Tied in knots over interfaith weddings

[cbayer]

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/15/opinion/la-oe-riley-interfaith-marriage-20130616

Satisfying two faith traditions is difficult enough at the ceremony — and the challenge never ends.

June 15, 2013|By Naomi Schaefer Riley


Wedding season is officially upon us, and one needn't be marrying a "Bridezilla" star to find the planning comes with some stress. Interfaith couples seem to have more than most as they try to satisfy not only each other but two extended families and two religious communities.

I interviewed dozens of interfaith couples from across the country for a book on interfaith marriage. One husband and wife I met had planned to get married in a Catholic church to accommodate the bride's family. Which was actually quite a sacrifice because the groom's father was a Lutheran minister. But things got particularly difficult because the bride's mother became very sick and requested that the ceremony also include a Mass. Catholic weddings don't have to have a Mass, and most priests are disinclined to offer one at an interfaith ceremony because the non-Catholics will not be allowed to participate.

"They key to marriage is unity," the Rev. Eric Andrews, a Paulist priest in Southern California, tells me. "If the first meal — if you will — as husband and wife is the Eucharist, and one can eat and one can't eat at that table, what message is that?"

Wedding season is officially upon us, and one needn't be marrying a "Bridezilla" star to find the planning comes with some stress. Interfaith couples seem to have more than most as they try to satisfy not only each other but two extended families and two religious communities.

But priests at least are allowed to perform interfaith ceremonies. Most rabbis and many Protestant pastors, on the other hand, are not. Imams perform marriages between a Muslim man and a Jewish or Christian woman, but not the other way around. And this is where the engaged are often in for a rude awakening.

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. What the heck...did the author get a bonus

for every use of the word "interfaith"? Or does she just get a little endorphin rush every time she types it, like some here seem to? Does she actually have any deep thought or insight to offer beyond the tired and superficial observation that marriages between people of different religions can present problems (oops...I meant "challenges&quot ? Nothing to say about the deep reasons why it's difficult, and why everyone's firmly held beliefs about the way things are and the way things should be done can't all be right?

Yeah, yeah, I know...I'll have to wait for the book...isn't that always the way around here?

[no_hypocrisy]

2. My dear friend invited me to his wedding 21 years ago this month.

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)

He was marrying his partner, Ed.

It was a wonderful ceremony, presided by a rabbi. They even had matching cummerbunds!

After the ceremony, I remarked to my friend that I couldn't believe that he got a rabbi to officiate his wedding. My friend smiled and said it wasn't that difficult to find such a liberal rabbi in Greenwich Village.

No, I insisted. How did he find a rabbi who would perform the ceremony with a goy (non-Jew)?

[cbayer]

3. Lol - great story.

This whole topic is very relevant to my life currently, as we have one daughter (atheist) who just married a Muslim and a son (unclear where he stands at this time) who will marry into a devout catholic family next year.

Both have had to make difficult decisions and will have more to make in the future. But, in the meantime, I think it has provided the opportunity to face some challenges early on that other couples may delay.

[TxDemChem]

4. I love that story

Now that's my kind of wedding!

[WovenGems]

5. Weddings

I have been to Catholic weddings and was bored silly. I would love to be invited to a Wiccan wedding. Although I would probably need GPS to find the site out in the middle of nowhere.

[LostOne4Ever]

6. Being single

I find this interesting.

I sometimes think of how I would deal with this as, living where I do, it is all but certain that anyone I meet will be a believer, and quite possibly fairly religious.

Marriages, in my opinion, are primarily religious ceremonies and if I were involved with someone who wanted to get married I would probably go along with their wishes (though I would probably have to supply my own vows).

Raising children, though, is what I find most interesting. How do others go about doing it and how would I and my hypothetical significant other handle it?

Ideally, I would like to just keep my children away from religions and irreligion as much as possible till they were teenagers and then my theoretical spouse and I tell our child our beliefs and leave it up to the child to choose for themselves what they believe in.

But, its possible my potential spouse might want to indoctrinate (sorry can't think of a better word atm) our kids in their religion. How would we handle it? One week the spouse takes the kid to their church/temple/etc and the next week they stay with me where I tell the kid why I think everything they learned last week is wrong and then explain my beliefs? Or let them go every week and set aside one day a week in which I talk to our child about my views on religion? Either way it does not seem like a healthy way to handle religion. Having one parent tell a child one thing just to have the other parent go and undermine the others belief.

What if the child decides they believe one way or another at a young age? If they decide to be believers I would respect that but insist they always treat me and other family members with the same respect. If they are like me and don't believe I would still make the same insistence in regard to my spouse and their family. But what if in the case latter case it worries my spouse about the "soul" or our child; and, my significant other are insistant in trying to convert them? I don't know how you someone would handle a situation like that.

Sorry this is something I think about from time to time. Thanks for posting this. It was interesting

[cbayer]

7. It can be tough and it's interesting to watch several family members go through it

right now.

I sometimes think that having to have these hard discussions and make hard discussion early in the relationship can result in better, more honest communication right up front.

It's all about compromise and choosing your battles and recognizing what's really important to you and your spouse.

I must disagree with some of what you say. As long as neither parent is rigid in their belief/lack of beliefs, I think it can b good for children to get exposed to different religious and secular ideas and groups.

Mom and dad may have different POV's about a lot of things and I think that is ok.

Your approach about allowing them their own path while teaching them to respect the paths of others is how it should be, imo. And also teaching them that it is ok to question your own path and change your direction.

Of course, the person you fall in love with may not share your open-mindedness on the topic, and that might create walls that can't be broached.

Anyway, as I said above, among our children we just had an atheist/muslim wedding and will have an agnostic/Catholic one next year. And I've got a niece who is having some kind of goth/pagan thing that she want's her Christian grandfather to officiate.

Life's an adventure! We shall see how it goes.

[EvilAL]

8. I went to an interfaith funeral

one time. It didn't go very well. When the pentecostal guy started commenting on how my dead friend was in hell her father had to be restrained from running up there and beating the shit out of him, people started yelling and arguing, then some fuck started blabbing on in tongues like a mental patient.. everything calmed down once the priest got up there and pretty much said the opposite of everything the other guy said. It would have been entertaining if it wasn't such a somber occasion.

[cbayer]

9. That's messed up.

Didn't the pentecostal minister speak with the family prior to the service?

A funeral is no place for dueling theologies, but it could be a place for increased understanding and acceptance. Too bad your friend got the first and not the latter.

[EvilAL]

10. Well the husband was pentecostal

and my friend was catholic. The husbands family was adamant that they have the funeral at the pentecostal church so the priest agreed to go and do his thing as well for my friends parents. The reason he said she was in hell was because she committed suicide (some think he killed her, the police investigated but couldn't prove fuck all.) If he hadn't said the 'hell' thing it would have been ok, but who tells a grieving family that their daughter is in hell?

[cbayer]

11. It seems like there should have been some agreement reached beforehand as to what should

and should not be seen.

Losing a loved one to suicide is so profoundly hard and invokes so much guilt in survivors. To take the position that someone who is in so much pain that they kill themselves is going to hell has never made any sense to me at all. To tell that to the survivors seems really thoughtless.

So sorry for your loss.

[EvilAL]

12. An agreement would have been good,

but something tells me the pentecostal minister was gonna say whatever he wanted to in his church anyway. Then buddy going blooyukka shakka lakalla balla boo made absolutely no sense to me.


Thanks.

[MellowDem]

13. Another reason religion sucks...

creating unneeded division between couples from the very start, as if relationships can't be hard enough, to say nothing of their families.

The only way around it (if both want to remain part of their religions that, in all likelihood, they were indoctrinated into and feel compelled to stay in due to family/community pressure) is to be intellectually dishonest and engage in lots of cognitive dissonance, which these couples do with expertise. What kind of belief system forces you to do that to yourself?

Actually, what kind of belief system gets most of its members through childhood indoctrination? I think that's the first red flag.

And then the cycle continues with the couple indoctrinating their children etc. etc. Hopefully they won't.

[cbayer]

14. Unneeded? These are adults who have adopted one religion (or no religion)

for whatever reasons. There are also struggles when non-believers marry believers in many cases, so it can be just as much about lack of religion as it is about religion.

To paint all believers as just deluded sheep who have been indoctrinated into and compelled to stay in the religion of their choice is insulting and not a true reflection of many religious people, including many who post here.

You make it sound like only non-believers are rational people and free of cognitive dissonance. That's certainly not true. There are rational/irrational people with and without cognitive dissonance on both sides of this fence.

What do you make of those who raise their children as strong atheists? Since no one really knows the answer to these questions, is what they do any less of an indoctrination?

The only way to say it is different is to take the position that they have the right answer and everyone else is wrong. I would reject that. That's what fundamentalists do.

[MellowDem]

15. No...

these adults have rarely "adopted" anything. They've been coerced/indoctrinated into a belief system they don't actually believe in for the most part, but they go with the motions to avoid strife. Of course, when the silly rules come into conflict with the silly rules of another belief system through your partner, it adds unneeded strife. If these adults HAVE truly adopted these beliefs for themselves, most wouldn't be getting inter-faith marriages, which shows another bad side of faith based belief: missing out on being with wonderful people because of opinions based on absolutely no evidence.

You can spare me the "I'm offended" non-argument. I never said that all believers are deluded sheep. The vast majority are quite normal, which is why they don't believe in their own belief systems (which advocate all sorts of heinous crap). All I've said is that the vast majority are intellectually dishonest and engage in lots of cognitive dissonance when it comes to religion. That's not what deluded sheep do. It's what rational humans balancing the benefits of pretending to believe so they can get the very real tangible benefits of a society that is still very religious. Like avoiding family strife or continuing to get family support.

Non-believers can be quite deluded. Not everyone comes to atheism through skepticism, and there are atheists who don't believe in gods but do believe in all other sorts of supernatural things. Theism requires at least one supernatural belief.

Any parent that indoctrinates their child into anything is doing something I find highly distasteful, whether it's strong atheism, communism, libertarianism, etc. Indoctrination is always wrong. It's a form of abuse of a child by taking advantage of their lack of cognitive ability to manipulate them into your own opinions. Education is the way to raise a child.

Indoctrination in religion gets a pass or is even lauded still today because of the privileged status it has had in the past, and I think it should be pointed out it's just as wrong and distasteful and abusive, no matter the fact that few parents give it a second thought. Spreading awareness through exposing them to a realistic perspective and breaking through the status quo is part of the solution.

[cbayer]

16. Where do you get your data on this? Do you have anything to back up your statements?

Simply hanging around this group would disprove your hypotheses about believers. But that is small and anecdotal. I would anticipate that you have some hard data to back you up.

Or, perhaps, this is just your opinion.

Good luck on your mission to "spread awareness", "expose" others to what you consider are the right and only answers and break through the status quo to introduce your philosophy and provide "the solution". Now where have I heard that before?

[MellowDem]

17. Lots and lots of statistics...

like how many Catholics in the US use contraceptives for example. Or read the Bible. Or don't know even the most basic assertions of their belief system.

Or how many people are simply the religion of their parents (the vast majority).

Your implied ad-hoc attempting to conflate my opinion with fundamentalist religion was pretty poor. And your non-answers are telling.

I don't tell people my opinions are fact, much less endorsed by a supernatural supreme being that will utterly destroy anyone that doesn't hold to them. They're just my opinions and preferences, and the fact that you can't address them at all implies you have a very poor argument, if you even have an argument at all. Like how you still haven't said why my opinion on indoctrinating children is wrong.

[cbayer]

18. No, I meant the part about indoctrination and dishonest and cognitive dissonance.

People make personal decisions and compromises. That does not mean they are any of the things you describe. That's just your hypothesis, but I don't think you could find the data to back that up.

I can address your ideas just fine, thanks. Perhaps you just don't like my answers and questions.

As to indoctrination, it would depend on how one would use the word. If you mean as coercion and the introduction of a set of ideas that the child is not permitted to question, I would agree with you that it has the potential to be very wrong. But if one exposes their children to religion (or atheism) and teaches them to think for themselves and allows them to question what they are being shown, I have no problem with it.

But then there are the all the grey spaces in between.

While I did not raise my children as religious at all, I did raise them to be liberal democrats. Would that be indoctrination? I told them some values/ethics were indisputable - basic social justice, human rights, respect for others, tolerance. While they could question them, I don't see much wiggle room in those areas.

[MellowDem]

19. It's easy to "prove" intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance...

for belief systems, and, as one example, the statistic on how many US Catholics use contraceptives (and think they're morally OK) is indeed proof of just that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-catholics-say-birth-control-morally.aspx

The Catholic Church bans contraception as immoral. Self-identified Catholics use it and believe it is moral. This, by definition, is intellectually dishonest and cognitive dissonance. You say you're a Catholic, so you say you believe contraception is immoral, then you say contraception is moral. It's cognitive dissonance. It's intellectually dishonest. There's no way around it. That's just one of many, many examples. Many Catholics may then say that just because they identify as Catholic they don't believe everything the Catholic Church says. This is rather silly and intellectually dishonest then. It's like saying just because I tell you I subscribe to a belief system doesn't mean I believe it. I mean, that makes sense if I assume you are being intellectually dishonest, which seems to be what they're trying to say.

You seem to agree with me on indoctrination and are for education in its place from how you described it.

As for raising your children to be liberal democrats, yeah, that's indoctrination (at least in the way you seem to be describing it). There are no values/ethics which are indisputable. Telling children that there are is a form of indoctrination. It's presenting your opinion as fact.

You can still raise your children in a way that educates them on your opinion of morals and ethics (and the other side), without portraying it as anything more than your (and other's) opinion, and that's the best way to go about it. Simply dropping that they're "indisputable" won't lead your children to embracing conservatism, and as long as you educate them and expose them on the reasoning behind different moral views, I would say the vast majority of children would go on to choose being a liberal, since facts, logical reasoning, etc. all lead towards the vast majority of liberal positions.

[cbayer]

20. See, the difference is that I don't see that as either dishonest or cognitively dissonant.

I see it as a decision about their personal lives. Because someone is religious or affiliates themselves with a religious institution does not mean that that defines the whole of them. It only means that it gives them something.

If your position is that if they take any part of it they are somehow obligated to take it all neither makes sense to me or jives with reality.

I do believe that there are values/ethics which are indisputable. When I functioned as a scientist, i would say that cheating or lying about my results would be an indisputable violation of my scientific ethics. I don't consider that my opinion and I would teach my children a similar ethic in many areas.

I tend to agree with what you say in your last paragraph, but I think those that hold strong republican "values" would also agree.... just change a few of the words.

[MellowDem]

21. Then words mean nothing to you...

What you see it as is irrelevant, they fit the definition of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. You certainly haven't shown that they don't. You seem to be trying to deflect from that point.

If a person subscribes to a religious belief system, but doesn't actually believe much of it (or any of it) but is only doing it for the social/community function of a church that they personally like, that is cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

If a person wants to avoid cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, they actually have to believe the belief system they tell you they subscribe to. It's pretty simple.

Lots of religious people realize this, and some are being more honest by describing themselves as merely spiritual. Their beliefs are very simple, such as a belief in a higher power, and that's it. It's hard to contradict such a vague and broad belief, and it may not even really be a belief system. But most believers subscribe to very very specific belief systems, that have something to say on most everything.

Scientific ethics may say that lying or cheating about your results is indisputably bad, according to scientific ethics. But what makes scientific ethics indisputable? Morals/ethics are by their nature subjective. They're always disputable. There are no objective morals. There's plenty of good reasons to follow certain morals and ethics depending on one's preferences, and thankfully people's prefereneces, on a basic level, are very similar indeed. It's how we've survived as a species.

I think that conservatives must engage in indoctrination in order to push their ideology. It's why they're so opposed to critical thinking in schools and why many so fear education and try to paint education as merely another form of indoctrination. They think they're entitled, even required, to indoctrinate their children because their ideology celebrates and encourages authoritarianism (if you are in the right gender/class position) and subordination (if you are not). School is just another indoctrinator out there to compete with them in their minds. It's no surprise that fundamentalists of religion overwhelmingly identify with conservatives.

[cbayer]

22. Words mean a great deal to me.

But their meaning can be different depending on the context. They can also change meaning over time.

Again, you make the point that if they are going to take a piece of the cake, they have to take all of the cake. I don't agree with that.

I do agree that many people, including many religious people, see it as you do, though. They do believe that they have to take the whole cake if they take any at all. That's too bad.

But as you previously pointed out, many more do not. For example, the issue of birth control for most catholics.

Coincidentally, my radio is playing a song that is very pertinent to our discussion - Joseph Arthur, Travel as Equals or Not At all

The lyrics speak to me and I will continue to advocate for those that have found a path that leads them to good - whether that be religion or non-religion.

[MellowDem]

23. It's still cognitive dissonance...

It's telling someone you take the whole cake while only taking a part of it. A Catholic who doesn't believe in Catholicism is by definition not a Catholic, if the word is to have any sort of meaning. If someone tells me they're a Catholic, but then denies the views of the belief system they just said they subscribed to, it's dishonest. I know why they do it, but it's not for good reasons at the foundation.

[cbayer]

24. Believing in catholicism can mean many different things to many different people.

The only people I see that say that you have to prescribe to all of it, if you prescribe to any, are fundamentalists. I disagree that those that do not embrace some catholics policies are not catholics. I think the Nuns on the Bus are exemplary catholics, but they challenge many of the positions of the catholic hierarchy.

Your strict definitions of what it is to identify with one religion or another are, again, not shared by many people of faith.

So maybe they are already doing what you want. They are questioning. They are asking questions both of themselves and of authority when they experience cognitive dissonance.

It's far from dishonest. In fact, I would argue it is the height of honesty. What's dishonest is embracing everything a particular faith dictates and never listening to your inner voices or challenging those in authority.

It seems important to you to see them as faulty in some way. Why is that?

[MellowDem]

25. If a single belief system can mean many things to many people...

then it's not a belief sytem. Such a "belief system" would inherently be cognitively dissonant and intellectually dishonest.

Not to mention, most believers DO hold that certain beliefs of the belief system are "fundamental", meaning that without those beliefs, you aren't part of that belief system. Of course, just where they arbitrarily draw the line shows how intellectually bankrupt it all is.

I don't doubt that many people of faith ignore the actual definitions of words that are inconvenient to them. But that just means many people of faith have to engage in all sorts of terrible apologetics in order to make sense of their belief system.

Nuns that don't believe many tenets of the Catholic Church that are truly honest with themselves just drop their title and leave the church, maybe joining another one that actually matches their beliefs. Nuns that prefer other aspects of the church while not believing certain tents and choose to try and change it from the inside are content with intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance in exchange for those benefits, just like every other believer out there that says they believe one thing but really believes another.

[cbayer]

26. Lol, I just realized we are having two discussions in two different sub-threads.

I thought things were moving very rapidly, but the theme was so close that didn't see that there were two.

Anyway, I think I've said everything I want or can say about this. I'm trying hard to let people define themselves when it comes to religion and see more what we have in common that where we differ. I will continue to advocate for those who I think are working for the same goals I am, regardless of where their motivation comes from. It's not a team sport and I don't have much use for those that are trying to destroy the others - the anti-thesists and anti-atheists. This is not directed at you, by the way, but in general. I want coalitions, not for one side to win.

Again, I will let you have the last word.

See you around the campfire.

[ButterflyBlood]

27. 44% of Americans are NOT the religion of their parents.

And another 9% are now but reverted after converting to something else. So a majority of Americans were NOT their parents religion at least at some point.

[Fix The Stupid]

28. ?

"44% of Americans are NOT the religion of their parents"

"So a majority of Americans were NOT their parents religion at least at some point"

Anyone else see the problem?

"And another 9% are now but reverted after converting to something else" (only religion can bring you a sentence like that, lol.)

Help me out here...

If 44% of Americans are NOT the religion of their parents, doesn't that mean that 56% DO HAVE the same religion as their parents?

Add that other 9% (not even sure what that sentence means - seeing 'but reverted after converting to something else' makes my head hurt) - shouldn't that 9% be added to "Share their parents religion" - for a total of 65%???

Also, got a link for this data?

Thanks

[cbayer]

30. Let me see if I can help you out here.

I've never seen these stats, but let's assume they are true.

The person she is responding to said "the vast majority", not just the majority, and she was responding to that.

If I am reading her post correctly, she is saying that 44% have changed their religion from that of their parents, and another 9% did change, but returned to the religion of their family.

She then say that means that 53% have at some time or another not been members of the religious community of their parents.

Even if it's just 44% vs. 56%, that's hardly a vast majority. But iv'e never seen the data.

[ButterflyBlood]

33. Data's from a Pew survey in post #29

Yeah it was kind of early when I typed that so it's a bit odd worded. Here's what it means in a nutshell:

47% of Americans are in their childhood religious group and have been their whole life.
44% of Americans converted to something other than what they were raised in now.
9% did convert at one point, but then returned to what they were raised in.

Of course in post #29 the dispute seems to be that this also including inter-religion conversions, like people who went from Catholic to Protestant or one Protestant denomination to another. However I'll simply raise that this shows that people are making a conscious decision in what they follow and not just mindlessly following whatever their parents are. There are definitely changes in converting from Catholic to Protestant for one, saying this as someone who did this myself.

[MellowDem]

34. There is little concious thought needed to switch from Christian to Christian...

from my experience, it's because people move and need to find a new church, and there is so very little difference overall between them. Even the Catholic switch is relatively minor. And as I said earlier, the heavy lifting of childhood indoctrination has been done. You already believe the Bible is the word of god, that god exists, etc. etc. The details mean little, and most people don't even know about or care about the details of their religion. It's more for the social aspect and tradition.

Really, anyone who believes religion of any sort after having been indoctrinated in one will have their parents' indoctrination to thank to at least some degree.

[cbayer]

35. What exactly is your experience?

Christians denominations can be wildly different and making a change could be huge.

Because you don't see the big differences doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you are going to respond, I would ask that you try to avoid "indoctrination", "intellectual dishonesty" and "cognitive dissonance". It's just becoming trite and pretty meaningless.

You continue to make statements about "most people" and "anyone who believes" without any evidence to back it up. As a rational person, you should see that this weakens any point you are trying to make.

[MellowDem]

36. Big differences don't exist....

Between Christian denominations to the point where choosing a new one is good proof childhood indoctrination has little to no effect. The really big presumptions that matter, that there is a God, that faith is a good way to approach beliefs, that the Bible is the word of God, are shared by nearly all denominations. When a parent indoctrinate a child in these core presumptions, the indoctrination will color all approaches to religion.

To say that a child indoctrinated in these core beliefs under the banner of Christianity and then switches denominations or even religions is proof that the indoctrination had no impact on their decisions about religion is laughable. It's insulting as well. And yes, it's intellectually dishonest.

I have provided statistics backing up what I've a said. I will continue to accurately describe what religion is, I really don't care what you think is trite, it fits the definitions of the words, and you have provided no points that it doesn't. If you don't believe it's childhood indoctrination, intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance, you'll have to say why.

If all children were educated in the various world religions, NOT indoctrinated, there is no way the numbers I provided would look the way they do. It's not ethical IMHO to tell a child that there is a god, much less a specific one, much less with a text detailing god's nature, as fact, and that is the main reason religion is still around.

No rational or moral belief system relies primarily on childhood indoctrination to continue, much less faith based belief.

[cbayer]

37. Sure they do.

They are strict, evangelical denominations and very liberal/progressive denominations that focus on social issues.

Choosing one or the other can mean markedly different things and people may do it for any number of reasons.

Indoctrination - 8 times

Intellectual dishonesty - 2 times

Cognitive dissonance - 1 time

You really need some new language.

[MellowDem]

38. No

They all still believe in the rather immense presumptions of god. They're all flavors of the same indoctrination. It's glaringly obvious from the facts that childhood indoctrination is by far the main way religion perpetuates around the world. I've shown proof it is. Your responses haven't addressed this point.

Do you honestly believe most people choose religions with no influence of childhood indoctrination? Do you want to explain how telling a child the god you believe in is real is not childhood indoctrination? I'd like to see you address relevant points.

[cbayer]

41. All? Really?

Must take a lot of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance to really believe that you know about all.

Perhaps you were indoctrinated to believe that you really do know about all.

Using the word indoctrination four times in a short post does not make it more true.

I'd like to see you make your point without reverting to rhetoric.

[ButterflyBlood]

39. It most certainly was concious for me

I was from a mixed marriage, Catholic/Lutheran but was raised Catholic. I renounced it and refused to follow it in high school, to the point where i would intentionally make a point of eating meat on Fridays amongst other things. In college I didn't really follow anything though I identified as nominally Lutheran just because I was so disgusted by Catholicism. About two years ago it changed and I began to feel drawn to God again, and I converted to a completely different type of Protestantism. Last year I got baptized again despite having been baptized as a baby, I wanted to do all this for myself, not my parents.

So my faith has absolutely nothing to do with my upbringing or what I was raised in. My initial baptism was basically "undone", and I actually destroyed my confirmation certificate because I felt it was meaningless and today it is. I openly rejected and renounced all the "indoctrination" you talk about in high school and consider it utterly meaningless garbage today that is no factor in who I am. It's all my own decision alone.

BTW the same Pew survey states that over half of people raised with no religion (thus no "indoctrination&quot later converted to something else.

[MellowDem]

40. It's impossible for it to have been a fully independent decision for you....

Or anyone else indoctrinated as a child, and your writing shows it. Being disgusted with a particular denomination doesn't mean a person hasn't taken pieces of it to heart, like the belief in a god in the first place. You say you identified as Lutheran, which means that you still took some of the huge presumptions of Catholicism with you to the next denomination. When you say you began to feel drawn to god "again", that was only possible because of your previous indoctrination. For you to even have a concept of the Christian god, much less a belief that god existed, was part and parcel of your upbringing.

That is to say more basically, if you had been raised with no indoctrination of any sort in a society that was not culturally Christian, chances are close to nil that you would be a Christian of any brand today, and we see that in statistics, which shows how little of an independent decision this stuff can be. Your choice of denomination seems to have much more thought and independence (relatively) behind it than most others, but that just makes you an exception to the rule on the details of religion.

I think many people do what you do and pick and choose what specifics they agree with from the grand presumption of a god, but on that question, few aren't influenced from a young age in that basic assumption. I don't believe most go a further step and find the religion that best fits their belief, because it's inconvenient, and that makes you more honest than most.

Most people who are "unaffiliated" from the surveys I've seen still believe in god, just not organized religion, and are quite capable of indoctrinating their children in that basic premise. That is to say, most are theists of some sort. And unsurprisingly, some eventually join organized theistic churches.

I'm currently an atheist. Yet I was indoctrinated from a child in Christianity. Overcoming indoctrination doesn't mean a person wasn't indoctrinated, and many people only overcome the most inconvenient parts, or ignore them (sex before marriage being one). They apply the most scrutiny to ideas they don't like and try to ignore scrutinizing ideas they do like, I know I did.

Any belief in God I may for some reason take up in the future will always be colored by my childhood indoctrination to some degree.

Regardless of all that, would you indoctrinate your children in your beliefs? Would you tell them, as a fact, that god exists? And in spite of what you think of your own experience, do you believe most people come to their religious beliefs entirely independent of childhood indoctrination? (And the cultural/family/social pressure that accompanies the indoctrination). From the statistics, I find that to be an impossible conclusion.

[MellowDem]

29. No, at least 76% are the same religion as their parents, yea childhood indoctrination!

http://www.pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx

I don't consider people who change from one Protestant denomination to another as changing religion, much less Catholic to Protestant. It's all Christianity. Just changing denominations. And considering 9% of the group in the 44% also could have been Catholics going to Protestants, the number is likely around 80% or so.

If changing from Lutheran to Episcopal then back means you aren't the same faith as your parents, that's just disingenuous.

It's obvious that but for their parents being Christians, the vast majority of people would not be.

What's more, for all those people who have turned "unaffiliated", the vast majority of them are probably on the official church roles of attendance, cause that's how childhood indoctrination and number inflation in the religious world works.

But I do love how people defending childhood indoctrination must resort to really terrible semantic arguments.

And this is the US. You should look at the numbers in places with much less opportunity for kids to break out of their indoctrination, like Iran. Hmm, wonder why everyone is the same religion as their parents?

At least in the US, anymore, religion is being challenged so that adults can eventually overcome their childhood indoctrination, but that's what still drives religion population growth, certainly not straight up conversion. All of the switching from one religion to another (even Muslim to Christian or vice versa) is not conversion from a lack of faith to faith. Childhood indoctrination has already laid the groundwork, it's just the little details that change. Both require belief in a supernatural being based on no evidence, for example. They're doing each other's work in that sense.

[cbayer]

31. Thanks for the data. Since this only looked at Catholics and Protestants, it really doesn't

address the question. Changes in denomination can mean profoundly different ways of practicing one's religion, but I agree that this only looked at christians and those raised unaffiliated.

This survey is really focusing on changes within the christian community, the rising number of "nones" and what kinds of affiliations people leave and go to.

It would be nice to see some stats that take a wider view.

[Fix The Stupid]

32. This is how I read it too - Thanks. n/t