Changing Religion for your spouse???

[WellYeah]

I recently blasted some girl on another thread for asking about her boyfriend's dilemna to change religions to make her parents happy.

In my opinion, that's is completely base, shallow, and embarassing to have such little "stuff" inside that that wouldn't be a big deal, notwithstanding her undying need to appease her parents.

BUT...as much of an arrogant bastard as I am, I have to admit 1) I'm not in love, and 2) I have never been in a similar situation, ie I love someone completely yet to hold fast to my beliefs, religion or philosophical, would cause her great pain for the rest of her life (the loss of her parents from her life) or great pain to all (she would leave me if I don't concede)

So, is this a real Sophie's Choice that happens in the world?  Or shouldn't you look at your spouse to be and say "How dare you ask or imply that I change my beliefs...or even worse, LIE, about them, for the sake of expediency?

I think too many things are outdated, like beliefs and inner mettle.  But then again, is the loss of the old ideals (religion, philosophy, integrity) giving away to newer ideals, like unconditional love, happhiness, getting along, and pluralism???

Do tell, as I am just a stubborn punk in need of tutoring on all things animal and vegetable...

[bunnychow]

WellYeah

I totally agree with you.  You said it like it is in a most articulate, non-denominational, areligious, literary way.  I like it - you weren't criticising any religion or belief in particular just the principle behind the conversion.

I'm an atheist and contrary to the proselytizing believers in our predominantly theistic world, it is a system of belief - a belief in yourself and your responsibilities. Belief is not theism.  In some ways a lot tougher than being religious as there is no "safety net" to fall back on as you have to operate with a tabula rasa.  I respect all other religions and if one of them makes you a better person - then I  support your journey on that spiritual path in life, but I can tell you this is not reciprocated by some "believers".  Meeting these folks has made me a "born again" athiest.  Not all are bad, but some are exponential in their intolerance.  You are either on the home team or not, then they tell me their religion preaches tolerance.  

Next year my boyfriend and I are getting married in a church, but I am not converting nor signing anything saying that our children will be raised Catholic. I would be lying to myself and everyone else. To me, that's a sin.  The man's happy with that, but luckily he's secure in himself and his beliefs to not change, but accept others. He never once asked me to convert to make him or his family happy, nor did I ever ask him to give up his faith.

To disbelieve in the gods is at the same time to affirm life, purpose and beauty.  Emma Goldman.

[This message has been edited by bunnychow (edited 13-11-2001).]

[WellYeah]

BunnyChow,

Good points.  My rambles about the lack of conviction are indeed not based on any religion nor on "belief in God" or "the gods" but rather belief in belief.  

To speak of philosophy and morality in the context of a man-made institution like a particular order, Church, or religion, is to do great dis-service to what you started out talking about!  

However, while I was an avowed atheist, I couldn't answer all the "why" questions, try as I might.  I am no longer.  Also, I have come to realize there is a "harmony" or sorts between someone that doesn't believe in GOD like some do but that still believe in something.  I just don't think the terms "atheistic theist" or "atheistic moralism" are sophisticated enough to grapple with the fact that people like you and me (atheist, God believer) have fundamental things in common at the deeper layers.

You value integrity, and where that integrity leads to, and comes from, ultimately, is an interesting thing to think about.

I leave you with another quote, paraphrased.

God is misunderstood - Thomas Aquinas

and another..

What is common to Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gautama, Christ, and Marcus Aurelius- is something pretty substantial.  - CS Lewis

[bunnychow]

WellYeah

Point taken and perhaps I did not stress enough, but I do not proselytize athiesm neither, nor do I claim to have all the answers.  I don't think it is for everyone. My bone of contention is with those that think they do, thereby assuming they know the mind of Allah, Jeohovah or whoever, which I think is not only arrogant but doing a disservice to whichever god(s) they believe in.  

[nualum]

What I think you have trouble understanding is how important and central religion is to some people and to some cultures. People who are brought up in a completely secular culture, especially one where religion is completely private, tend to see religion, or the absence of religion, as something private and personal--of interest only to the individual.

People brought up in religious cultures see religion in its social context. You are brought up in that social context. Your religion constitutes an important part of your social identity. Membership in that religion is one way you know what ethnic group or social sub-group to which you belong--and it differentiates you from other groups. All the rites of passage you go through are linked to religion--birth, transition to adulthood, marriage, death, family relationships. This is not trivial stuff.

To marry outside your religious group is to step away from your social roots. Parents especially tend to be disturbed by this separation--which goes beyond separation from the family unit to separation from all the religious and social rituals, all the cultural and ethnic affiliations. Perhaps more serious to parents is their concern for their grandchildren. The most liberal and secular parents have crises over having their grandchildren raised in a different religion.

I imply no criticism of either of the writers. I merely point out that they are having difficult feeling empathy for the feelings and norms of the families concerned. They are viewing marriage as an arrangement between two individuals whereas marriage is a social arrangement affecting a host of other people and functioning within a social and cultural context.

[bunnychow]

N

Au contraire - I do see the social implications of of religion.  One case in point are the Philippino community (out of many) and Catholicism.  I have witness this in all of Asia, England and Canada.  Church going for them is social as well as spiritual.  It brings them together in their faith and forges them as a commmunity.  So yes there is an intrinsic social element in religion.  

My question to you is if the discrimination by religion is more legitimate than say, discrimination by colour, race or sexual orientation.  It appears to me that some are saying (and I do apologize if I misunderstand you) by implication that it would be morally/politically/socially incorrect to allow parents to discourage their daughter to marry a black man, but its okay to discourage their daughter to marry a man (regardless of race) because he doesn't hold the same belief system.

In other words, its okay to say "I don't like you because of your belief system", but its no okay to say "I don't like you because you're a black/chinese/white etc".  To me discrimination is the end result.  

And I re-iterate,  it adds insult to injury to say the above, whether explicitly or implicitly, then tell me
a) your religion is one of tolerance and acceptance
b)you're trying to save my desititute infidel soul, how kind of you
c) you know better than I and are morally, spiritually, and ethically superior

Yes I agree religion is tied to social cohesion, but if those that hold those beliefs are secure in themselves and their beliefs then they have no need to exercise religious xenophobia.  It's ironic since this is the same argument that a lot of racist use (gott keep them outsiders out otherwise the purity of OUR race will falter).

I know tolerant, accepting, theistic believers exist since I have many friends who are such examples and  I am marry a man who is one.  Furthermore his family has done the same as their actions speak of acceptance (this is the operative word) and tolerance much louder, clearer than any empty religious sophistry would.  

[This message has been edited by bunnychow (edited 14-11-2001).]

[Texan]

The best thing I've heard on race is from the movie "Bullworth", played by Warren Beaty, or however you spell his name.

"I think we shall just keep f**cking and f**cking each other till we're all the same color."

Maybe then we'll see we are all the same species!

As per religiion...well, another day maybe...but to have an opinion, at least, is to do more than most who do not!  

Live well,think free, - T

[nualum]

My impression is that this discussion has swerved from the intial issue which was, I as saw it, "Is it reasonable for me to be harsh, judgmental, and even a bit contemptuous of people who want their children to marry people of the same religion?" Where the discussion has swerved to is a broader discussion about religion--including atheism and agnosticism--and racism.

I'm really not in that argument, but I don't mind contributing to another issue which has arisen--namely, "Is discrimination reasonable and/or rational?"

Everyone discriminates all the time on a number of characteristics. There are people who won't date people who smoke. That is one kind of discrimination. Some people would see that type of discrimination as reasonable and reational; others would see it as stupid. Other individuals really only want to associate with members of the same social class. I knew someone who would not date--never mind marry--anyone who did not love her dog. There are people who discriminate against fat people--a very common discrimination. Advertisements in Indian newspapers suggest vast scope for discrimination, including a preference for wheaten complexions in prospective brides. There are degree snobs. And so on.

There is an important issue that has gotten blurred. In this case, we are talking about parents' desires for their daughter. People may be very broadminded in normal social situations. They may not care about a person's social class, his/her religion, his/her sexual orientation, race, occupation, education . . . whatever. However when their daughter is involved in a serious relationship, their feelings are deeper, more complex, and lots less broadminded. And the same is true of the daughter. Until she was considering marriage, she may have thought that how she behaved and with whom was not her parents' concern. However, once marriage is in the picture, her loyalties to her parents and the whole social complex in which she was raised begin to come into play and weigh into her considerations.

And if parents' feelings are intense, less broadminded, and more traditional about their childrens' marriages, these traditional feelings become even more intense where grandchildren are concerned.

I do not necessarily advocate deferring to one's parents' wishes (because my culture does not require that deference), but I  believe we should be careful not dismiss the parents' feelings as unworthy, irrelevant, trivial, or stupid. At the least, we should try to understand their point of view and give it some sympathy.

[expat1]

WellYeah asked if it is common in real life for parents to disown a child for marrying outside of their church.  I think it is.  This leads to the question nualam noted, whether we should be contemptuous of such people.  Whilst it is quite drastic to disown a child, we must recognize that many religions teach their followers to be zealots (i.e., only "true" believers will go to heaven; you have a mission to convert all nonbelievers; ... ).  Thus, while I persoanlly disagree with these beliefs, I can understand them and thus tolerate this intolerance.  The trouble comes when persons with these beliefs are in positions of power (government) and inject them into their local politics.

The U.S., despite being a democracy, protects against this in two ways.  First, we separate church and state and second, we respect individual liberty.