Among Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and people of no religion, the majority felt uncomfortable with the idea of a close relative marrying a Muslim. Among Christians, there was a significant minority.
A majority of Muslims were uncomfortable with the idea of a close relative marrying a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh person, or someone of no religion. Almost four in 10 Muslims were uncomfortable with a close relative marrying a Christian.
Not all that odd really. The colour of your skin is one of those genetic lottery things. What you believe about gender relations, civil liberty and all that is something more changeable. So, believe those things that clash as a result of the Sky Fairy and sure, people should be more interested.
So, the Christians turned out to be the ‘least racist’. Black armbands at the Guardian.
Our son married a Catholic. She is really rather sweet so we’ve refrained from burning her at the stake.
Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism are all ethno-nationalist religions, Christianity and Islam aren’t so it’s not surprising that Muslims have less prejudice against Christians in that both are universalist religions with the possibility of conversion.
They don’t seem to have asked Hindus, Sikhs and Jews what they think about Christians though; odd.
@ DocBud:
“She is really rather sweet so we’ve refrained from burning her at the stake.”
That’s how it starts….
Uncomfortable to intolerant are not synonyms. If you wish to measure tolerance the question to ask is – Would you tolerate your son, daughter marrying X faith.
Good point, Hallowed be. Uncomfortable has a wide range. With Muslims that 4 out of 10 could extend through total banishment from the community to a death sentence. Jews don’t tend to go that far, but hitching up with a yok or chiksa can find many Yids becoming non-persons if the family’s frum. Hindus get exercised enough about caste, let alone religion.
HB – yarp this doesn’t really tell us much.
“Uncomfortable” could span the range of “goes passive-aggressively cheap on the wedding gift” to “honour killings for Allah”.
It’s pretty normal to not want your offspring to marry the goyim/heathen/infidel, because if children are our legacy (and they are) our legacy is memetic as well as genetic. You don’t really want your daughter wearing a bin bag and worshipping devils.
See: the ruination of Shylock by the apostasy of his crossdressing daughter and her goy boy toy.
More Shakespeare for Sixth Formers:
BTW, because Shakespeare (the Earl of Oxford) was a brilliant man, he gave the baddie of The Merchant of Venice the best soliloquy
“Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?”
It’s better than Portia’s weather-based legal mummery, but Nota Bassanio that while Shylock laments prejudice against the Hebrews, he is himself extremely hostile to the Christians, albeit a concealed hostility camouflaged by tricky legalism and shady business practices.
A lot of circumsised blokes view this play as a work of anti-Semitism, because you’re not supposed to portray The Jews as anything but passive, saintly, violin-playing martyrs who are too beautiful for this cruel world.
But I think it pretty accurately explains the ancient ethnic competition dynamics that led to Edward Plantagenet telling them to GTFO, while showing us Shylock’s POV with a not inconsiderable degree of empathy. Like Macbeth, Shylock is a complex and tragic figure, not a cartoon baddie, whose baser motives lead him to ruin.
A male Muslim can marry out, all children of the union becoming automatically Muslim and subject to penalty of apostasy. Muslim women are strictly forbidden from marrying nonMuslims which is what makes Huma Abedin(strong Muslim Brotherhood family) marrying Jewish Anthony Weiner so damn odd.
On the subject of ethno-nationalist religions what are the chances of the 2024 Presidential Election being contested by Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley, observed from over here by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
‘Almost three-quarters of non-black or Asian respondents said they were comfortable with a close relative marrying a black or Asian person, but only 43% were comfortable with a close relative marrying a Muslim.’
‘Religion is the “final frontier” of personal prejudice’
Nah, people just haven’t learned that they need to lie to strangers on the phone about it, yet. But as the Guardian takes up the crusade, they’ll learn.
Steve- very good on W.E. and also the memetic legacy. Yes definitely. Another tolerance measuring question could be – do you give a shit what your son or daughter end up doing?
You’re quite right. There’s a reverse slope to the anti-semitism thing. You only have to take a walk around Stamford Hill to see it in action. If you’re going to be a member of a community where significant numbers of members of it want to wall themselves off from the wider community shit may well happen. And regrettably, outsiders to it are not going to be acquainting themselves of the subtle nuances within your religion. You all tend to get tarred with the same brush.
It just indicates those communities that do not want to exist any more. And those that do.
Inter-marrying is not the immediate issue – although extinction through hybridization is extinction nonetheless – it is the lack of children. There is some rough figure that says only 10% of Europeans Jews are under 18. They have chosen extinction. No reason for anyone else to do so.
The world would be a much worse place without British people in it.
In the 19th century my local community close to destroyed itself because Head Office disowned everybody who married out or had – shock horror – businesses that were too prosperous, eventually close to a third had been excluded, and most of the rest followed them and joined the CoE.
“A male Muslim can marry out, all children of the union becoming automatically Muslim and subject to penalty of apostasy.”
I think you’ll find that attitude amongst the hardcore christian sects as well…
Steve: our legacy is memetic
or in some cases emetic.
I think you’ll find that attitude amongst the hardcore christian sects as well…
What is the penalty for apostasy in those sects?
Grikath: death isn’t the usual penalty for leVing Christianity.
“Leaving”
bis,
A devout Roman Catholic friend who lives in Bushey has been fighting the planning permission to get an eruv placed around where they live. He thinks it will act like a magnet for devout Jews and change the character of the area. I’m fairly sure he had Stamford Hill in mind.
On the subject of that friend, his non-religious wife had to agree to any children being brought up as RC before they could get married and by that he meant RC church as civil marriages aren’t recognised by the church, or so I’m led to beleive.
“The colour of your skin is one of those genetic lottery things. What you believe about gender relations, civil liberty and all that is something more changeable.”
The relation between nature and nurture, genetics and culture, is two-way. Nature and genetics influence nurture and culture; and nurture and culture influence nature and genetics.
Steve, been loving your comments over the years, but you’re not serious about that Earl of Oxford thing, are you?
“we’ve refrained from burning her at the stake”: so I should hope – that was a punishment by Roman Catholics not to them.
“Like Macbeth, Shylock is …”: and both of them far more interesting than Hamlet.
Tom – thank you!
I am 100% serious about Edward de Vere and have been ever since I realised it drove my English teacher to red-faced, sputtering rage.
Dearieme – his cigars were shit an’all
TMB – 🙂
@PJF/LjH Death? …no… Any other means of Unpleasantness…. Oh yes… with interest if some can manage…
“he meant RC church as civil marriages aren’t recognised by the church, or so I’m led to beleive”
More like the civil red tape is an inconvenient addition to the church ceremony, regardless of what the law states. A devout RC god-botherer would have the church ceremony before any red tape at city hall, just to make the distinction clear.
Bloke in North Dorset said:
“A devout Roman Catholic friend … his non-religious wife had to agree to any children being brought up as RC before they could get married”
They Church has dropped that. Some time ago too; it was gone when I got married, over twenty years ago.
Now the Catholic half of the couple has to promise to make reasonable efforts to bring any children up properly, or something feeble like that. All the non-Catholic party has to do is acknowledge that they know that the Catholic party has made that promise.
” The colour of your skin is one of those genetic lottery things. ”
I’m fairly sure that it’s the result of decisions taken by your ancestors for hundreds, or even thousands, of years.