A New Age of Thought, Morality and the Importance of Religion

Darren Tendler completed a degree in the Bachelor of Journalism course at Monash University in 2013, and has previously worked for The AJN. Now a freelance writer, he is engaged with social issues like religious intolerance, discrimination and religious extremism.

Religion, in a similar vein to nationalism, identifies an individual based on his or her nurture and nature, inadvertently creating distinctions between human beings.

For all, your religion is an accident of birth.

Richard Dawkins, at his ‘God Delusion’ book tour at Randolph College in 2006, voiced an unambiguous commentary on this phenomena (in response to a Liberty University student):

“You happen to have been brought up… in the Christian faith. You know what it’s like to not believe in a particular faith because you’re not… a Hindu. Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India.”

“If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in Denmark in the time of the Vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece, you’d be believing in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.”

Within religions, most notably the three major monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, there are additional specific classifications:

Within Christianity, the following denominations exist: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and more.

Within Judaism, the following streams are present: Orthodoxy, Conservativism, Reformism, Progressivism, Reconstructionist Judaism and more.

And within the Islamic faith, the following branches are evident: Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Kharijiyyah Islam and more.

For many though, religion exists as more than just an ideology.

It can act as a guide for living, holding historical, ethnical and cultural significance, deep and profound meaning and often inseparable from one’s own identity.

So long as your belief system does not condone violence, does not maintain creeds which provoke crimes, is not harmful to others, and is not imposed on anyone else, maintaining that affiliation with the religion is more than acceptable.

However, when a specific set of values and rules born from a faith or creed are forced upon individuals, hindering their pursuit of happiness, this is when issues concerning secular morality arise.

Within a free society, specifically Western democratic civilisations, it is considered immoral to pressure your own beliefs onto others, yet this regularly does not extend to religious dogma.

If individuals fail to observe certain religious guidelines, such as adhering to specific sexual preferences; not leaving their religion of birth; refraining from establishing relationships with other-faith members; and maintaining specific dietary requirements; they, of no desire of their own, stand to lose respect from family members, have those relationships tarnished, become ostracised, and experience indignation and ex-communication from the religious community.

This treatise is largely concerned about interfaith relationships, but touches on other areas to validate certain claims.

No prejudice is held towards inter-religious bonds and marriage, just as no prejudice is held towards unions and marriages of same-faith couples (often referred to as intra-faith).

Part 1: Immoral Impositions and Jewish Population Growth:

Requests from parents (and any other family relatives) for their children to only pursue partners of the same religion and marry within, is an imposition.

 Aspirations to do what is best for their children often manifest in the enforcement of certain instructions of faith, whereby the parent feels a religious upbringing, or more specifically, a decree within that faith, will bolster their child’s experiences.

Too often, within the confines of religion, there is an impulse to go beyond social and sensible debates, and enforce personal views upon others, when those others may not subscribe to the outlined beliefs.

And then there is a tendency for those who do adhere to the religious propositions, to display hostility towards the individual who’s views do not match their own.

A traditional Jewish mother and father vehemently disapproved of their eldest son’s relationship with a non-Jewish partner, to the extent they saw it fit not to bond with the girlfriend. To their son, it appeared they were treating an outsider unfavourably.

The girlfriend was courteous and considerate. Born with a nominal Hindu heritage, she was so polite that she served as a welcome reminder of the compassion and kindness humans are capable of.

Regardless as to what defences are made for rejecting a devoted companionship, not treating a differing-faith person with as much respect as you may treat a Jewish partner, purely due to religious heritage, is bigoted and lacking of any moral decency.

Purposeful ostracism remains a justifiable reason for a family member to lose respect for another relative, as opposed to surrendering admiration for your blood purely because he or she chooses to engage in a mixed-faith relationship.

The mandate from parents to only forge bonds with those inside their religion undermines their own seemingly selfless parenting, casting a shadow on their perceived altruism. It turns out there was a caveat all along; that the child is obligated to repay the debt.

Specifically focussing on Judaism, and the parents of Jewish children, principal of Mount Scopus Memorial College in Melbourne, Victoria, Rabbi James Kennard pointed out the following:

“Some parents believe that a Jewish life is better for their child than a non-Jewish one, which is why they wish their child to marry a Jewish partner,” he said.

“Some parents believe that a child who gives up being Jewish loses something very precious and priceless, which causes the parents great grief.”

But it is not up to the parent, nor any other family member, to dictate to an individual there is only one superior way to live, and that if he or she does not live accordingly, any deviating wandered route shall be the subject of rifts and intolerance within the family unit.

It is also misinformed to suggest there is a desire to “give up being Jewish” purely because an individual pursues an interfaith relationship.

According to Halachic* (Jewish) law, a child must have a Jewish mother to be considered Jewish.

While the Torah does not specifically state anywhere this must be the case, rabbinical interpretations expressed in the Talmud (Kiddushin 65b, 68b) – a text central to traditional Judaism – of Torah passages Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and Leviticus 24:10, suggest matrilineal descent was utilised to determine who was and was not classified a Jew (Apple, Rich and Faigin).

Thus, there seems to be less concern if a woman was to marry outside of the religion, as opposed to the man.

Only the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish Halachic authorities see to it that the offspring of an interfaith couple, where only the father is Jewish, are not considered ‘proper’ Jews (Apple, 2009).

But it doesn’t have to be, and more significantly, shouldn’t be like this.

Other movements within Judaism use a bilineal policy (either one of the child’s parents is a Jew) to determine Jewish identity, such as Reformism and Progressivism.

Jewish pride and the acknowledgment of history and traditions can therefore be realised as soon as a parent informs his or her child of his or her full Jewish identity, teaching there is value in recognising Jewish heritage.

Karaite Judaism, described as the “original form of Judaism as prescribed by God in the Torah,” (Karaite-Korner.org) uses a system of patrilineality (father’s lineage).

In early biblical times during the Hellenistic period (fourth century BCE to first century CE), interpretations of scripture (Exodus 1:1 and Numbers 3:2) suggested the children of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman couple were considered Jewish (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews).

According to the Torah however, Jews are forbidden to marry a gentile person (Deuteronomy 7:3-4) – a dated decree in an ever-increasing liberal society where we have the freedom to marry whomever we wish.

Something which has failed to be elucidated by rabbis is why traditional Judaism now utilises matrilineal descent (shifting from patrilineality) to adjudicate Jewish status, apart from the rabbinical interpretations.

One logical reason behind this Orthodox Jewish law is that it was a bullet proof system in times gone by – you could indisputably confirm a child was born from his or her mother.

The child’s father however, was not a fact which could be authenticated, so Jewish identity was, judiciously, established through the mother’s identity.

Today, DNA tests can promptly confirm whether a child’s father has Jewish heritage, rendering the law archaic and useless.

It is arguable that a bilineal policy provides Judaism with the greatest chance of survival – an approach already welcomed by progressive Jewish movements, and a protocol the Orthodox and Conservative communities might be well served to adopt, considering the baffling status of the matrilineal descent rule in today’s society.

Britain’s Rabbi David Goldberg advised that Halachic law “cannot be justified biologically, eugenically, genetically or educationally” and that it “can only be defended on the basis of tradition” (The Jewish Chronicle, 1982).

Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov, a Chabad-Lubavitch representative in Uruguay and a contributor to Chabad.org, noted how the verse in Deuteronomy which explains why a Jew must not marry a non-Jew (“because he will lead your son astray from Me and they will serve strange gods…”) is the reason why intermarriage cannot even be considered as a reality.

“We are not dealing here with racial discrimination which is borne of a personal and subjective attitude that the Jew has vis-à-vis the gentile. What we are talking about here is an objective, Divine command that is accompanied by an explanation,” he wrote (Dear Rabbi, Why Can’t I Marry Her? – A Dialogue On Intermarriage, 2006).

“Taking into account the primary responsibility that the Jew has to [fulfil] the precepts of the Torah, it is evident that it is mandatory that Jews marry within the faith, because if not, it will be impossible to continue fulfilling the obligation that one has to manifest Divinity in this world which is possible only by fulfilling G-d’s will. Intermarriage is a clear contradiction to G-d’s stated will.”

So militant is this contention, implying any other way of life but following the Torah is prohibited, ill-advised and condemned, it is necessary to quote the late Christopher Hitchens.

A journalist, author and literary critic, Hitchens asserted that following orders from a supreme being was a totalitarian perspective which polluted individual freedom.

The authoritarian belief in a personal god “attacks us in our deepest and most essential integrity. It’s an insult to us. It says that we… could not decide upon a right action without celestial, divine permission,” argued Hitchens in 2008 (C. Hitchens versus P. Hitchens debate).

“Our human solidarity, our innate knowledge of right and wrong, our acute awareness of what is fair and what is unfair; these come to us as gifts from the great, unassailable dictator on throne. What could abolish our integrity, what could abolish our honesty, our decency, our dignity more than that?”

That there is unwavering divine command forcing us to commit to relationships solely within our own religion is not a justifiable reason to do so, especially when this is inherently discriminatory, and when someone has had no choice in choosing their religion.

There are also passages from the Torah encouraging slavery (Exodus 21: 2-6), informing us handicapped people should not approach the altar (Leviticus 21:16-23) and that death is the appropriate penalty for homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13) and losing your virginity before your wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

We’d hope not to be subservient to these ancient, primitive and salacious tyrannical regulations just because scripture tells us to do so.

One of the most important study examinations in recent history to focus on Jewish population and identity, is the reanalysis of the Pew Research Centre Survey of U.S. Jews (A Portrait of American Jewry: A Reassessment of the Assimilation Narrative, 2014).

The reanalysis of this study, performed by the Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis University (SSRI), reveals some startling statistics and information which have been buried under misleading headlines warning of the dangers of intermarriage and assimilation, and suggesting a miserable Jewish future.

An article Leonard Saxe wrote (one of the contributors to the Pew Study’s reanalysis), called ‘The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!’ (2014) climbs Mount Everest to aid in our understanding of how such distorted statistics can foster a sense of fear within a certain demographic of people.

The Pew study “got the basic story correct” (Saxe), surveying a total of 3,475 Jews, and finding the overall intermarriage rate had climbed from 17 per cent in 1970, to 43 per cent in 1990, and now to today’s current rate of 58 per cent.

However, according to Saxe, the portrayal of a Jewish civilisation in decline within studies that reveal a loss of Jewish identity, was drastically inaccurate, due to misguided classifications of the Jewish population.

It is important to read not only Saxe’s ‘The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!’ cover story, but also his, Theodore Sasson and Janet Aronson’s comprehensive review: ‘A Portrait of American Jewry: A Reassessment of the Assimilation Narrative’.

Here are some of the most striking revelations:

• There are more than seven million Americans with Jewish parentage or who have converted to Judaism, and who identify as Jewish.
• In 1990, the most significant Jewish population study of the time – the National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS) – revealed there were 5.5 million American Jews.
• The Pew study only identified two categories of adult Jews (18+): ‘Jewish by religion’ (JBR) and ‘Jewish not by religion’ (JNR).
• To be considered Jewish within these two categories, individuals were required to fulfil the following criteria: indicate their religion is Judaism or consider themselves Jewish. They were also required to either have Jewish parents (mother, father or both), a Jewish childhood, or to express being raised Jewish.
• The Pew study failed to recognise those of a ‘Jewish background’ (JB) as Jewish. The JB designation was for individuals with Jewish parents or background, who identified with another religion, even if he or she also identified with Judaism.
• The Pew study also excluded some individuals who would be considered Halachic Jews.
• The study significantly underestimated the Jewish child population due to poor criterion for identifying a Jewish child: the study excluded children who had two Jewish parents, where the parents expressed the child was not being raised Jewish, and also did not recognise children being raised Jewish by religion, by JB parents.

‘Jewish not by religion’ individuals were those who considered themselves atheist, agnostic or to hold no religious beliefs, but still identified as Jewish. These individuals make up approximately 25 per cent of the total Jewish American population – a 70 per cent rise since the NJPS (Saxe).

Population studies such as these use sociological criteria. Interestingly, if the data was analysed using Halachic data, Saxe clarified “more individuals would likely be added than dropped”.

An analysis based on Halachic data “would result in the reclassification of many individuals who, despite having Jewish mothers, do not consider themselves Jewish, or those who engage in other religious practices such as Buddhism,” Saxe confirmed.

Central to the study is Jewish self-identification, and “an increasingly large segment of the population now identifies in non-traditional religious ways,” (Saxe), for example; culturally and historically.

Michael Steinhardt, the man who helped to establish the Steinhardt Social Research Institute in 2005, and one of the Jewish community’s most influential members, declares himself an atheist with a rich Jewish heritage.

Saxe expressed how Steinhardt’s way of identifying with Judaism, like many others, demonstrates an “understanding and commitment” to Jewish heritage and culture.

With more intermarried Jews, and children of these couples self-identifying with Judaism, Saxe informed that while intermarriages have “fuelled hysteria about the Jewish future,” they may actually be “promoting the expansion and renewal of American Jewry,” and they can positively evolve with the correct response from the community.

The following is an abstract from the reanalysis of the Pew study, and a nice summary of its findings:

“Comparisons of the Pew findings to NJPS 1990 and 2000-2001 demonstrate a substantial increase in the US Jewish population and stable levels of belonging to the Jewish people… The overall population increase is driven primarily by higher-than-expected retention of young adult children of intermarriage, most of whom were raised without Jewish religious identity and disproportionately identify as Jews of no religion” (Pew’s Portrait of American Jewry: A Reassessment of the Assimilation Narrative).

“I’ve no problem with the spiritual beliefs of other fuckers,
While those beliefs don’t impact on the happiness of others.” 

From ‘The Pope Song’, by Tim Minchin.

Part 2: Alan Dershowitz and Necessary Mindset Shifts: 

Alan Dershowitz, an American lawyer, author and political commentator, discusses in his book, ‘The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity in the Next Century’ (1998), that while intermarriage and assimilation rates are high, the Jewish people must recognise the factors which “have fuelled current assimilation and intermarriage are positive developments for Jews,” such as acceptance, influence and affluence, and greater equality and opportunity in today’s society.

He writes “most Jews do not want to impede these developments. Indeed they want to encourage them.”

“For that reason, we must accept the reality that many Jews will continue to marry non-Jews, but we should not regard it as inevitable that these marriages will necessarily lead to assimilation.”

More importantly, trying to disrupt such unions which have absolutely no inherently harmful traits, is unethical, discriminatory and objectively wrong.

The book reads that “a change in attitude towards mixed marriages” is required, as is a shift in mindset from Judaism being “more adaptive to persecution and discrimination,” to being more adaptive to “an open, free and welcoming society.”

Dershowitz’s son, Jamin, married an Irish Catholic woman.

In his book, Dershowitz reveals he was “genuinely happy at Jamin’s obvious joy and excitement over his forthcoming marriage,” and he was fully accepting of Jamin’s decision.

Dershowitz’s mother however, is confused as to what she “did wrong” which resulted in a mixed-faith marriage within the family.

While Dershowitz is at first troubled by the realisation his grandchildren would not be Jews according to Orthodox law, he clarifies no one “did anything wrong”, and in his mind, his son’s two children are Jewish.

“I realise that their [referring to his grandchildren’s] lives would probably not [have been] very different from what they would have been had Barbara [Jamin’s wife] been a relatively irreligious Jew, rather than a relatively irreligious Catholic,” he states.

What follows is more enlightening.

Dershowitz writes that Jews need to continue to foster a secular culture to maintain an affiliation with those who do recognise their Jewish heritage, but find themselves “outside the orbit” of traditional observance.

An over-reliance on Orthodox law, he clarifies, far too often allows for, and even encourages, the excommunication of such individuals.

“The great paradox of Jewish life is that virtually all the positive values we identify with Jews – compassion, creativity, contributions to the world at large, charity, a quest for education – seem more characteristic of Jews who are closer to the secular end of the Jewish continuum than to the ultra-Orthodox end,” he contends.

Dershowitz wants a Jewish religion attached to its heritage, history and culture, but not necessarily bound by Orthodox law.

Without revealing too much of Dershowitz’s work, a quick summary is optimal to show his desire for a shift in Jewish mentality:

He asserts Jewish parents would love their children to maintain the “essence of Judaism, without necessarily living under its constraints and burdens.”

Those parents however, generally do not wish for their children to become ultra-Orthodox Jews, but rather benefit from what he describes as “the trickle-down values.”

However, the following mindset that he writes of, he contends is commonplace among Jews, while professing its disturbing nature:

Many non-practicing Jews believe the ultra-conservative congregation, such as the Hasidic Jews, who “do not marry non-Jews or assimilate,” is required to maintain Orthodoxy Judaism, so a more secular brand of Judaism can stem from it.

“There has to be a thick, rich core… from which the essence that [they] want so desperately to preserve, can trickle down,” Dershowitz writes of non-practicing Jews’ thoughts.

This he calls the “paradox of Jewish survival” and flags it as ‘unhealthy’ to be so reliant upon the ultra-Orthodox community to perpetuate the religion – “a minority group of Jews who themselves have so little to do with the Jewish values the majority of us cherish.”

The “insular and parochial values” of the ultra-religious are by and large dismissed by the majority of today’s Jews, and the fundamentalist members within such narrow-minded groups do not produce the free-thinking “scientists, artists and philanthropists of whom we are so proud of,” he denotes.

“We more secular Jews must create a new Jewish state of mind – and way of life – that directly reflects the Jewish values we care about most, and that is capable of perpetuating itself directly, without depending on these values trickling down from an ultra-religious core,” he concludes.

Be less ‘tribal’; be welcoming of non-Jewish persons in interfaith relationships and marriages; recognise the validity of secularism in Judaism – these are just some of the changes in mainstream Jewish thought Dershowitz wants to see come to fruition.

Fresh movements within the Jewish religion, such as Reconstructionist and Humanistic Judaism are great for the new-age Judaism which Dershowitz envisiged (Dershowitz often cites Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in his works, who’s ideas paved the way for Reconstructionist Judaism from the late 1920s to the 1940s).

Some chief points of contention born from Reconstructionist Judaism are:

• It views Judaism as a civilisation.
• Western secular morality holds precedence over Jewish law and theology.
• Followers are not compelled to hold any particular set of religious beliefs.
• That god chose the Jewish people is a morally untenable position. Those with such a view imply “the superiority of the elect community and the rejection of others,” (Platform on Reconstructionism, Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot, 1986).
• Most congregations welcome interfaith marriages, and accept children as Jewish if either parent has Jewish heritage.
• It promotes non-compulsory customs and traditions, such as learning the Hebrew language and keeping it in prayer services, and observing Jewish holidays.

Paramount is the fact secular morality takes seniority, and no belief system is imposed on members of the movement, along with the perpetuation of Jewish identity.

Owning an accepting and tolerant nature, the movement would thus views attempts to hinder a relationship which does not intend to cause harm, or simply portraying distaste towards such a union, as morally misguided.

Humanistic Judaism and its rabbis explain there is a necessity for a new approach to Jewish identity, affirming it is primarily a cultural and ethnic identity. The Rabbinical congregation of the movement also state:

• “The belief systems are too diverse among Jews to serve as a criteria for membership,” (Association of Humanistic Rabbis – AHR, 1974)
• “A person who seeks to embrace Jewish identity should be encouraged to do so and should be assisted in this endeavour,” (AHR).
• “The moral worth of a marriage always depends on the quality of the human relationship – on the degree of mutual love and respect that prevails,” (AHR).

The above views of Humanistic Judaism do not mean a hastening of the assimilation of Jews, and both movements view all people as equal and do not discriminate.

Reverend Walter H. Cuenin, in a piece titled ‘A Catholic Priest’s Perspective on Interfaith Marriage” (2002), took a similar stance on devoted unions, explaining “all decisions about ceremony and children need to take second place to the loving relationship of the couple.”

“If that is weakened,” he penned, “then no matter how the children are raised, they will not benefit from the strong love of the couple.”

He furnished his article with an irrefutable claim:

“It also seems to me that we need to appreciate the good that can come from interfaith marriages… When people of radically different, yet connected traditions marry, perhaps they are [imagining] a new way of viewing life. It may seem disconcerting, but could it not also be a call to greater religious harmony?”

The problem we ought to be addressing is the prejudicial responses attached to inter-religious unions, as opposed to the actual act of forming affectionate bonds outside of your own religion.

“Most people understand that morality and good personal and social values are not tied to religious belief systems, but are the result of our common heritage and experience as human beings: social animals that care for each other and are kind to others because we understand that they are human too. Not only that, people understand that religious beliefs themselves can be harmful to morality: encouraging intolerance, inflexibility and the doing of harm in the name of a greater good. We only need to look around us to perceive that fact.” 

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association. 

Part 3: Rising Interfaith Relationships and Rising Tolerance:

Two underlying concerns held by the relatives of the Jews who do not discriminate when forging intimate bonds, are:

• Jewish values, traditions and identification with the religion will be lost to future generations with a partner of another faith;
• The upbringing of any children within interfaith marriages will be stifled by two competing religions.

It is touching to see how parents, grandparents and other family relatives care so much about potential future children, when they claim inter-religion bonds will lead to overwhelming confusion for the offspring of the interfaith couple.

However, it is also puzzling to observe how the concern for the well-being of the unborn offspring does not extend to the happiness of their currently living family member.

It is revealing that those people have little faith in the competency of their own relative to foster a healthy family relationship, with a spouse of a different religion.

Before moving on to other contentions, it is necessary to note marriage is not always established to create a family-rearing unit, and may be fostered for personal satisfaction.

In such cases, differing religious affiliations is not typically a cause for concern (even though it should never be).

Returning to Jewish values, traditions and identification:

Having established how Judaism can be realised through self-identification, as opposed to adhering to Orthodox laws, then an individual identifying him or herself with the history, culture and future of the Jewish people, is as much a Jew as the gentleman on his knees in the synagogue on Yom Kippur, sporting tefillin, tzitzit and a black hat.

Such an identification can be passed down to future generations, with or without the diversity of another religious background.

And there is also no reason to suggest someone cannot identify with two or more religious cultures – an ethnic mosaic which holds the potential to provide a richer line of family history.

If a person feels his or her religion is an important aspect of his or her lifestyle, have faith that individual will incorporate the religious values they see fit to lead a fulfilled life, regardless if he or she chooses to marry a Jew.

Religious heritage and identification does not need to go by the wayside just because a relationship involves two people of different backgrounds.

Take in to consideration those who aren’t as concerned with their religious affiliation, too.

While it may be distressing at first for those who believe religious affiliation to be an imperative part of life, every individual has the right to choose whether he or she takes on certain values and beliefs passed down by parents.

Individuals with a more secular view of society, something Dershowitz encourages, should not be demonised by the community, let alone his or her own family, just for holding such a view.

CNN (Cable News Network) broadcast a report called ‘Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers’ which aired in March, 2015.

In this feature, David Gormley, who was raised Christian by his two faithful parents but chose a life without god, was interviewed, along with his parents.

John and Dianne, David’s parents, desired for their children to grow up as “godly men”. John said they did not raise David as well as they should have.

“To see your own flesh and blood pursuing a life of rebellion against god; it is a constant burden to our hearts,” John says.

David was alienated from his family for holding a different outlook to his parents.

Had his parents been brought up in a non-theistic environment as opposed to a Christian one, David would not have suffered the same unfortunate fate.

The relationship between his parents is, according to his father, “tempered and bittersweet, because the reality is, you’re talking to a dead person.”

“It’s not a matter of me seeing it that way,” John continues, “it’s a matter of what scripture objectively declares.”

This hurts David deeply, a son who wishes to be accepted for who he is and what he believes.

“I would never say that they’re dead people just because they believe in something I don’t. I wouldn’t condemn them for it,” David explains.

“As loving parents of a loving son, on some level they should be accepting of [me].”

“They’ll always harbour some sort of regret or anger towards me… and that… hurts,” he ends.

Parents, grandparents, siblings, other relatives and friends – do not fall into this heartbreaking hole if your child, grandchild, sibling, family member or friend decides to pursue a lifestyle choice different to the one you may have envisaged.

If religion can create such disharmony and division because of differing viewpoints and the possible formation of inter-faith relationships, where religious association is not even necessarily given up, this is a not a force for good.

Religion should be about unity and the acceptance of others. And at what point did religion begin to outweigh family?

In 2006, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, defended secularism when he spoke in Tokyo:

“Secularism does not mean rejection of all religions, it means respect for all religions and human beings, including non-believers. I am talking to you not as a Tibetan or a Buddhist, but as a human being having a friendly discussion and sharing my experiences on the benefits of cultivating basic human values.”

Cultivating secular morals and ethics, something which has nothing to do with religion, benefits all humans, he expressed.

“Love and compassion attracts, hatred and anger repels… Peace does not mean absence of conflicts. Differences will always be there. Peace means solving these differences through peaceful means; through dialogue, education, knowledge; through humane ways.”

Terry Sanderson, the vice president of the National Secular Society, said: “the Dalai Lama is sensible to say that a universal ethic is better than one based on religion. Secularism asks us to keep our religion to ourselves, which enables us as human beings to share what unites us rather than what divides us.”

Herein lies a key message – keep your religious beliefs private, surely expressing why they are meaningful to you, but not inflicting them upon others.

It’s heart-warming to hear Rabbi Kennard allows people, at the very least, a right to pursue a relationship with a member of another faith:

“Of course, a child has every right to say that Jewish life, values and continuity are not important to them, and go ahead and marry whomever they want,” he says.

While the desire to throw all Jewish heritage out the window when pursuing a loving partnership with someone of another religion is not typically the intention, Kennard does acknowledge the individual’s entitlement to choose his or her own partner.

To force someone to marry solely within their own religion takes away that person’s right.

If you reluctantly allow the union, but display abrasiveness, condemnation and disappointment towards the partner of a differing faith and your family member very much in love with his or her partner, this is not only a morally reprehensible position, but a stance out of touch with reality.

And in essence, displaying such behaviour is placing a burden on the person’s freedom, regardless.

The mindset of strictly keeping to your own group, and others keeping to theirs, is selfish, and serves to create inequality and tension.

Again, religion from a historical and cultural point of view can still be taught, and if taught correctly, there is no reason to suggest the perpetuation of the religion, in this form, cannot continue.

That tradition and heritage ‘may’ weaken is not an ethical defence to disapprove of, or treat differently, an interfaith bond.

A recent cover story published on the Christian Science Monitor, titled ‘Interfaith America: Being both is a rising trend in the US’ (Stephanie Hanes, 2014), explains how marriages involving mixed-faith partners have spiked to 40 per cent, up from 20 per cent in 1960, and how children are benefitting from being exposed to a diversity of religious backgrounds.

Not only have interfaith marriages risen, but the maintenance of both faiths within the relationship and raising children with two differing cultures have also increased.

Schools have jumped on board with interfaith family education about Catholicism and Judaism, delivering a message of tolerance and respect, and that “it is possible, even advantageous, to raise a family that was actively [involved with] two religions,” writes Hanes.

According to the article, learning about the different faiths and the diverse histories and cultures helps to give children an appreciation and enrichment of their backgrounds.

This leads directly to the contention about concerns family members may hold about the overwhelming confusion future children could face when raised in a household with parents of competing religions.

The article suggested children are more likely to be thinking about their own religious views because they are being presented with multiple, and sometimes conflicting views; a better understanding and tolerant mindset for future generations.

This only has the potential to be beneficial, especially when we have conservative opinions implying it is unacceptable to stray from your faith, or to hold any views that may go against the family’s faith.

Unfortunately, while religion can help to promote family strength and unity, it largely only does so when the family unit remains on the same page. As soon as someone deviates from that page, he or she can be rejected and even disowned.

So with these interfaith upbringings, the article is suggesting families are likely to be more tolerant of others, flexible and holding less dogmatic concerns regarding what members of the family choose to believe.

It seems environments of an interfaith upbringing which promote a healthy exposure to flexible concepts and ideas, maintain a case for children not straying too far in to fundamentalism, while demonstrating an appreciation for their religions.

While sustaining an intimate union between a born-again Christian and a Hasidic Jew may be difficult (although there are cases of such families co-existing), such situations are few and far between.

It appears the majority of unions between couples of contrasting religions, involve those more open to differing views, creating environments where children are more open to question their own beliefs.

In today’s society, exposure to diversity is far more common than in previous times, especially with the advent of the Internet, and this is positive. 

Susan Katz Miller, a member of the Interfaith Families Project (IFP) which takes place in one of the newly established interfaith schools in Greater Washington, D.C., explains as more people immigrate and travel, “whether we’re Muslim, Jewish, Hindu – we go to the same public schools, we go to the same universities, we’re in the same workplaces, and we fall in love and get married.”

Specifically discussing Jewish institutions, she explains how such establishments have the following choice: they can “continue to exclude families who are teaching children about [multiple] religions…” or agree “to engage with them and provide access to Jewish thinking and Jewish practice, and understanding that those children will make their own choices about religious identity.”

Exposure to varied faiths gives people a choice as to whether they wish to pursue one particular religion, or be inclined to take a non-theistic viewpoint.

As alluded to above, secular morality is a very important aspect for any upbringing, so individuals are raised in environments without a fundamentalist dogma overriding anyone’s particular beliefs, and where questioning not only religious views, but not being subjected to any specific dispositions, is encouraged.

Still referencing the ‘Interfaith America’ article, it states at the beginning of the 20th century, one in 10 marriages were interfaith, and now most marriages are likely to be interfaith.

This suggests people aren’t as concerned as they were before about the religious affiliation of the partner they choose to marry, and are likely to be less inclined to take a dogmatic approach to religion.

While previously, interfaith marriages were seen as taboo, causing civil unrest and clashes between families, growing trends see societies slowly shifting, where such unions are not disconcerting.

Again, this has the potential to generate mutual respect and understanding, and harmony between people.

Journalist Naomi Schaeffer Riley, in her ‘Interfaith Unions: A Mixed Blessing’ article (New York Times, 2013), references political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell, and their book ‘American Grace’.

In their book, the two scientists from the University of Notre Dame explained; the more Americans became acquainted with people from faiths distinct to their own, the more they liked those people and the more their views of other religions were enhanced.

Riley’s own study, which she commissioned in 2010 of 2500 people (including an oversample of mixed-religion couples), also showed similar results, and are available to read in her book, ‘Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage is Transforming America.’

“Marrying someone of another faith tended to improve one’s view of that faith,” she explains, adding the researchers also found communication and unity with someone of another religious background helped to foster affable and amicable feelings (and suggesting bonds through extended families were also likely to have the same effect).

Finally, regardless if interfaith relationships do or do not provide a weakened or watered-down version of each of the couple’s religion, what is most important is the love and commitment of the partnership – it is this which has the largest bearing on how successful the union will be, and how strong the environment will be for raising children.

In fact, the softening of particular religious teachings among interfaith couples is a small price to pay for a more accommodating approach to people’s diverse belief systems.

There is little evidence suggesting children of interfaith couples are at a greater risk of an unstable upbringing.

It seems the argument for the health of future children, grandchildren and great grandchildren is based on ignorant assumptions which have no bearing on reality, and is an excuse that underscores the desire to prevent the individual’s relationship and joy at any cost – a morally unjustifiable stance.

“We discussed the question of how we would raise our children many times before we got married, and we said we would do what feels right for us both, and try to respect one another. One thing we want our one-year-old to learn and practice is tolerance for his fellow human beings, regardless of their background. Just as I don’t want our child to be judged in his life by his background, I don’t want him judging others. So he will always know that he comes from two different backgrounds, but what unites our families are values that brought Charles and me together… Don’t try to please everyone around you instead of doing what is right for you. It is possible to find a happy medium where the best of both worlds can be celebrated and respected.”

 A personal account by Lana.

Part 4: What Other Reasonings Could You Have for Opposing Interfaith Unions?:

In any mutual and respecting relationship, a degree of compromise is necessary.

Damona Hoffman, a dating and relationships expert and the host of a weekly radio show called ‘Dates and Mates’ wrote an article titled ‘Why You Need to Think Twice About Interfaith Marriage’ (2013), and explains how most people have the ability to establish intimate relationships for love.

“While you should be respectful of your family and your future, if you’ve exercised your right to choose a spouse, you should make your boundaries with family clear. What happens behind closed sanctuary doors is not their business,” she writes.

Also significant, but not surprising in the article, was her reference to Myanmar’s (Burma’s) 2014 proposed law to ban Buddhist women marrying men of any other faith, “in order to preserve nationality and religion.”

The legislation, she explains, stemmed from “a deadly and divisive” movement launched by Ashin Wirathu (the ‘969 campaign’ – a movement opposed to Muslim expansion in the predominantly-Buddhist Myanmar).

The Buddhist-extremist movement led to anti-Muslim violence and resulted in the deaths of more than 200 people, displacing approximately 15,000 from their homes.

Hoffman concludes that “with so much segregation and conflict in the world surrounding faith, it seems we may never understand one another until we start letting love do the talking.”

Burmese women put forward a strong opposition to the legislation, with one Muslim woman’s plea ringing true:

“Love and marriage is a social issue… it shouldn’t be dictated by religion,” she said (anonymity was requested in the article her quote appeared in: ‘Myanmar women object to proposed restrictions on interfaith marriage’, by Cherry Thein, 2014).

Married to a Hindu man for 25 years, the couple have three children, with unnecessary pressure from both sides of the family.

“I don’t want to restrict my children’s religion. It is their choice,” she said.

“Now that they are young, we share our faiths with them now, but they can decide for themselves when they are older.”

Do you comply with any of the following lines of reasoning expressed to prevent a Jewish individual from intermarrying?

If you do, here are rational justifications as to why such opinions remain unstable, unethical, harmful to the person in a relationship with someone of a differing faith, harmful to the partner, and destructive to the family unit:

1. The Holocaust argument:

Due to family who perished during the prejudicial and anti-Semitic events of World War Two under Adolf Hitler’s reign, it is necessary to honour those individuals who lost their lives, simply because they were Jewish, by dating and marrying within Judaism. Marrying outside of the Jewish faith shows a lack of respect towards the Jews who were murdered because of their religion.

An extreme argument, but essentially equivalent to the ‘lack of respect’ and ‘responsibility’ temperament: Hitler’s goal was to eliminate the Jewish people, and so when you marry outside the faith, you are continuing his work.

If you draw a parallel between Hitler and marrying outside the faith, is it not fair to also draw a parallel between the imposition of religious views on children?

Hitler practiced religious intolerance. Seeing a person with a different faith or heritage to you as an outsider and an unequal also paves the way for religious intolerance.

Jews were treated mercilessly because of their religion, but those opposed to interfaith relationships are also treating members of conflicting religious backgrounds carelessly – a form of bigotry.

Jewish journalist and author Sarah Wildman spoke about, in a piece titled ‘When Anti-Semitism Is Abused: Disagreeing With Israel Doesn’t Make One A Bigot’ (2012), how Haredi Jews dress their kids in striped pyjamas, placing a yellow star with the word ‘Jude’ on their chests, parading them around Jerusalem as a means of protesting secularism.

The secular world is attempting to promote: equal opportunity for all; the freedom to practice one’s own religion; freedom from persecution; the right of every person to choose their own beliefs so long as they are not harmful; and that to impose your views on others is indecent – a framework to society that can be neatly surmised as an encompassing and estimable moral code that influences individual choice.

The Haredi Jews’ actions are of a far greater concern than for a secular Jew to pursue a relationship with a member of another faith, especially when that Jew has every intention of teaching strong morals, tolerance and the brutal history of the Holocaust.

2. Your relationship and marriage is doomed to fail:

The failed marriage statistics of interfaith relationships suggests there is a much higher chance the marriage will end in divorce, due to fundamental opposing beliefs. Thus, do not even consider marrying outside your own faith.

Claims marriages between people of the same faith are more successful than marriages between people of different religious backgrounds are relatively unsubstantiated.

Additionally, all arguments for and against more and less successful marriages should be taken with a grain of salt; there are many other factors aside from religious beliefs which may contribute to a couple’s divorce.

Finally, and certainly most importantly, to even suggest a marriage is likely to not succeed from the beginning of a devoted relationship is insolent, slanderous and a personal attack.

Statistics mean nothing to the individual. Who are we to end a relationship based on speculation it may not work?

An anonymous contributor to freelance writer Meredith Bodgas’ personal blog (MeritalBliss.com) writes the most defamatory comment someone ever said to her about her inter-religion marriage was that it would fail.

This detestable comment came from a Pastor who also questioned her parent’s long-term inter-religion marriage, and had the nerve to suggest her upbringing was stifled because her parents were from different religious backgrounds, and so too would her children’s upbringing be crippled.

In 1999, the Barna Research Group released a study which involved 3854 adults from the 48 contiguous states in the U.S, and it revealed the following:

• Divorce rates among born-again Christian couples were approximately 27 per cent (higher than all other Christian denominations).
• Divorce rates among Jewish couples were approximately 30 per cent.
• Those who defined themselves as atheists and agnostics held the lowest divorce rate of all groups, at 21 per cent.

A study by Evelyn Lehrer of the University of Illinois Chicago (1993) found the following data relating to marriages which had lasted five years:

• Approximately 20 per cent of unions between mainstream Christian denominations ended in divorce.
• Approximately 33 per cent of unions between a Catholic and an Evangelical Christian ended in divorce.
• Approximately 40 per cent of marriages between a Jew and a Christian ended in divorce.

These divorce rate statistics suggest high numbers for both intra and interfaith unions.

A 2009 study (University of Texas Austin) found other religious reasons for the divorce of couples of matching and unmatching faith denominations included: a husband frequenting religious services more often than his wife, and a wife more conservative than her husband.

Individuals with dogmatic religious beliefs will often find their views at odds with someone of another faith. In accordance with each of the above referenced studies, this is also applicable to fundamental and orthodox couples within intra-faith unions.

“The key is to talk about your values.
A lot of [the] time we mix up the words values and beliefs…
When you get couples talking about values they find out they share a tremendous amount,
even if they don’t share beliefs.”
Dale McGowan, author of ‘In Faith and In Doubt’.

When a belief is bound by faith, it becomes dearly difficult to argue against, while views based on experimentation and observational research are adaptable to change.

For non-theists, agnostics and those with lesser or no religious beliefs, you can assume, even without the aid of studies, that the religion factor will not hinder a marriage, thus allowing for a greater rate of successful unions.

Unfortunately, we live in a time where approximately 40-50 per cent of marriages end in divorce, anyway (the Americans for Divorce Reform).

Religious viewpoints, regardless whether they differ within a same or contrasting faith union, don’t appear to be aiding in the reform of divorce rates.

3. Conversion will make everything OK:

If the partner opts to convert, this should relieve some tension.

This is a hypocritical perspective.

Why is it your religion the other partner should convert to?

Not only does the conversion approach imply both partners must feel the same way about religion in order for the marriage to work, it also implies one religion holds more merit over the other.

Far more important is the couple maintaining allied values and morals, such as doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and not imposing your views on someone else – the former moral, one which does not need religious foundations to be realised, and the latter moral, one which religion seems to have missed altogether.

This chauvinistic rationale, where people believe their religion to be superior to another’s, should fall on deaf ears.

What if the partner’s family wanted your family member to convert? How would that make you feel? Would you allow it?

Leave it up to the couple to decide for themselves if they do or do not wish to convert to one or the other’s faith.

If you think an interfaith union is wrong due to certain beliefs conflicting with one another, ask yourself: why do you believe what you believe?

If you come to an answer of; because that is how I was brought up, then it is worthwhile engaging in some self-reflection.

4. The pro-Israel line of reasoning:

What is the non-Jewish person’s feeling towards the state of Israel? Are they pro-Israel? If they are not pro-Israel, he or she is a covert anti-Semite.

It is not uncommon for a couple to hold contrasting political views and remain respectful and tolerant of each other.

I overheard a discussion between a middle-aged Jewish woman and a friend. They chatted about a man who had proposed the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories must cease for peace to be realised. 

“It’s people like him who fuel the anti-Semitic fire,” one woman said.

It is important to understand why this mindset is not credible.

We can and must distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitic views.

Sarah Wildman, in her piece referenced earlier, clarifies how we cannot call critical examinations of Israeli government actions and policies anti-Semitic.

“We should know by now that supporting the State of Israel does not mean uncritical support by all, that Jewish identity is not always under attack when a government of Israel faces criticism,” she states.

“Love for the Jewish state does not, by definition, mean a love for all things the state undertakes. For some that may mean fighting the segregation of women in Beit Shemesh; for others that means pushing for Israel to get out of the territories… We can call it policy disagreement.”

Doctor Qanta Ahmed, a New York physician, author and academic, and a devout Muslim, is a leading voice among the Muslim community, providing a clear perspective on the dangers, brutality and corruption of Islamism (Islamist extremism).

She also speaks up for Israel, and the required alliance and affiliation of Muslims and Jews, and Israelis and others living in the West Bank.

In an article published in the Australian Jewish News (‘A Muslim Voice for Israel,’ 2014), she said “the public believes that Jews and Muslims are always supposed to be warring and can never collaborate. That’s the kind of narrative that serves Islamism.”

Interfaith bonding is paramount, and supplementary to that, when discussing interfaith intimate relationships, a couple can disagree on certain issues without it being detrimental to the relationship; in fact, robust debate is often what makes unions stronger.

I challenged the middle-aged woman, as she sought anonymity.

“Five years in to the marriage,” she said, “if things aren’t traveling smoothly, the non-Jew could resort to anti-Semitic slurs… and this demonstrates a hatred towards the Jews. The suppressed feelings, which were always present, are brought to the front.”

I explained.

Just like if an interracial couple were at each other’s throats, and one person resorted to calling the other a ‘nigger’, so too could an impassioned inter-religious couple stoop to calling one person a ‘fucking Jew’, a ‘stupid Christian’ or an ‘Islamic monkey’.

These are easy personal attacks anyone can make.

If someone wants to peddle offensive name-calling and patronise, there’s little stopping them from doing so.

People can be cruel. You can be called fat, ugly, a dirty Indian, an obnoxious Australian and an ignorant American.

Chalk this one down to the fact humans can and will often act aggressively and antagonistically in moments of fervent feuds.

Sure; if deep-seated antipathies are held by a person and/or family – like all Jews being evil – you’d be wise not to pursue a relationship with those people, just as you wouldn’t preserve a companionship with someone conforming with the core principles of Nazism, or someone wishing for the annihilation of all Muslims. 

5. Ceremonies and children-rearing:

Confusion and spiteful debate will surround possible conflicting ways an interfaith couple chooses to nurture their children. And how will the couple consummate their own marriage? What schools will they send their children to? Does the son have a bris? Does the child have a baptism?

Firstly, future-based questions like these belittle the competence of the interfaith couple to foster a loving and stable relationship and family on their own.

But let’s address the questions, nevertheless.

There are ample officials who will facilitate an interfaith wedding ceremony, whether it be religious or civil, and at many appropriate locations, too.

Celebrants conducting civil ceremonies can be found across Australia, while there are also accommodating and progressive priests and rabbis who will officiate at inter-religious marriages.

Naomi Schaefer Riley, in her book mentioned above (‘Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage is Transforming America’), writes about a wedding which involved the following:

• Two New Testament readings;
• The breaking of a glass cup (this commemorates the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem);
• A Jewish marriage contract reading;
• And an Apache wedding prayer.

As suggested earlier by Reverend Walter H. Cuenin, marriage ceremonies and children-rearing decisions are secondary to the committed union.

The bond between a couple will help to foster a strong environment for any children they have, and we should remain confident the couple will be able to come to mutual understandings on how they choose to raise their children.

Speaking on the topic of children being reared within a marriage involving diverse religious backgrounds, social worker and therapist Susan Needles explained how “children can handle ambivalence [and] can handle complexity, [and that] it’s only adults who want it tied up in a neat package. Children are going to tear open the package anyway,” (‘7 Myths About Raising Interfaith Kids,’ 2013).

Susan Katz Miller wrote the ‘7 Myths About Raising Interfaith Kids’ article, and notes in a poll she conducted for her book ‘Being Both: Embracing Two Religions in One Interfaith Family,’ that 90 per cent of the teenagers she surveyed “were not confused by learning both Judaism and Christianity.”

Miller references an anonymous woman who was raised by parents from different religions:

“I don’t think that learning more is ever confusing. Or rather, I think that questioning and perhaps being confused (or knowing that there are options) is never a bad thing,” the young woman writes.

Rabbi Nehama Benmosche, who, like Miller, works for the Interfaith Families Project, said “kids can handle a multiplicity of identities.”

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the following:

“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”

In Israel however, this most basic human right is not recognised.

Journalist Tania de Ildefonso Ocampos, who specialises in the Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli history and politics, explains how Israeli matrimonial law is based on religious law (the Millet or confessional community system employed in the Ottoman Empire).

“Israeli citizens can only marry spouses of the same religion and only by their own recognised religious authority… Interfaith and non-religious marriages are not allowed in Israel,” she writes in an article titled ‘Let’s get married! But not in Israel’ (2013).

For Jewish citizens of Israel, only Orthodox rabbis can officiate at their weddings, and both spouses must be recognised as Jewish according to Orthodox law.

“Ironically, only 20 percent of the Jewish population defines itself as Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox. The 80 percent left of Jewish Israeli citizens are secular,” notes de Ildefonso Ocampos.

de Ildefonso Ocampos cites a study released by Hiddush: Freedom of Religion for Israel (an organisation which promotes religious equality), which found Israel to be the only Western democracy in the world to score a “grade zero” on freedom of marriage.

In the same article, Shelly Yachimovich of Israel’s Labour Party is quoted explaining that Israel is a “Western and modern state, and the choice between getting married according to Jewish law and civil marriage is a basic and necessary choice in a democracy.”

Is it time Israel progressed from a seemingly out-of-date policy?

The two scientists referenced earlier, Putnam and Campbell, showed in their book ‘American Grace,’ that interfaith relationships in 1950 were roughly 20 per cent, and today, across America, the number is roughly 45 per cent (in line with the ‘Interfaith America: Being both is a rising trend in the US’ article).

Those 45 per cent of mixed faith relationships involved either two diverse religions or two Christian doctrines at odds with one another, and many were models of tolerance and creativity.

6. Do you want to cause a family rift?:

Pursuing an interfaith relationship will create unnecessary rifts between the family unit, tension and untoward feelings and behaviour, especially directed at the person outside the faith. Seek a partner from your religion to bypass discordance and dissolution.

Here, it is being suggested to avoid interfaith unions, so dogmatic views of the family are not disturbed; refrain from developing rapports with certain individuals, when you see nothing inherently wrong with such relationships, to appease the family’s views.

This is a self-absorbed position from those trying to stop a couple’s prosperity, pleasure and bond.

Again, the individual, and his or her partner, desire to maintain strong ties with the family. But relatives, so long as the individual remains in an intimate inter-religious union, see nothing else but family divisions and lacerations. A shift in reception is surely and sorely needed.

Commanding a family member to marry only within the religion is not solely an imposition, but it also has the potential for the outside world to lose respect for the Jewish community, seeing Judaism as a type of elitist club which only allows Jews, and excludes other religions.

“Yes, you may suffer some abuse and criticism by your ignorant neighbours,
but it’s about changing social paradigms and ideas,
and allowing people to become more accepting of a variety of choices.”

Matt Dillahunty, former president of the Atheist Community of Austin.

Part 5: Turning Love in to Futile Fights, and Asking Questions:

What lies at the heart of issues surrounding intermarriages, a reality which shouldn’t even present itself as a predicament, are the encroachments on a person’s rights to practice his or her own beliefs, and hostile reactions to such unions which generate fractured and crippled family and community ties; results born solely from religion.

People will suffer isolation and a loss of respect within their own family units simply because they have fostered a kinship with someone not sharing the same religious background.

Members of families who lay the foundation for broken bonds of affection, you hope, are not inherently disposed to respect a person less, or feel ashamed of that family member.

These are people with a specific ideology, passed down from previous generations, that causes them to feel pained to see another family member bond with someone outside their faith, and in many cases, accounts for the excommunication from the family entirely, for that individual.

The religious view to marry only within the community manages to sabotage loving interfaith experiences, exhausting the energy which should instead be used to celebrate an individual’s monumental and joyous kinship.

This is a serious thorn in religion’s foot.

While it may at first be emotionally distressing to see a family member connect with an individual of another faith, remember what is most important – to see your relative live a healthy and happy life, regardless of how strongly they feel about religion, or any other ideology.

Life is too short to get caught up in futile falling-outs.

Consider the world’s animosities and wars that tear apart families.

Then consider what is most important in times like these – family and friends.

Clinging to certain values dictated by religion, such as marrying within, is unnecessary – it is the desire to survive and the need to keep those you love safest that overpowers all other considerations.

And if you love someone, you should be willing to do anything and everything to keep that person safe.

Do not sacrifice a family member’s relationship based purely on the fact the person you are severing ties with, is in a committed relationship with someone who, by an accident of birth, has a different religious name tag attached to his or her back.

While it might go against your beliefs, what about theirs? Do they not carry any weight?

Just like the individual in the interfaith bond is not infringing on your aspiration to seek a same-faith partner and marry within, nor should you infringe on his or her right to forge an affectionate affinity with someone of a contrasting faith, and marry outside.

There is no umbrage taken on his or her part by the fact you hold certain views different to his or hers. But do you unashamedly take offense to the fact he or she doesn’t necessarily share those same values?

Don’t be blinded by such hypocrisy.

To separate yourself from the partner and your own flesh and blood would be shameful, and childish behaviour which rots at the core values of mutual respect and care for loved ones.

Without sharing the same Jewish values as you, or subscribing to your way of life, an individual can be bound to a life of strained and broken relationships, inflicted upon by the very people he or she shares or shared a home with.

Shocking, to say the least.

Finding gratification and grace in the maturing of the evolution process over billions of years, a 27-year old claimed losing his religion was a moment of self-discovery, and a humbling and striking experience.

While he no longer recognised religious beliefs, he began associating with ideas of creating your own meaning to life. He found a non-Jewish girlfriend with whom he shared moments of joy and wonder.

But for his committed Jewish mother, this caused her dismay and distress, so much so she refused to welcome her son back into her own home.

For the next 12 years before she passed, she spoke only twice to her son.

Rabbi James Kennard explained the prevailing issue that colours everything is; “how important is incorporating Jewish values and practices in to one’s home and family, and how important is Jewish continuity.”

That is not the dominant matter of contention, however. The overriding issue is the bond between families.

Needless to say, there is not one definitive, elite and noblest method to live life, and more specifically, to foster a relationship.

Every individual has the choice to pursue his or her relationship, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or gender, without being subjugated to intolerance and a lack of respect.

Furthermore, these bonds should be recognised with affection and affability, as opposed to animosity and antipathy.

Recall the fact most people are not disposed to break family relationships.

But a dogma which becomes so attached to one’s identity, and so ingrained in one’s mind, does hold the potential to generate harmful emotions against loving relationships.

One hopes, that anyone and everyone with such an ethos is open to some meaningful malleability, so such hostile reactions can turn in to accommodating responses.

Unfortunately, a myriad of realities exist where family fallouts from inter-religious unions hold disastrous and detrimental ramifications, where commonly conservative families dissociate themselves from a relative or relatives who’s individual freedoms have been undermined.

Consider your feelings if the person you castigated – brother, sister, son, daughter, grandchild, cousin – for forming an interfaith tie, broke off his or her relationship with his or her partner.

Relief that the relationship ended so he or she could now pursue a bond with someone of the same faith is not a conventional reaction; it is a distasteful and abhorrent reaction.

Also, consider the stress which may very well have befallen the other-faith partner, for seemingly tearing family ties, when all he or she feels is love and compassion.

Individual beliefs will always differ – that should be no reason to put strain on a family relationship built up over many years.

In no way should it ever lead to the ostracisation of the child from the family, where relatives do not desire to communicate with the heretical individual again.

Thankfully, Rabbi Kennard agrees interfaith marriages can be loving and happy.

But when asked: “is not the strength and sustenance of a family unit more important than religious values?” his answer was puzzling:

“Opponents of intermarriage probably wouldn’t recognise the question, since they would argue [the following]: a family unit has more strength and sustenance when Jewish values are at its core; and even if one were forced to choose between one [or] the other, then religious values, representing the way god wants us to live, and the way which is most purposeful and meaningful, actually are more important than anything else.”

If you hold this viewpoint, where core Jewish values must be present to sustain the best family environment, and/or that your personal god prefers you to live a way which can take precedence over family integrity, then reasoning with you may be unachievable, and that’s a shame.

Rabbi Kennard goes on to explain that, within the Jewish community, perhaps the reason why there is less concern about whom one marries, is because “educators have only succeeded in presenting Judaism to many young people as a few customs, probably meaningless, and largely inconvenient.”

“Our task”, he continues, “is to show that Judaism is beautiful, meaningful, enjoyable and, in some sense, true.”

“With that realisation, I suggest arguments along the lines of ‘what’s wrong with intermarriage?’ and ‘what’s more important than love?’ would fall away.”

“Clearly, we the educators need to work harder,” he ends.

Educators have had thousands of years to teach the values of Judaism and religion.

Those suggesting they have failed to do so because questions such as ‘what is wrong with intermarriage?’ and ‘what’s more important than love?’ are still arising, may suggest the following:

They have a lack of confidence in themselves, but more worrying; they desire to put the values and teachings of Judaism above anything else, so questions such as those described above “fall away,” and thus Judaism is the pillar to influence everything else pursued in life, which can be restrictive and unfairly prejudiced.

Highly-regarded individuals such as Rabbi Kennard are extremely intelligent and continue to manage to get across messages of the importance of religion in today’s society.

If you read Alain de Botton’s ‘Religion for Atheists,’ you’ll find his calls to action suggest there are many aspects of religion, including art, community, friendship, work and life, which can and should have practical use in modern-day secular society.

Perhaps not views on intermarriage, though.

Furthermore, many people who have been educated to appreciate the values of religion, have also been able to break out of its restrictive bubble to see not all walks of life need be guided solely by religion, appreciating social, cultural and moral aspects of living, those of which may be skewed and sheltered by religious teachings.

And if it is reasonable to suggest that due to religious educators failing, individuals previously influenced by specific religious teachings are now beginning to sustain more open views as to how they can live, the next question that arises is: why have these educators failed?

If the educators have revealed themselves to be overwhelmingly concerned with religion advising all aspects of life, then maybe it is a good thing they have failed, to an extent?

Western society is now engaged in a far more secular age than ever before – an irrefutable claim when compared to the 20th century.

Its causes are less agreed upon, and can be attributed to different factors, such as the rise in scientific knowledge, liberalism and globalisation.

But also, as philosopher Charles Taylor cites in his book ‘A Secular Age,’ “deism is the major intermediate step between the previous age of belief in god and the modern secular age,” and that a shift to a deistic perspective can be traced back to the Middle Ages.

Hitchens contends that doing the opposite – moving from a deistic disposition to a theistic temperament – requires significant work.

Deism is a rejection of religion as a means of authority, with the view that reason and observation is enough to confirm intelligent design/a creator was involved in the organisation of the cosmos, while that designer remained impartial to human affairs.

Theism, as explained by Hitchens, requires you to agree “god cares about you, knows who you are, minds what you do, answers your prayers, cares which bits of your penis and clitoris you saw away or have sawn away for you, minds who you go to bed with and in what way, minds what holy days you observe [and] minds what you eat.”

And he argues this attitude is dangerous and damaging.

“It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority… who must indeed subject you to a total surveillance, every waking and sleeping minute of your life… and after your death – a celestial North Korea,” Hitchens contends.

Rabbi Kennard seems to be suggesting the ‘what is wrong with intermarriage’ rationale can be made redundant and not worthy of consideration with sharpened teachings of Judaism.

This is not desirable and discourages questioning and free-thinking.

It is true that questions such as ‘what is inherently wrong with intermarriages?’ would most likely not arise within Orthodox families involved and engaged with core Jewish laws.

Children of such families are likely to hold axiomatic religious beliefs.

While there is no reason to suggest they too wouldn’t foster devoted and lasting relationships with another of the same faith, and loving families, are these children and families missing out on integral questions and considerations worth asking, as opposed to humbly accepting tradition?

By solely marrying within, can this perpetuate practices of keeping within your in-group and hinder a more accepting outlook towards members of other faiths?

For those who think a child, grandchild or other family member who chooses to pursue a relationship with an individual of another faith is paving the way for a decaying family unit, consider the millions of people who convert to other religions.

Sure, Judaism opens its arms (in the most part) to those interested in converting, as do most other religions (the more the merrier, right?).

But how about the family members of the individual wishing to convert?

Should they harbour feelings of anger, disgust and failure towards that person, because he or she was exercising his or her right to venture down the path of choice?

No.

That individual has the freedom to change religion, just as he or she has the freedom to pursue relationships of any kind, be it interfaith, interracial or international.

He or she also has the freedom to live where he or she prefers, eat what he or she desires, be intimate with whomever he or she aspires to be intimate with, and live according to the set of morals and standards he or she believes in, so long as those values are not predisposed to violence and physical harm.

If secularism society can see nothing inherently wrong with interfaith unions, and applies more emphasis on the love and mutual respect a couple has for each other than anything else, but a religious mindset sees such unions as destructive, that is a crystal triumph for secularism over religiosity.

It is time to give family members the appreciation they deserve to pursue their own loving companion, and to provide no reason for something as pure and emotional as a caring relationship to cause ostracism, a lack of communication and a reduction in family strength, love and respect.

“How can we hope to get across…
the damage that their [religious adherents] views cause,
when they think they’re actually being good,
and being motivated by good reasons…?
Nowhere, do we see good people…
people who really do love their kids,
and who really do want to live in good societies,
do needlessly stupid things that cause immense amounts of human misery, but for religion…
We have to call in to question the beliefs that motivate good people to do harmful things…
and we also have to talk about the consequences – the needless complications – that are occasioned by the beliefs.”

Sam Harris, neuroscientist, author and co-founder and chief executive of Project Reason.

Part 6: Mending and Building Bridges

With far more concerns about pursuing relationships outside of one’s own faith as opposed to within, and that doing so holds a shocking potential to create disharmony among a family unit, it only seems fair this feature article has had to vehemently argue there is nothing inherently wrong with such relationships.

If there were significant concerns about pursuing relationships inside of one’s own religion, it would be justifiable to argue there is nothing inherently wrong with these types of bonds.

Although, as mentioned briefly, it is worth considering the fact intrafaith unions do have a potential to sweep under the rug questions about religious flexibility and freedom to pursue one’s own beliefs, all-the-while maintaining in-group views of superiority, and a weakened tolerance stance towards members of other religions.

Each union faces its benefits and challenges, and such challenges can be overcome, while both unions can be complete with love and success.

Those arguing that marrying within their own religion is a necessity, consequently forcing their desires on others, have no moral ground to stand on.

To suggest someone only forge a relationship within their faith or be subject to broken family relationships of angst and stress, is a guilt imposition and a radically unethical stance.

There is no reason to defend this position – being forced to do something for someone’s else’s satisfaction; to appease someone else, or a group of people.

The rationale to be intimate and marry solely within the religion in order to perpetuate the faith; avoid confusion on the future children’s behalf; escape potential (but improbable) anti-Semitic views; ensure the union remains harmonious; and that bonding with someone of another religion will only serve to cause grief within the family unit, all have a cruel, undermining stipulation: to prevent the individual’s relationship and happiness at all costs.

And when an affectionate communion is inherently harmless and genuine, any preventative measures are intolerant.

If you impose a set of beliefs which you may take comfort in, on to someone else, you quickly lose all credibility.

Casting aside a family member and his or her partner, because of their desire to pursue happiness, displays a lack of morality.

Without commencing from this basic axiom, it becomes near impossible to reconcile your differing viewpoints.

When Adam, a Jew who’d attended Bialik College for 11 years, became involved with a non-Jewish partner and proposed to her three years later, the large majority of his conservative family, rather than displaying delight, was enraged.

The ceremony was reluctantly attended by his parents and grandparents.

Fast forward four years, and Adam and his wife remain happily married with two kids identifying with the histories and cultures of Judaism and Christianity.

Adam and his family have reconciled, with his relatives recognising his happiness and the love he and his wife display to their children is of such greater meaning than any religious belief.

While saddened it took years for his parents, grandparents and other relatives to acknowledge and respect his relationship, he now regular visits them, and each time is overcome with joy and affection.

Do not allow yourself to hold any ideological aversion to someone fostering an intimate bond with a person of a different faith, nationality, ethnicity or skin colour.

If you view friendships between people of different religious backgrounds as healthy and progressive, but then display disappointment and grief when a friendship turns intimate, your rationale becomes inchoate and immature.

An open exchange of ideas, tolerant workings with members of other religions and Melbourne’s Building Bridges program to assist in creating strong foundations for friendship, negotiation and compromise are all worthy practices among religious leaders, adherents and teachings.

But we should prepare to suffer resentment if any interfaith persons hold hands, kiss lips or engage in the most natural and enjoyable acts of life and love?

How dare we allow inter-religious love to break down barriers and create a path which leads to religious resolutions, respect and righteousness.

Diverse belief systems and disparate views on religion, ones which may not comply with your own, should never mean the fracturing of family relationships, and the generation of conflict and estrangement.

It’s a shame when external factors stand in the way of two or more people desiring to establish a healthy, devoted and committed relationship.

We live in a world made hostile by natural and manmade forces, orbiting and rotating in the vastness of space. We don’t know what tomorrow holds, and this is all too often lost upon us.

Harmony among our species is a reality we can understand, and a reality which serves to nurture our joint interests of being treated with dignity.

As the number of interfaith relationships markedly continue to rise, couples and families are breaking down dogmatic religious borders, reducing friction between dissimilar religious groups, and paving the way for reinforced rectitude and a better understanding of one another.

Never shy away from certain issues simply because those concerns have the potential to cause tension. Open discourse is imperative to maintain respect for each other.

“When we feel love and kindness toward others,
it not only makes others feel loved and cared for,
but it helps us also to develop inner happiness and peace.” 

Tenzin Gyatso (the current Dalai Lama).

References:

Americans for Divorce Reform, Divorce statistics collection: Summary of findings so far. Available at http://www.divorcereform.org/results.html

Apple, R. Matrilineality is Still Best for Jewish Identity (2009). Accessed from http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Matrilineality-is-still-best-for-Jewish-identity

Apple, R. Patrilinealism – Ask the Rabbi, citing Goldberg, D. from a 1982 article in London-based Jewish weekly newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle. Accessed from http://www.oztorah.com/2008/12/patrilinealism-ask-the-rabbi/

Aronson, J. & Sasson, T. & Saxe, L. Pew’s Portrait of American Jewry: A Reassessment of the Assimilation Narrative (2014). The Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis University

Association of Humanistic Rabbis, official intermarriage and conversion principles  (1974 & 1980). Accessed from http://www.humanisticrabbis.org/intermarriage/ and http://www.humanisticrabbis.org/conversion/

Bodgas, M. Six Things Not to Say to Interfaith Couples (2012), comment left by anonymous contributor. Available from http://meritalbliss.com/2012/01/6-things-not-to-say-to-interfaith-couples/

Campbell, D. & Putnam, R. American Grace: How Religion Divides and United Us (2012), Simon & Schuster

Complete Jewish Bible, Exodus 1:1, “These are the names of the sons of Isra’el who came into Egypt with Ya’akov; each man came with his household.” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%201:1

Complete Jewish Bible, Numbers 3:2, “The names of the sons of Aharon are: Nadav the firstborn, Avihu, El’azar and Itamar.” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+3%3A2&version=CJB

Complete Jewish Bible, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, “Don’t intermarry with them – don’t give your daughter to his son, and don’t take his daughter for your son. For he will turn your children away from following me in order to serve other gods. If this happens, the anger of Adonai will flare up against you, and he will quickly destroy you.” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+7%3A3-4&version=CJB

Complete Jewish Bible, Leviticus 24:10, “There was a man who was the son of a woman of Isra’el and an Egyptian father. He went out among the people of Isra’el, and this son of a woman of Isra’el had a fight in the camp with a man of Isra’el…” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+24%3A10&version=CJB

Complete Jewish Bible, Exodus 21: 2-6, “If you purchase a Hebrew slave, he is to work six years; but in the seventh, he is to be given his freedom without having to pay anything. If he came single, he is to leave single; if he was married when he came, his wife is to go with him when he leaves. But if his master gave him a wife, and she bore him sons or daughters, then the wife and her children will belong to her master, and he will leave by himself. Nevertheless, if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children, so I don’t want to go free,’ then his master is to bring him before God; and there at the door or doorpost, his master is to pierce his ear with an awl; and the man will be his slave for life.” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A+2-6&version=CJB

Complete Jewish Bible, Leviticus 21:17-21, “Tell Aharon, ‘None of your descendants who has a defect may approach to offer the bread of his God. No one with a defect may approach – no one blind, lame, with a mutilated face or a limb too long, a broken foot or a broken arm, a hunched back, stunted growth, a cataract in his eye, festering or running sores, or damaged testicles – no one descended from Aharon the cohen who has such a defect may approach to present the offerings for Adonai made by fire; he has a defect and is not to approach to offer the bread of his God.” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+21%3A17-21&version=CJB

Complete Jewish Bible, Leviticus 20:13, “If a man goes to bed with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they must be put to death; their blood is on them.” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=CJB

Complete Jewish Bible, Deuteronomy 22:20-21, “But if the charge is substantiated that evidence for the girl’s virginity could not be found; then they are to lead the girl to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her town will stone her to death, because she has committed in Isra’el the disgraceful act of being a prostitute while still in her father’s house. In this way you will put an end to such wickedness among you.” Available at https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A20-21&version=CJB

Copson, A. Quote available online in multiple articles: Elgot, J. Half of Brits say religion does more harm than good, and atheists can be just as moral (2014); Waugh, R. Most British people believe that religion does more harm than good (2014)

Cuenin, W. A Catholic Priest’s Perspective on Interfaith Marriage (2002). Accessed from http://www.interfaithfamily.com/life_cycle/weddings/A_Catholic_Priests_Perspective_on_Interfaith_Marriage.shtml

Dawkins, R. Speaking at his God Delusion book tour at Randolph College (2006), broadcasted by C-SPAN2

de Botton, A. Religion for Atheists (2012), Penguin Books

de Ildefonso Ocampos, T. Let’s get married! But not in Israel (2013), Aljazeera English News. Available at http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/20135218450744543.html

de Ildefonso Ocampos, T. Let’s get married! But not in Israel (2013), Aljazeera English News, referencing Hiddush study and quoting Yachimovich, S.

Dershowitz, A. The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity in the Next Century (1998) Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Dillahunty, M. The Atheist Experience (2006) Topic: Same Sex Marriages. Available to watch at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j__dVu6UPfs

Faigin, D. What is the Origin of Matrilineal Descent? Accessed from http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/10-11.html

Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot (FRCH), Platform on Reconstructionism (1986) from FRCH Newsletter, pages D & E

Gormley, D. in Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers (2015). Cable News Network

Gormley, J. in Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers (2015). Cable News Network

Gyatso, T. Lecture on A Good Heart – The key to Health and Happiness, quoted in National Secular Society article, Dalai Lama Says Secularism Is The True Route To Happiness (2006). Accessed from http://www.secularism.org.uk/dalailamasayssecularismisthetrue.html

Gyatso, T. Human Rights, Democracy and Freedom. Available at http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/human-rights-democracy-and-freedom

Hanes, S. Interfaith America: Being both is a rising trend in the US (2014), Christian Science Monitor. Accessed from http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2014/1123/Interfaith-America-Being-both-is-a-rising-trend-in-the-US

Harris, S. Ask Sam Harris Anything, Religious Realisation (2011)

Hitchens, C. Public debate against Hitchens, P. (2008), hosted at The Centre for Inquiry, Michigan, in partnership with The Hauenstein Centre for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University

Hoffman, D. Why You Need to Think Twice About Interfaith Marriage (2013), Huffington Post

Josephus, F. Antiquities of the Jews, (AD 93/94). Translated by historians  Feldman, L. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (1998); Freedman, D. The Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992 & 1997); Harris, S. Understanding the Bible (1985)

Karaite Korner website, available at http://www.karaite-korner.org/

Kennard, J. (09/02/2015) in a personal conversation, expressed the following views:

• Some parents want their offspring to marry within the Jewish religion because those parents believe a Jewish life is superior for their offspring, as opposed to a non-Jewish life.
• If Jewish life is given up, this may cause parents significant grief.
• The overriding issue, when discussing interfaith relations, is the importance of Jewish continuity, and including Jewish values and practices in one’s family.
• Those opposing interfaith unions would not recognise questions such as the following: ‘is not the strength and sustenance of a family unit more important than religious values?’ They would not recognise such a question because they would argue families are stronger at the core with Jewish values, and that religious values are more important than anything else (if forced to choose between family an religion).
• Educators may have failed to teach true values of Judaism, and this is why questions such as ‘what’s wrong with intermarriage?’ and ‘what’s more important than love?’ are still arising.

Kiddushin 65b, 68b (Consecrations: 4 chapters, 82 folios, 425 pages). Passages are available to read (omitted here due to length) at http://halakhah.com/

Kohn, P. A Muslim Voice for Israel (2014), The Australian Jewish News, quoting Doctor Ahmed, Q.

Lana (personal account), quote available in Sydney Morning Herald article (2011), Interracial Relationships: A Love Story

Hanes, S. Interfaith America: Being both is a rising trend in the US (2014), Christian Science Monitor, quoting Miller, S. Accessed from http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2014/1123/Interfaith-America-Being-both-is-a-rising-trend-in-the-US

Miller, S. 7 Myths About Raising Interfaith Kids (2013), Huffington Post. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-katz-miller/7-myths-about-raising-interfaith-kids_b_4177648.html

Miller, S. 7 Myths About Raising Interfaith Kids (2013), Huffington Post, quoting anonymous woman.

Miller, S. 7 Myths About Raising Interfaith Kids (2013), Huffington Post, quoting Benmosche, N.

Minchin, T. The Pope Song (2010)

Rich, T. Who is a Jew? Accessed from http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

Riley, N. Interfaith Unions: A Mixed Blessing (2013), New York Times, page A17.

Riley, N. Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage is Transforming America (2013), Oxford University Press

Robinson,  B. Divorce rates among mixed marriages: overview, marriage stability, some data (2002), available at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_divo.htm, citing the following studies and sources:

• Barna Research Group study, Christians are more likely to experience divorce than are non-Christians (1999). Report review at http://www.adherents.com/
• Riley, N. Interfaith marriages are rising fast, but they’re failing fast too (2010), Washington Post. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Sanderson, T. Quoted in National Secular Society article, Dalai Lama Says Secularism Is The True Route To Happiness (2006). Accessed from http://www.secularism.org.uk/dalailamasayssecularismisthetrue.html

Saxe, L. The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling! (2014). Accessed from http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/187165/pew-american-jewry-revisited

Shemtov, E. Dear Rabbi, Why Can’t I Marry Her? – A Dialogue On Intermarriage (2006) Feldheim Publishers

Taylor, C. A Secular Age (2007), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1st edition

Thein, C. Myanmar Women Object to Proposed Restrictions on Interfaith Marriage (2014), The Myanmar Times. Also published on Religion News Service website (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/18/myanmar-women-object-proposed-restrictions-interfaith-marriage/)

Universal Declaration of Humans Rights, Article 16.1, available from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Wildman, S. When Anti-Semitism Is Abused: Disagreeing With Israel Doesn’t Make One A Bigot (2012), The Jewish Daily Forward

Winston, K. In mixed faith marriages, focus is on values, not beliefs (2014), Religion News Service website, quoting McGowan, D. Available at http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/09/mixed-faith-marriages-focus-values-beliefs/

Notes:

*Halachic law is the totality of Jewish religious laws from the written and oral Torah, developed in Rabbinical literature. Available from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/252201/Halakhah).

By Darren Tendler

Get The AJN Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up