My Favorite Religions: Interfaith Family Perspective

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-katz-miller/my-favorite-religions-the_b_5594974.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Susan Katz Miller
Author, Being Both: Embracing Two Religions in One Interfaith Family

Posted: 07/17/2014 5:30 pm EDT Updated: 07/17/2014 5:59 pm EDT

I'm an interfaith child, raising interfaith children. As part of a three-generation interfaith family, I am the product of American pluralism. Celebrating more than one religion does not make me feel alienated or apathetic. Instead, it inspires me, and many of the interfaith children I interviewed for my book, Being Both: Embracing Two Religions in One Interfaith Family, to explore and appreciate the histories and cultures and practices and theologies of multiple religions.

Yesterday, Pew Research released a new study on how Americans feel about different religious groups. It seemed self-evident that most people had the "warmest" feelings about their own religion. But what about those of us who claim more than one religion? Pew has done great work previously on the fluidity and flexibility of religious practice in America, including the high rate of those who attend more than one house of worship. But the new popularity poll did not really take into account the complex family ties between and among religious groups in America. It sorted poll respondents into single-faith boxes. And many of us don't fit into those boxes.

Pew's most notable conclusion seemed to be that if you know someone from a particular religious group, you develop warmer feelings for that group. Robert Putnam and David Campbell, authors of American Grace, call this the "Aunt Susan Principle." But for interfaith children, it is not a question of whether or not we are lucky enough to have an Aunt Susan, a beloved figure of another religion perched somewhere on a branch of the family tree. Instead, we are born with the inherent and formative reality of parents of two religions. The result goes beyond the Aunt Susan effect. Let's call it the Interfaith Parents Principle. If your parents are of two religions, and they love each other, and they love you, then you are more likely to have warm feelings for both religions, and for multiple religions beyond your own family.

For instance, I found it distressing, but not surprising, to see the antipathy towards atheists and Muslims in the new Pew study. I'm not an atheist or a Muslim, but I have warm feelings towards both of these groups. In part, this is because interfaith families can feel marginalized, and as marginalized peoples we identify with and support each other. But also, my formation in an interfaith family has heightened my interest in spiritual, theological, cultural and philosophical differences. And I have purposefully woven an intricate tapestry of atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Pagan, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant friends and colleagues in interfaith dialogue and activism, as well as people (like me) with complex religious identities.

more at link

[merrily]

1. Most religions are okay, except for zealots.

Then again, the same is true of almost anything and anyone, even Justin Bieber.

One of the problems with Christianity in my opinion was the Apostle Paul, who was literally a Zealot, a member of the Zealot sect of Judaism. I object to almost nothing in the words of Jesus, apart from what seemed to me to be some irrational unfairness to a fig tree. Then, along came the Pauline epistles which, in my opinion, pretty much messed up the New Testament.

But, what do I know? I am not a student of religion.

[cbayer]

2. Agree - extremism is extremism, whether it be religiously or

non-religiously based.

You seem to be a student of religion, even if you don't recognize it.

[merrily]

3. Thanks, but not a student. I went to Sunday School as a tyke and read the Bible a few times

when I was young. That's about it. I never studied Christianity, let alone the subject of religion, or comparative religions.

But, yes, extremism in anything has some bad, bad effects, be it extremism in religion, nationalism/jingoism (extreme by definition), hero worship (ditto), whatever. And extremism may be especially bad when extremists seek to impose their beliefs on others.

[cbayer]

4. Not a student either, but I think your take on Paul was very insightful.

I think we extinguish extremism by supporting the non-extremists and by showing tolerance for a wide range of world views. This keeps extremists on the margins where they can be more clearly identified.

This is particularly true when it comes to beliefs about god and religion. I like this author's take on that.

[trotsky]

5. Oh yes, extremism is extremism, cbayer.

Extremist Muslims become suicide bombers.

Extremist Christians blow up abortion clinics.

Extremist atheists write books and make fun of religion.

TOTALLY the same.

[NeoGreen]

6. Wait, where are the...

..."both sides do it..." apologists?


Because, both sides do it by equal measure on every level , don't cha know...

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. Someone is channeling their inner Luke Russert

[merrily]

8. I don't know if the point was that extremist atheists are no

different from extremism in the name of religion. I think the point was (at least my point was) that extremism exists both within the context of someone supposedly motivated by obedience to a religion and someone motivated by things entirely separate from religion (and also separate from atheism), things like nationalism, or extreme devotion to a celebrity or a politician, or extreme ambition. (Think Hitler, House of Cards, screeming tweens, unhinged fan stalkers, not Madalyn Murray).

[skepticscott]

9. It is a common refrain among certain posters here

(One in particular) that non-religious extremists are just as bad as religious extremists. And that believers and non-believers are essentially the same in everything they do. Watch long enough, and you'll see them say about virtually anything "that's true of believers and non-believers".

Some people desperately need to promote this false equivalency in order to push their agenda forward.

[merrily]

13. I specified that I was speaking only about the point I had tried to make

in my own post. Carrying the baggage of my own posts is work enough, but it is at least fair to try to make me carry that baggage.

It would not, however, be fair to try to make me carry the baggage of disputes you and others may have had with other posters, though.

Nothing in my posts on this thread (or anywhere) either defended religiosity or attacked atheists. I said simply that I had few issues with the words attributed to Jesus, but I have issues with those attributed to the apostle Paul and I also have issues with the behaviors of religious extremists. If you have a problem with that statement, I will defend it as best I can, even though, candidly, I don't care about the subject very much.

If, however, you have an axe to grind with some other poster's statements, please grind it with the posts of that poster. It seems to have nothing to do with me.

[skepticscott]

15. It was a point of information

about posting patterns in this room. If you choose to take offense as if it were directed at you personally, that's your business.

[edhopper]

17. Now, now Scott

Be nice to the new poster.
He didn't understand you were explaining the history here and was defending himself.

[skepticscott]

19. Ah, well fortunately now they're aware

More knowledge is always good...for some, anyway.

[edhopper]

20. Not what you said

But perhaps a little terse in the wording.
No biggie.

[merrily]

22. No, no and no. I am not a new poster. I did understand and I was not defending myself.

I was simply asking scott to direct his comments to the poster with whom he had the history and not to me.

[edhopper]

24. I know you both got what was going on

I was just trying to lighten the mood.

[merrily]

25. Thanks for the thought. Maybe another time.

[merrily]

21. Your reply was certainly directed TO me, not to the poster(s) to whom

your post referred.

I am more indifferent than offended. However, I just did not see the point in posting to me about some history you apparently have with another poster or group of posters that has nothing whatever to do with me or with what I posted.

[skepticscott]

11. So even though you regularly

reject and disparage the use of "labels", cbayer, and constantly scold others for applying them to people who don't want them, it's apparently all right for YOU to apply he label of "extremist" to anyone you like.

[skepticscott]

10. Except how do you define "OK"

other than to say that anyone who isn't a zealot or extremist is "OK"? Seems like a bit of circular reasoning and NTS.

And of course, to the people you label as zealots and extremists, you're an extremist.

[merrily]

12. I didn't say anyone who is not a zealot or an extremist is okay.

You changed my statement, then used your change to label my reasoning as circular.

And of course, to the people you label as zealots and extremists, you're an extremist.

I am not sure that is so. For all I know, they may think me simply wrong or misguided, maybe even possessed by Satan. However, even if you are correct that zealots and extremists would consider me an extremist, I am not troubled by what a zealot or an extremist thinks of me.

:shrug"

[skepticscott]

14. So why did you dodge the question?

How do you define "OK" with regard to a religion, other than in a non-circular way, and other than in a way that could apply equally to you if applied by people that YOU personally consider "zealots" or "extremists"?

[merrily]

23. You don't seem to have understood either my Reply 1 or my Reply 12.

As a result, your question is not based on anything that I actually posted, only on your misunderstanding of what I posted.

Forgive me, but I see no point in continuing this. Perhaps we can have a more productive discussion on another thread at some future time.

[skepticscott]

26. You said in your Reply 1 that

"Most religions are okay, except for zealots"

I asked how you define "okay". What's so difficult in that request that you have to keep dodging it?

[merrily]

27. Please see my reply 23. Thanks.

[skepticscott]

28. I see you prefer to keep dodging a simple question

And take far more trouble doing it than it would take to actually answer.

You'll fit in well here.

[merrily]

29. I've been trying to preserve some hope of a productive discussion between you and me

in the future. Apparently, you don't wish to join me in that. Message received.

[skepticscott]

30. You can start a productive discussion

by defining your terms. Again, what in the world is your problem with that?

And for someone who saw no use in continuing the discussion, you certainly seem to be obsessed with getting the last word in, no matter how many exchanges it takes. Another thing that will have you fitting in well here.

[MellowDem]

16. I always cringe at terms like "interfaith children"....

I'm not sure what the author means when she says she is "raising interfaith children". Teaching a child about two or more different faiths does not make them identify as interfaith. Indoctrinating them, on the other hand, will likely lead them to identifying however the parent wishes, at least in childhood.

The idea that you get to "raise" your child as a certain religion is so distasteful and shameful, and still widely accepted and widespread.

[skepticscott]

18. Some people just get all squishy

any time the word "interfaith" is used to describe something. Regardless of whether they have a coherent notion of what it actually means.