Religous debates and questions [2]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Inherent because it seems to be viewed as a necessary and an essential bit it part of being a 'proper' Jew.
I have known of two people who converted to Judiasm but were not born a Jew and they have long complained to me that they are treated as a second class citizens and not as a 'proper' Jew by those born to Jewish families.
Its seems therefore an inherent trait of the religion.

I think we might be using different definitions of "inherent". Obviously there are some Jews who have a very strict definition of what it means to be a Jew and disapprove of marrying outside the religion. You could say the same thing about numerous ethnic and religious groups. The question might have greater resonance for more Jews because they were historically an outsider group and so there's a strong traditional emphasis on preserving the community, although you see similar phenomena in immigrant communities worldwide. But in no case is the opinion universally held by members of the ground, so I don't see how you can describe it as inherent.

halfwise wrote:I know that question was directed at Richard, but I think the question needs to be refined.  By 'marriage' do you mean 'till death do us part' or do you mean a long term commitment with kids as part of the bargain?

Well insofar as my question to Richard is concerned, I'm curious about how he'd define "marriage". So whatever he thinks.

People used to hang together longer because of cultural stigmas against divorce; but now people are breaking up even if they have kids.  I wish some of the social stigma would return about not breaking up at least until the kids have become adults.  After that I'd call the deal optional.

Yeah, no. My parents broke up when I was about eight years old after a decade of marriage and it was a pretty miserable experience all around, but it would have been far worse if they'd stuck together. It was bad enough for the previous few few years when they were trying to make it work "for the kids".

I think its inherent because you can go back centuries and find the same attitude to those who are not born Jewish through the mother.
The fact its still felt today and we have such harsh comments when it happens to the Israeli PM's son shows it both ingrained, long standing and being upheld still- that seems pretty inherent to me-.

Inherent- existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

If you can find me a time in Jewish history when this was not the view of marriage within Jewish culture Id be interested to hear about it.

Petty - if a couple has truly reached such a state they should not stay together. But I know of several couples with kids who have split up just because they don't feel like living together any more, or one of them happened to 'meet someone'. There should be enough of a social burden that they should try very hard to stay together until it becomes clearly untenable. Or the kids are psychologically mature enough to understand and deal with the separation.

Eldorion wrote:

People used to hang together longer because of cultural stigmas against divorce; but now people are breaking up even if they have kids.  I wish some of the social stigma would return about not breaking up at least until the kids have become adults.  After that I'd call the deal optional.

Yeah, no.  My parents broke up when I was about eight years old after a decade of marriage and it was a pretty miserable experience all around, but it would have been far worse if they'd stuck together.  It was bad enough for the previous few few years when they were trying to make it work "for the kids".

Cross post. In that case I may have to go with your experience. Maybe what looked like casual break-ups to me were not so.

Well to be fair, my parents' separation and divorce was a pretty nasty one for a lot of reasons. I would hope that not all divorces go that poorly, but I'm sure even the most amicable of them are difficult for all involved, including any kids the couple has. I certainly don't think that divorce should be a first (or second, or third) option for dealing with marital stress. But I think there are many cases when it's better than the alternative, including a couple simply growing apart and being fundamentally unhappy with their relationship but shambling on lovelessly.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think its inherent because you can go back centuries and find the same attitude to those who are not born Jewish through the mother.
The fact its still felt today and we have such harsh comments when it happens to the Israeli PM's son shows it both ingrained, long standing and being upheld still- that seems pretty inherent to me-.

Inherent- existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

If you can find me a time in Jewish history when this was not the view of marriage within Jewish culture Id be interested to hear about it.

At the risk of reducing this discussion to pure semantics, I don't consider "ingrained" and "long-standing" to be synonyms of "inherent". This is certainly an issue within Judaism, as it is in many groups, but there are plenty of Jewish people, especially non-Orthodox ones, who are fine with marrying outside the faith.  That doesn't make them "not Jews" in most people's eyes, which would go against the idea of marriage-related bigotry being an "essential or characteristic attribute" of Judaism.

I wonder what the statistics are on non-observant Jews marrying observant, versus the same with Christian. I'm not sure, but I think there's a stronger pull for Jews to marry into the fold even if not observant.

I think you do have a point to a degree Halfy. I have spoken to many a little old lady at work on the subject, and more than once I have heard someone say that had divorce been as easy as today their marriage would not have lasted, but that they are glad in the long run they hung in there for the full-term.

Eldo I would argue that if you were to go to Israel you would find that those people are indeed not proper Jews in the eyes of the majority there. Not now, not a thousand years ago- thats got to be inherent.

To me "full-term" means until the kids have left. If they are truly unhappy together they should split, but if they just have the "I can do better" frame of mind then they should hold on for the kids. Admittedly I haven't been there so I really have no right to speak on the subject.

Once the kids are gone, as far as I'm concerned they can split at a whim.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Eldo I would argue that if you were to go to Israel you would find that those people are indeed not proper Jews in the eyes of the majority there. Not now, not a thousand years ago- thats got to be inherent.

I don't really put a lot of stock in what religious conservatives say about who is or isn't a member of their religion, since it tends not to bear much resemblance to reality or conventional definitions.  Go to the Deep South and you'll people who think Catholics aren't real Christians, though probably not as many as you would have found 40 years ago.  On the flip side, my mom comes from a family of Catholic immigrants in Baltimore, which is hardly a bastion of religious conservatism, and she was nearly disowned for having a "mixed marriage" to a Lutheran 20 years ago.  But here in the real world, Catholics, Lutherans, and Evangelicals are all Christians, and there are members of all three groups who accept marriages outside the faith.  It goes the same with Jews of all denominations and opinions on marriage.

Yes but the idea that Jews should not marry Gentiles has been touted going back as far as you can go regards Jews. Its been there since the beginning, Jew only marrying Jew has been accepted as the ideal. This is not something new, therefore its a view which seems inherent to the religion as the religion is intimately tied to identification as a people, as Gods Chosen People. The recent public example is not new by any stretch, nor the voice of just a radical minority.

I'm not sure why you imply that the view that you shouldn't marry outside of your faith is new or only espoused by a radical minority when it comes to Christians.

Because I dont know any Christians who hold that view or act that way- maybe its an American Christian thing?   

So you know a lot of Jews then?

Ive known 4 over the course of my life with a 50/50 split on 'proper' Jews and those who converted, and Ive done a lot of study due my historic interest in the biblical accounts. Studying the basic tenant and actions of Judaism is essential to understanding that. And the theme of Jews seeing marriage with non-Jews as a bad thing is strong throughout their history.
As I said above it seems to stem from a belief they are a Chosen People, separate from others, combined with years of being in a tricky bit of land trying to hold it against aggressors going all the way back to pre-Babylonian captivity times which tends to reinforce a tribal siege mentality.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Because I dont know any Christians who hold that view or act that way- maybe its an American Christian thing?

Have you considered that maybe the reason for that is because you live in a country where barely half the population even identifies as Christian, and most of those are probably more cultural Christians than anything else?  It's pretty well understood at this point that religion is on the decline in Europe insofar as it's an active part of life, but it was a huge deal there for millennia (which makes the characterization of opposition to mixed marriages as "new" all the more baffling).  Religion certainly plays a more prominent role in the US than it does in the UK these days, but the UK is the more unusual case when you look at the entire world.

NB Google "unequally yoked" if you want to learn more about this. I'm honestly really surprised that you find this idea so shocking.

I never said I found it shocking- quite the opposite, given the long Jewish history of just this sort of thinking I find it typical. And regrettable.
One might have hoped it would have begun to die out by now.

I meant that you find it shocking that this belief is common enough in religions other than Judaism (ie, Christianity).

I dont think in other religions it has the same level of racial connotations, or at the heart of it an idea of preserving a racial purity.
A religious purity yes, but not a biological one.
Which is why in my original post I called it racist.

In a general sense a Catholic or a Protestant will be fine marrying a person who has converted to their religion, without viewing them as a lesser sort of Catholic or Protestant- this is not historically true of the Jewish outlook, where such a person is often viewed as not being a full Jew and to one degree or another lesser than a full Jew.

As I said in an earlier post, I recognize that this attitude is probably more common among Jews because of their history as an "outsider" group for centuries, similar to the phenomenon you see among immigrant communities but more intense due to the persecution they suffered during much of that same time. But looking back at the quotes in your initial post, the only even slightly racial element I could see were the references to "the Jewish people", and that could really be interpreted either way. But then again, Judaism is often classified as an ethno-religious group, so it's not surprising that there might be racial thinking when compared to a religion as large and widespread as Christianity. But if you look at certain subsets of Christians whose experiences are closer to Judaism, such as, say, the Amish, you see similar attitudes towards intermarriage there as well.

I did say I thought a part of the reason for this developing more strongly among Jews than others is because of the location and the history of aggression towards them by their neighbours (although one could argue based on Deuteronomy that they started it, but that another discussion altogether).
And ironically one could also argue that the persecution they suffered in other countries, especially during the Middle Ages was precisely because of their refusal to assimilate to the local culture- indeed this was a big problem initially even in the Greek cities of Jesus' time. It separated them out from others and made them targets both for attack and for praise. And that in turn no doubt only reinforced their sense of a need to stick closely together.

"Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god." (Malachi 2:11) I came across this accidentally but thought the extract was interesting because it identifies quite clearly the rationale behind exclusivism; they take their god and their system of living seriously; to the point of demanding its continuance. Rituals have a purpose, and it is not to please our imagination, but to facilitate a focus on the (often moral) cause.

Marriage is probably the most culturally universal custom after burial (my intuition). A cloud god does not own it (if that is what you mean by "I am", as opposed to anything more subtle like a first cause), and neither does any of its derivatives, most of whom endorsed polygamy, but it was certainly sanctified in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; and to a uniquely spiritual level. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:27-32) "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." (Matthew 19:9-11)

The biggest threat to marriage is the corruption of virtue. Divorce was reinstitutionalised after the annulment of some four marriages of six by an evidently intemperate and quick to be excommunicated king (two wives of whom were murdered, still to this day vindicated under the guise of "national security"). And in a society where prostitution is normalised, marriage has no hope (nothing can be taken seriously). The problem is not divorce, but it is what is causing such incompatibility (a truly perfect partner of matching physical fitness would be desired by anyone); what is compromising our ability to love and make decisions of love.

Regarding your query; if we are going to be liberal with the definition of marriage, then realistically we should marry whatever and how many of whatever we want. I think the west has however inherited a particular version of marriage, and I don't think that marriage can or should be reinterpreted to try and fit the developmental history of every human being in an arbitrary society. People with any knowledge of the animal kingdom are just not going to respect it (exclusive homosexuality is not equivalent to indiscriminatory relations), and probably won't even get married (at least not legally). Neither is it clear why one would get married when the system has no guarantee of redefinition in 30 years time. So they can save money and maybe earn some when things get difficult? Or they can pretend to be moral or provide some guarantee of security? Or that they are so insecure that they need public recognition? Or so that they can feel loved? This is not traditional marriage. But with secular marriage, isn't marriage already whatever we want it to be? Perhaps 'the state' should no longer have a hand in marriage. Whatever they are promoting should be called something completely different (say "union", wow there is already a phrase for that; "civil union"). The cultural function of marriage was to provide for children; we have to look after it. Or perhaps the state can look after our children? I am happy for someone to create their own society and experiment with it over a course of 500 years, and then come back with the results.

That being said I really don't think trying to protect marriage (whether the classical romantic ideal or the cross-cultural adaptive institution) in isolation of more fundamental social problems (crime against humanity) is going to achieve anything but hypocrisy. I am pretty certain of what needs to be undone to protect marriage (and humanity more generally), and it is not its liberalisation.

Surely in a world in which there are both so many ways, from surrogate mothers to test tube babies, and a world in which there are so any orphans the need for the loving partnership that raises a child to be male/female is no longer there?

Surely a child with no parents is better adopted by two adults of the same sex who love each other and are in a stable relationship where they have demonstrated their love and commitments clearly to society through the act of marriage, than raised by the state?

In the past there was a greater need for any society to maintain the best balance for breeding, in the modern world that is no longer the case and that pressure no longer applies.
At the end of the day the Christian God is a loving God and a forgiving God (well unless you are reading the OT where he is a homicidal, schizophrenic taciturn nutter who is rather fond of genocide) so surely the two things to take from the NT, and especially from Jesus, is love is more important than judging others and forgive others.

I think Jesus would have bee ok with same sex marriage, he certainly never bothered to say anything prohibitive about it and he was noted and chastised by others for hanging about with sinners which very likely would have included homosexuals in that definition.

Although I do agree the state should never have taken over the rule of definer of marriage. But nor should religions solely be allowed to define it either.

The problem with the anyone can have a child argument (which I chose not to mention) is that it too can be taken to the nth degree. Very soon children won't need parents at all (apart from their genetic code). We do not make arbitrary choices about the life of a human being (unless we have very good evidence to back it up; and this means decades if not centuries of research on massive sample sets). And we don't pass it off as a pay grade question either. Current research suggests there is little difference in predefined child outcomes of a same sex raised couple, although there are certainly discrepancies in the data. Do we dare to dictate another's life based on current debates in the literature? 6 sigma for physics, 2 sigma for humanity. It is just not good enough. Science is not a political toy used to promote our atheoretical ideals.

I was not aware foster parents were in shortage, quite the contrary. This is not about being unnecessarily harsh, it is about being prudent, and respectful of those without a vote. Contraceptive opportunities (whatever our conscious mandate to use them) do not give us a right to reengineer human life and its development such that we can fulfil our parenthood fantasies. 

Again, I don't believe the details of this debate really matter in the long run. If we are going to use human beings as sexual instruments and protect those corporations responsible in the name of art then we have lost the plot and have more pertinent concerns than providing a child with a normal life. Well assuming of course that child is not themselves being used as a toy (as has occurred recently in Queensland).

A brave new world.

The whole Jesus is about emotional love and not judging is rubbish. It is used as an excuse to do nothing; for the same reason "the cross" is used as an excuse to live an habitually immoral life. A meaningful life is about love. He advocated personal tolerance, not tolerance of social evil, and was put to death as a consequence. 

If you take the new testament accounts seriously then he did mention entire cities destroyed which were known for their involvement in Sodomy. And I am not saying whatever a famous guy says should be taken as truth; it either coincides with reality (reason) or it does not. Religion may stir socities towards higher principles, or direct people towards natural and philosophical truth, but using religion as a sole justification of morality is lame. God is not some instrument we use to derive morality independent of nature. God is defined as the pinnacle of natural law, the absolute good, whatever that may be (and this is philosophy not religion by the way). 

There is no evidence he hanged out with "sinners" for the purposes of condoning sin, and as you are aware someone's discrepant sexual orientation is hardly a sin. But again it doesn't make a difference what someone does or doesn't say about something (unless one trusts them); we need to think independently.