mentioned in my previous post, that one’s religious opinion is more correct/appropriate/just/holy/whatever than another one when there is no evidence to suggest either is intrinsically better than the other. It’s a tricky game: in this discussion, we are using facts and arguments directly related to the world to make a point. In religions, faith, there are no facts (a belief is not a fact) and few arguments. There’s a difference between reason from free inquiry and reason from doctrine (most painfully obvious in the Evolution-Creation debate). The crucial difference is that religion constitutes an opinion that, even when codified, remains personal. When I say that religions are thus far unsupported and undemonstrated claims, I am confident that I am correct based on the available evidence and knowledge–not based on opinion, mysterious absolutes, feelings, urges, etc. You could bitch at me for imposing my opinion on everyone else, but you would be in error, because I am simply reporting the status quo, not enforcing an opinion.
This is the height of irrelevance. I’ll repeat: it doesn’t matter who thinks what on this matter if they can’t support their claims. They think evidence is there? Let’s see it. Let’s examine it. How does it fit into the bigger picture, and was it interpreted correctly? Until then, this line of argument in this particular debate is completely superfluous because we are talking about non-existent evidence.
Of course not. I am, however, free to object to certain positions and statements and explain the objections in a valid frame of reference.
Need or want? There is no “need” among humans to marry in the same faith. A need is considered food, shelter, reproduction, etc. Wants are more arbitrary than needs, and arise from psychological variables, NOT from any actual requirements. What I have done is attempt to highlight why it may be considered detrimental to insist on marrying within the same faith.
Absolutely, but my argument here is that religion is NOT a standard, or ought not to be considered one. At the risk of repeating myself, the inherently private nature of religion, the fact that it remains an unsupported belief, etc., etc., these are the reasons why it may be unwise to select for or against someone on the basis of religion. On top of that, there is also the argument that juxtaposition of two different systems of belief can result in greater understanding of both, rather than a spiritual handicap as some posters here claimed. I don’t have to list the advantages of that, do I?
[quote]
The frame of reference I think you are suggesting, cmkeller, is an arbitrary one not grounded in reality. It’s simply another opinion, and thus may vary as much as opinion itself varies.
The first half of the statement is true. But, regardless of whether the belief one has been compelled to accept is religious or not, it is arrogant to assume one is beyond error, which is what happens in all walks of life, not just systems of belief. The same arrogance is to be found in a physicist who scoffs at a new theory without examining the evidence for it, or in the medical doctor who dismisses reference to a treatment’s benefits simply because the reference is a Bombay hospital on-line newsletter (this happened to me just yesterday).
To illustrate this simple point, I said: “If Bob is convinced beyond doubt (as too many are) that his way is the best way, he certainly is lacking in humility.” Your reply was surprising, to say the least:
I sincerely hope this is some sort of distraction technique, because if you are being serious you have no argument. To begin I submit that the definition of arrogance is “excessive/aggressive/overbearing assertiveness or presumption”. There are three main points I want to make.
Primus, if you and a Holocaust denier argue whether the Holocaust happened, you would be just as dumb as the denier if your response were unequivocally that “it did happen, so there”. This is epistemological rubbish. The correct way to argue the point, as you no doubt know, is to weigh the evidence for and against the Holocaust, and reach a conclusion based on the facts–no matter how dumb the process may seem. If you succumb to the temptation of saying something like “everybody knows the Holocaust did happen” you would be offering no valid reason or argument, and you would be uttering a falsehood. Ergo, you would be exhibiting arrogance to at least some degree (it’s an excessive assertion, and it’s overbearing). If you were to say, “the evidence in support of the Holocaust is so pervasive, thorough, and abundant, that it is almost impossible to imagine it not having happened”, well, then you would be on a good track and would probably demolish the denier (who am I kidding–these people, like creationists, usually don’t operate according to evidence, but instead let their opinions decide which “facts” are suitable for their argument).
Secundus, I wasn’t talking about just any belief, but (as I repeated a number of times) about overwhelming belief, without real evidence, that one system is better than another, and that such a belief ought to be the decisive factor in the selection of a partner. This regardless of whether a person is good or not, his/her intentions, etc., and I stress that saying that such a thing is arrogant does NOT imply that the people involved are themselves arrogant. There is a degree of arrogance present however. If I may hark back to the Greek myths for an allusion, remember Oedipus?
Tertius, on the subject of wide-dispersion arrogance: I submit that certitude without any evidential support fits the definition of arrogance. This would make almost all systems of belief based on faith arrogant to some degree, even the most humble ones. Of course, we (or I, at least) don’t think all practitioners are arrogant or that religions are arrogant in general, but it’s worth thinking about on this topic. (I don’t intend to defend this point, I provide it merely for perspective in the argument).
Polycarp: valid points, but most people do not depart from the faith they were indoctrinated in, so it is quite unfair to raise children in the parents’ religion and then offer them a choice once they are mature enough. Almost always (in my experience) the people involved choose to remain of the same religion. I suggest that there is no best approach to the issue of faith and children, because for many people it is very difficult to break away from indoctrination or cultural upbringing received in their youth. The only solution to me seems agnosticism, because that leaves open in an intellectual manner the possibility of any or all religions being real (theistic approach), and at the same time that these religions are all made of air (atheistic approach) with the final decision made to the best analysis of the data available to the person and of course the person’s own feelings on the subject.
This is a perfect example of how to confuse religion and culture. In your case this is especially easy, since “Jew” can mean “a person of Jewish faith” or “a person of Jewish ethnicity”. The two are not the same, although in the particular case of Judaism the difference has been blurred. You mention as an example needing to explain Yiddish words that you throw in there, and yet Yiddish is not a religious language–it’s a vernacular used by Jews of Eastern and central European descent. It’s a cultural phenomenon, in a similar manner to Arabic being a cultural expression of people from the Arabian peninsula (but, as I said, the line between Jewish religion and culture is very blurred).
You seem to be engaged in a discussion of whether or not religion is “true” and whether it’s fact or opinion. It doesn’t matter in this context whether it’s true or not. This is about choosing a mate. You seem to be saying, “But religion hasn’t been proven to be true, so people shouldn’t use it as a basis for selectivity.” You just don’t get that to many people it has been proven to be truth in their minds. It doesn’t matter whether it really is true or not. It doesn’t matter that you view it as unimportant. These people have to live with their choices for the rest of their lives, and it’s up to them to decide what’s important in a mate, not you.
All of your babbling about the difference between fact and opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. FWIW, I agree with you, but it just has nothing to do with this. We’re talking about real people in the real world with real lives making real decisions that affect them in a very real way. They should decide for themselves the standards that are important to them.
It being “pointed out” does not mean everyone agrees that it is true. Can’t you see that?
FWIW, I agree with you in a sense. But here’s the kicker - it isn’t your mate we’re trying to pick here. Your view on what is opinion and what is fact doesn’t mean squat to anyone else.
I would go into the burden of proof and how different people have different standards of proof and all of that, but it has nothing to do with the topic. It should be sufficient to say that people think differently and not all of them are in line with you. Right or wrong.
I would be 100% on your side if we were talking about teaching Creationism in schools or something along those lines. This isn’t about that, though - this is about a personal choice that people make that will not affect your life one bit. They’re the ones that have to lie in their bed; they can make it however they’ll like it best, regardless of what you think the best way to do it is.
It may be to some, yes. That is the entire point. People are different, and your standards are not necessarily theirs. Don’t you think that people generally know better what would make them happy than you do? Don’t you think they generally know better what things are important to them than you do?
I just do not get how you can justify thinking you’re more equipped to judge what standards should be important in someone else’s marriage than they are.
You’re still not getting it. It may not justify it to you, but it does justify it to them. My point is that it doesn’t matter what importance you think religion should have in selection - it isn’t your call to make when it comes to someone else’s marriage.
It doesn’t matter if you think these beliefs are unsubstantiated. To some, they are.
No, that is not the discussion. In fact, I think I’ve spent comparatively little time discussing whether religions are “true”, I have merely pointed out when necessary the difference between substantiated fact and unsupported opinion.
I see you are intent on focusing on one small tangent of the discussion. In that case, I am saying that the use of religion as a primary criterion in the selection of a partner A) may have elements of bigotry in it, and B) can be detrimental or cause for stagnation to the parties involved or even on a larger scale to the community that practices it.
Good grief, are you suggesting that the matter be abandoned based on this reason? Do you think the above in any way invalidates the objections I have brought to bear against the matter? It’s you who just doesn’t get what the discussion is. it’s not a matter of what people think. It’s a matter of what is really going on, and of the best knowledge we have available to use in the inquiry. I notice from your low post count you are a newbie. Well, this is a Web site dedicated to fighting ignorance, and this forum in particular is dedicated to the long-standing questions of our time. Of bleeding course I know that some people are convinced of their opinion in such a way that nothing can change their minds. This isn’t a witnessing however, but a discussion. Whether some people accept that their behaviour may have bigoted elements (and I’m not saying they necessarily do) is is irrelevant if it is demonstrated that they do.
Another endorsement of ignorance? Whatever people do, I am perfectly free to examine and comment on, particularly if they post their views on this matter–it provides discussion, don’t you know. By the way, the babbling about the difference between fact and opinion is called support for the argument.
Of course I can see that. Am I here to change everyone’s mind about this? Of course not, we’re here to discuss a topic. Whether people agree when confronted with facts and arguments is irrelevant. So where, exactly, is your point again?
You ought to work on separating yourself from the discussion, you are confusing argument with intent or something strange like that.
Hand-waving.
You keep making the mistake of assuming that because I am arguing that certain choices can be, shall we say, problematic, I am also demanding that everyone convert to my point of view. This is silly. I do, however, recommend that an open-minded approach be employed when selecting a mate. Why do you insist on personalizing this discussion? have you misinterpreted my point, or is it because ad hominem arguments are easier and quicker than real debate?
I know that certain things are important to them–you seem to be espousing a very simplistic view of psychology here. That certain variables are incredibly important to people I have myself stated frequently in this argument, and, I think, rather more eloquently than your narrow-scope objections thus far. I have attacked the reasoning behind assigning such variables an importance disproportionate to the evidence at hand. You have countered (for some still obscure reason) by attacking my arguments as if holding my position somehow means that I want to impose one approach on everyone. Poor form, especially considering the material I have already posted in this thread.
Stick to the arguments instead of projecting attributes for what you don’t find clear, and you may see.
As a matter of fact, it is my call, metaphorically speaking. In this forum of course, not in any other way. If you’re going to post an opinion here, you do so with the knowledge that it may be picked up and used in a discussion, which is what has happened.
That seems like yet another ringing endorsement of ignorance. People are convinced, so let’s not even bother folks! if they think it’s real, it’s real to them, end of story? Ridiculous.
The irony here is indeed delicious. You take a fragment of a sentence out of context and attempt to ridicule it with a catch-phrase. Yet the passage from which you quoted was:
In case, as I suspect, you don’t understand what I was talking about, I explained that I was relying on qualified evidence (or lack thereof) to state and support a position. The point I made was not an unsupported opinion, but simply a crystallization of the entire “evidence for/against god/s” argument. Call it an opinion if you wish, but it’s markedly different from religious opinion, which is unsubstantiated. Complaining about how other people think differently and won’t change their minds, and taking words out of context are very poor strategies to discredit an established argument such as the one I presented.
Some people don’t want to marry outside their religion, because they believe or have evidence for the idea that it will cause strife in their lives and they don’t want to put themselves in for that sort of thing.
Some people don’t want to marry outside of their political party, because they believe or have evidence for the idea that it will cause strife in their lives and they don’t want to put themselves in for that sort of thing.
Some people don’t want to marry outside of their sexual orientation, because they believe or have evidence for the idea that it will cause strife in their lives and they don’t want to put themselves in for that sort of thing.
Some people don’t want to marry outside of their ethnicity, because they believe or have evidence for the idea that it will cause strife in their lives and they don’t want to put themselves in for that sort of thing.
Some people don’t want to marry people outside of some hobby group or other, because they believe or have evidence for the idea that it will cause strife in their lives and they don’t want to put themselves in for that sort of thing.
An opinion that these people are putting improper emphasis on their priorities is unfounded – it is not operating on the basis of those people’s self-knowledge, it is claiming that the things that they consider important are not actually relevant. It is, in a word, arrogant.
Just because I don’t have issues with partnering with someone of a different faith than I have doesn’t mean that I am somehow more enlightened or making my decisions on terms based in reality and people who don’t have that issue aren’t reasonable or having well-founded positions. It just means that we have different priorities.
Abe, I would argue that your opinion is insubstantiated, precisely because it does not take into account the realities inside other people’s heads, and treats personal decisions as if they should be validated by some external structure.
(I’m reminded of a child-free person I know vaguely, who had someone say to her, “What if you meet Mr. Right, and he wants children?” Her answer was, “If he wants children, he’s not Mr. Right for me.” Exact same principle applies.)
Do you think anything you’ve said equates to…eh, forget it.
You still don’t get it. That’s fine. Sometimes the horsey drinks, sometimes it doesn’t.
FWIW I don’t post that often, but I’ve been reading the forum for three or four years. My post count may not be that high, but I’ve been around for a good while.
The realities inside their heads. Correct. Application, not theory.
Lilairen, you get it. Kudos.
The contrast between the last two posts demonstrates the point clearly enough, I think. I wouldn’t want to marry someone that I had to wrestle with to get them to understand what are simple and self-evident points to me. I would prefer someone who already gets it. I’ll throw out the ones that I have to bring up (or down, depending upon your point of view) to my level and start picking from there. It makes life much easier.
This shall be my last post on this matter. I’ve said what I had to say.
