Rilina and Camassia have posted strong responses to two different aspects of my Bulworth post.
Rilina, quoting me, writes:
To say interracial dating and marriage is a "fundamental social
good" inevitably implies, however unintentionally, that non-interracial
dating is somehow a less valid choice.
Yes, that was unintentional on my part. I am not a better person because I am engaged to be married to a non-white woman today than I was in my second and third marriages (both to white women, one of whom looked enough like me that we were frequently mistaken for siblings.) But I also believe that interracial dating, particularly when it leads to marriage and children, has a salutatory effect upon the broader culture that marrying within one’s own race does not. The effect, of course, is of increased tolerance and understanding, as well as a blending of cultures. That doesn’t make interracial relationships more virtuous, but it’s what I meant by a "fundamental social good." I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. Rilina, writing from a Korean-American perspective, has some other interesting points as well.
Camassia — as well as Mythago in my comments section — are troubled by my support for inter-religious dating. The original thrust of my post was aimed squarely at ethnic issues, not religious ones. But writing quickly in the comments section, I allowed myself to be carried away by suggesting that inter-faith relationships are relatively easy. I wrote:
I can’t tell you how many serious inter-faith couples I know who
work very, very hard to honor both aspects of their heritage. I know
what it is to go to synagogue on a Friday and church on Sunday and to
believe both are vital. It makes for long weekends!
The cross is not hummus. But just as we can blend our culinary
traditions, we can blend and synthesize our religious traditions
without compromising the distinctives of either. I have seen it done,
seen it done by family and friends dear to me. It isn’t easy. But it
can work.
In reply, Camassia writes:
For every couple Hugo knows that seems capable of being permanently
bireligious, I wonder how many there are who find they can’t bear the
tension and settle into one church — or no church. In fact, the more
normal story that I’ve encountered in my life is that when two people
of different faiths fall in love, one of them converts before the
wedding. This is especially true since one of them is usually more
devout than the other.
Another
question I brought up earlier in the thread is what happens to the
descendants of these couples. They obviously can’t go on keeping the
family permanently in two religions, so they must either pick one,
leave religion entirely, or develop some syncretic version. Syncretic
religions exist, some quite successfully. But they are definitely different
religions, not big tents that somehow embrace more than one religion at
a time. Since Hugo normally positions himself as the more evangelical
Christ-centered believer in his liberal-pluralist congregation, it’s
weird that he’s advocating a position that seems destined to turn the
world into a Unitarian soup. I can’t help wondering if there’s
something else going on here, that I’m not quite perceiving.
Well, I know some lovely Unitarians. (Father, stepmother, and sisters, for the record.) But Camassia is right: it is kind of soupy, and there isn’t a lot of meat to chew on. There’s no question that it’s easier to live as part of a community when you and your spouse share the same beliefs about the nature of the divine and what it is we are called to do with our lives! Camassia is right: I am an evangelical in the sense that I believe Christ to be my savior. I consider myself in "personal relationship" with Him. Would I want my children to have such a personal relationship with Him? Of course. Do I believe it possible that they could find happiness, fulfillment, and even Salvation without knowing Christ as I do? Yes, I do. I’m not going to comment on my fiancee’s faith, mind you. But I can say that at least at this stage of my life, I believe I can be both faithful to Christ and faithful to a relationship with someone whose views on Him may be different from my own. (Folks, please don’t press further on this subject. Thanks.)
Lastly, I made a number of quick remarks in the comments section which clearly upset some of my Jewish readers. Upon reflection, writing glibly about the "dreidl and the cross" was offensive, and I apologize. I ought to have done a better job of limiting the post to a discussion of interracial dating, marriage, and reproduction.
I’ll be away from the computer this weekend, folks.
Hugo wrote: “But I also believe that interracial dating, particularly when it leads to marriage and children, has a salutatory effect upon the broader culture that marrying within one’s own race does not. The effect, of course, is of increased tolerance and understanding, as well as a blending of cultures.”
Can you prove that “interracial dating, particularly when it leads to marriage and children,… causes increased tolerance and understanding” or is that another one of your ‘theories-presented-as-fact?’ If you can prove this, then please do so, otherwise correct your post to clearly state that this is your opinion and not indeed a proven, verifiable fact.
I’m not convinced that interracial dating and marriage in and of itself leads to more tolerance and understanding. Rather, I believe that those who are amenable to interracial dating and marriage (like my parents) are already predisposed to tolerance and understanding.
Hugo, yours is a “chicken and egg” argument.
I should clarify, since I know some nice Unitarians also, that I called it “soup” not to imply watery meatlessness, but something made of other things chopped up and combined. My point was that when you make soup you make a new dish, not a coequal gathering of the things it’s made of.
I don’t know, I feel like we’re talking past each other here. Seems like it’s time to take the weekend off.
Hugo, I highly recommend the book Mixed Blessings. It’s primarily aimed at Jewish-Christian couples, but it thoroughly discusses the whole issue of interfaith marriages, things that can make them work or not work, common problems, and so on.
Thank you, Mythago. I’ll look for it. I am sorry that I was so obtuse in my earlier comments.
Everyone in my inter-religious family seems to get along. I think the varying religious backgrounds and views in my family have indeed enriched the perspectives of everyone involved. Anecdotal I know but I thought I would include my family’s history and current experience of inter-religious marriage:
– My father is the product of a Jewish-Protestant marriage. He was raised completely secularly with no religion at all (other than celebrating Christmas in a very non-religious way).
– My mother comes from a devout Lutheran family. A very large number of her relatives are ministers or married to ministers. She is actually less respectful of religion than my secular father because she saw first hand what she viewed as “hypocrisy” among church leaders.
– I was raised as a Unitarian and continue to identify as a Unitarian though I don’t go to church. My father insisted that I study Jewish history when I was a child. As a result, I have a very strong, perhaps irrational, sense of pride in and connection to my Jewish heritage, although I was not raised a Jew.
– My husband is a non-church going Catholic. He wants to join a Congregational church, although I have told him I would be happy to attend a Catholic church with him. He wants a church that is liberal enough for me without being “out there” like the Unitarians (as he put it). (He knows that I disapprove of the Catholic church’s denial of the priesthood to women, so he has independently decided that we should not attend a Catholic church.)
I find the Congregationalists very appealing, although I do not take communion as I do not consider myself Christian. My husband does take communiion at the Congregationalist church. We both are pretty comfortable with that. If we had kids, we could live with them attending the Congregationalist church (even though I would prefer Unitarian and my husband would prefer Catholic.)
You write: “But I also believe that interracial dating, particularly when it leads to marriage and children, has a salutatory effect upon the broader culture that marrying within one’s own race does not. The effect, of course, is of increased tolerance and understanding, as well as a blending of cultures.”
You’re welcome to believe that, of course. But it strikes me as naive. There are few if any “pure breds” in Brazil, but race remains a serious issue. This is also true in many African nations (e.g., Nigeria, Rwanda, et al.), where ethnicity/tribal affiliation becomes a dividing factor in the absence of significant racial distinctions. Homogeneity of skin color does not bring a community or nation together.
And why are racial homogeneity and “a blending of cultures” to be desired? I thought progressives favored diversity. Here you seem to be pushing for eradication of difference, domestication of the Other, total assimilation. That seems like a profoundly illiberal project.
Good luck with your coming marriage.
C.