Is a political liberal declaring a priori that she would never marry a political conservative also bigoted?
‘I’m not going to justify my position, but of course I’m right and you have to gainsay it’ is not particularly convincing.
Especially since it’s been explained over and over how it’s factually and logically incorrect. It is not more “religious bigotry” than a woman with a graduate degree who is looking for a man with higher education who wants her children to go to college is “educationally bigoted”. Or a couple who love the outdoors and bonded due to their love or camping, and want to teach their children to love and respect nature are “environmentally bigoted”.
You’re just talking non-sense.
If you have to invent a definition of bigotry and/or make unsubstantiated claims while demanding that they be debunked, then sure.
But a health-nut who’d never marry someone who also isn’t really into fitness and who would want their children to be raised to eat right and exercise is also not a priori a bigot. They’re, in fact, not a bigot at all.
This is, of course, quite wrong, and misuses the term “bigotry”.
In almost every definition of that word, hatred and intolerance for the “other” is the defining characteristic of bigotry or a bigot.
A Catholic wishing to marry other Catholics is not a “bigot”. They are not, by that act alone, displaying hatred and intolerance towards others. Not being willing to marry someone for religious or cultural reasons is not “hatred or intollerance” of them.
How are political opinions comprable to religion? This is a stupid analogy. A person being outside of your religious group does not inhibit basic intellectual compatibility the way a difference in politics does.
Really? I’d say the opposite - people holding different religious beliefs are less compatible, as religious beliefs are often more strongly held than political ones. What about an atheist who will not marry a religious person?
The Argument From Nuhn Unhhn! is not compelling.
That you’re actually arguing that someone’s cosmological views, morality, ethics, societal preferences, sexual and spiritual behaviors are not as significant as someone’s political choices speaks to a willful disregard of the importance and relevance of people’s religious views.
That you are ignoring that people can enjoy the company of those who are similar to them and enjoy the same culture, without having anything at all against people from other cultures, also speaks to a willful disregard of the in-group out-group dynamics in human populations.
The OP is specifically talking about the practice (not exclusive to or unversal to Jews) of declaring those outside of one’s religious group to be automatically unsuitable no matter what.
I don’t agree with this at all. Religious beliefs have a broad range of emphasis and nuance to to them which allow greatly for ideological overlap. Sharp political divisions do not. I’m an atheist married to a Catholic, and we have very few differences in basic ideology and philosophy.
And we’re also talking not about who the individual wants to marry, but who her family has told her she can marry. Parents who say “you can’t marry a Jew” are bigots, and parents who say “you can only marry a Jew” are bigots.
None of that is what the OP is talking about. The OP is talking about parents imposing their own religious criteria on who their children marry.
Given the diversity of religious groups in the world, not to mention political groups, that statement is just flat out wrong. Differences in politics may or may not inhibit basic intellectual compatibility, and differences in religion may or may not inhibit basic compatibility, and differences in culture may or may not inhibit basic compatibility.
The latter is most on point. I’m an omnivore. I’ve had great relationships and friendships with vegetarians, but never have I successfully dated a vegan–the cultural incompatibility is too great because, heck, dinner was always a drag on ONE of us (either I was grumpy about no meat, or she was grumpy because there was meat on the table). Speaking as someone who is non-Jewish married to a Jew, if she wasn’t Reform and elected to keep fully Kosher, it would NOT have worked out because of kitchen logistics alone. That doesn’t indicate I’m bigoted against Jews, it indicates that not being able to cook bacon in my own kitchen is a (admittedly somewhat silly) deal-breaker for me.
Why not? If anything, the differences in intellectual outlook are even more profound. A conservative and a liberal have some fundamental disagreements about the proper role of government, but those are largely abstract concerns to a household.
As the old joke goes, a man explains that he and his wife have an agreement about how they run thier marriage. He makes the big decisions and she makes the little decisions. When pressed to give an example, he responds, “You know – balancing the national budget, whether we should have gone to war in Iraq, whether the bank bailout was a good idea, how much power unions should have – those are the big decisions, and I make them. She makes the little decisions – where to send the kids to school, how to handle the household budget, where we’re going on vacation this year.”
I don’t claim it’s impossible for a religious person to have a happy marriage to a non-religious person – I think you’ve said you’re a good example of that very phenomenon – but the potential for conflicts is obviously there. And, indeed, from what you’ve said you’ve largely acceded to your wife’s desire for religious upbringing for your children, but it’s easy to imagine a more militant athiest objecting to that – to say nothing of a person who held a different religious faith than his wife did, where the conflict would not be between “No religious education” and “Her religion’s education,” but between two different sets of religious education options.
So why, specifically, is it that the desire for religious compatibility equates to bigotry but the desire for compatibility in political outlook does not?
If you impose either of those standards on your children, you’re a bigot.
How many times on this board have people told you that the fact that you experience something does not mean it’s universal, and that one experience from your life does not translate to a universal rule binding upon all mankind?
What - there are no ranges of emphasis and nuances in political opinions? Nonsense. 
Find me a survey that states that the average person regards politics as more important to their very identity than religion.
No, we aren’t. Are you claiming that a person who states “I will only marrry a Jew” all on their lonesome is not a bigot?
Also - are athiests who will not marry religious people “bigots” in your opinion?
I didn’t say it was universal. I was rebutting the contention that it’s a rule. I think political differences are far more contentious than religious ones. Most hatred and violence in the world is caused by political differences, not religious ones.
The OP discussed conversion.
Rather obviously, the falsifies your claims and casts the very foundation of your objections into doubt.
No, the OP was talking about a girl who shot him down and gave a specific reason and/or excuse.
Even if you were right, that does not address your significant error in claiming that religious views are somehow less important than political views in terms of compatibility. Additionally, even were you not wrong, that still wouldn’t address the fact that, for instance, parents who raised their children to be staunch environmentalists and who objected to their daughter marrying a strip-miner would not be “environmental bigots”.
“We want to have grandchildren who are raised in our religion/culture” is not any more “religious bigotry” or “cultural bigotry” than “we want to have grandchildren who go to college” is “educational bigotry”.
You have now reached the point in an argument where you are simply repeating dogmatic, absolutist, absurd and unsupported assertions. They also happen to be erroneous. This will not end well.
Bricker specified a “liberal” and a “conservative,” which leaves out room for moderates. His hypothetical essentially stipulated that the political differences were sharp.
This isn’t a claim I ever made, so why should I have to find a cite for it?
No, read the OP. We’re talking about a girl who said her parents would not allow her to marry a goyim.
If an atheist parent forbids his child from marrying a theist, then yes, that is bigoted.
Right. What I am asking is, is “I will marry another Jew” the same as “everyone else is unsuitable?” Is a bias in favor of one group (political, religious, whatever) equivalent to a bias against everyone else?
On reviewing the OP, by the way, I saw that the girl said she was willing to date gentiles.
No, we’re talking about an adult woman who told a guy, the very first time he asked her out, that she wouldn’t marry him and cited her father’s attitude as a justification.
Of course it is. Is “whites only” equivalent to a bias against non-whites? Whatever distinction you’re trying to draw here is too fine for me.
But that it could “never lead anywhere” because of her father’s bigotry.