What does it take to have a better relationship

SIX TOXIC RELATIONSHIP HABITS

No matter how much couples argue and fight, their underlying bottom line for the exercise is to improve their relationship, but sometimes they choose the wrong words and make it worse.  Please take the time to do this exercise.  
Whether you are married or not, or considering exit-ing from the relationship, the following piece is good to read and reflect. It is a good idea to discuss this with your loved ones, and see if the shoe fits you, if it does, the genuine dialogue will help you correct the flaws in the communications and strengthen the commitment for each other.

If you have difficulty in communicating - that is listening and understanding what the other is saying, get a friend to be the referee for at least a few points or pay a counselor to do this for you. The investment is worth it, it is worth saving and or nurturing the relationship. 

Ask yourselves, are the words I am using go towards building the relationship or tearing it down? You know the answer and you can practice the words that will do what you really want: a good relationship.

I wish you the very best in your relationships.
 
URL - http://interfaithmarriages.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-does-it-take-to-have-better.html

Mike Ghouse, Interfaith Marriage officianthttp://interfaithmarriages.blogspot.com

.............
6 Toxic relationship habits that most people think are normal
By Mark Manson

There’s no class in high school on how to not be a shitty boyfriend or girlfriend. Sure, they teach us the biology of sex, the legality of marriage, and maybe read a few obscure love stories from the 19th century on how not to be.
But when it comes down to actually handling the nitty-gritty of relationships, we’re given no pointers… or worse, we’re given advice columns in women’s magazines.

Yes, it’s trial-and-error from the get-go. And if you’re like most people, it’s been mostly error.

But part of the problem is that many unhealthy relationship habits are baked into our culture. We worship romantic love — you know, that dizzying and irrational romantic love that somehow finds breaking china plates on the wall in a fit of tears somewhat endearing — and scoff at practicality or unconventional sexualities. Men and women are raised to objectify each other and to objectify the relationships they’re in. Thus our partners are often seen as assets rather than someone to share mutual emotional support.

A lot of the self help literature out there isn’t helpful either (no, men and women are notfrom different planets, you over-generalizing prick.) And for most of us, mom and dad surely weren’t the best examples either.

Fortunately, there’s been a lot of psychological research into healthy and happy relationships the past few decades and there are some general principles that keep popping up consistently that most people are unaware of or don’t follow. In fact, some of these principles actually go against what is traditionally considered “romantic” or normal in a relationship.

Below are six of the most common tendencies in relationships that many couples think are healthy and normal, but are actually toxic and destroying everything you hold dear. Get the tissues ready.

1. The Relationship Scorecard

fights-in-a-relationshipWhat It Is: The “keeping score” phenomenon is when someone you’re dating continues to blame you for past mistakes you made in the relationship. If both people in the relationship do this it devolves into what I call “the relationship scorecard,” where it becomes a battle to see who has screwed up the most over the months or years, and therefore who owes the other one more.



You were an asshole at Cynthia’s 28th birthday party back in 2010 and it has proceeded to ruin your life ever since. Why? Because there’s not a week that goes by that you’re not reminded of it. But that’s OK, because that time you caught her sending flirtatious text messages to her co-worker immediately removes her right to get jealous, so it’s kind of even, right?

Wrong.

Why It’s Toxic: The relationship scorecard develops over time because one or both people in a relationship use past wrongdoings in order to try and justify current righteousness. This is a double-whammy of suckage. Not only are you deflecting the current issue itself, but you’re ginning up guilt and bitterness from the past to manipulate your partner into feeling wrong in the present.

If this goes on long enough, both partners eventually spend most of their energy trying to prove that they’re less culpable than the other rather than solving the current problem. People spend all of their time trying to be less wrong for each other instead of being more right for each other.

What You Should Do Instead: Deal with issues individually unless they are legitimately connected. If someone habitually cheats, then that’s obviously a recurring problem. But the fact that she embarrassed you in 2010 and now she got sad and ignored you today in 2013 have nothing to do with each other, so don’t bring it up.

You must recognize that by choosing to be with your significant other, you are choosing to be with all of their prior actions and behaviors. If you don’t accept those, then ultimately, you are not accepting them. If something bothered you that much a year ago, you should have dealt with it a year ago.

Screen Shot 2013-08-08 at 3.08.36 PM

2. Dropping “Hints” and Other Passive-Aggression

What It Is: Instead of stating a desire or thought overtly, your partner tries to nudge you in the right direction of figuring it out yourself. Instead of saying what’s actually upsetting you, you find small and petty ways to piss your partner off so you’ll then feel justified in complaining to them.

Why It’s Toxic: Because it shows that you two are not comfortable communicating openly and clearly with one another. A person has no reason to be passive-aggressive if they feel safe expressing any anger or insecurity within the relationship. A person will never feel a need to drop “hints” if they feel like they won’t be judged or criticized for it.

What You Should Do Instead: State your feelings and desires openly. And make it clear that the other person is not necessarily responsible or obligated to them but that you’d love to have their support. If they love you, they’ll almost always be able to give it.

3. Holding the Relationship Hostage

What It Is: When one person has a simple criticism or complaint and blackmails the other person by threatening the commitment of the relationship as a whole. For instance, if someone feels like you’ve been cold to them, instead of saying, “I feel like you’re being cold sometimes,” they will say, “I can’t date someone who is cold to me all of the time.

Why It’s Toxic: It’s emotional blackmail and it creates tons of unnecessary drama. Every minor hiccup in the flow of the relationship results in a perceived commitment crisis. It’s crucial for both people in a relationship to know that negative thoughts and feelings can be communicated safely to one another without it threatening the relationship itself. Otherwise people will suppress their true thoughts and feelings which leads to an environment of distrust and manipulation.

What You Should Do Instead: It’s fine to get upset at your partner or to not like something about them. That’s called being a normal human being. But understand that committing to a person and always liking a person are not the same thing. One can be committed to someone and not like everything about them. One can be eternally devoted to someone yet actually be annoyed or angered by their partner at times. On the contrary, two partners who are capable of communicating feedback and criticism towards one another only without judgment or blackmail will strengthen their commitment to one another in the long-run.

4. Blaming Your Partner For Your Own Emotions

What It Is: Let’s say you’re having a crappy day and your partner isn’t exactly being super sympathetic or supportive at the moment. They’ve been on the phone all day with some people from work. They got distracted when you hugged them. You want to lay around at home together and just watch a movie tonight, but they have plans to go out and see their friends.

So you lash out them for being so insensitive and callous toward you. You’ve been having a shitty day and they have done nothing about it. Sure, you never asked, but they should just know to make you feel better. They should have gotten off the phone and ditched their plans based on your lousy emotional state.

Why It’s Toxic: Blaming our partners for our emotions is a subtle form of selfishness, and a classic example of the poor maintenance of personal boundaries. When you set a precedent that your partner is responsible for how you feel at all times (and vice-versa), then will develop codependent tendencies. Suddenly, they’re not allowed to plan activities without checking with you first. All activities at home — even the mundane such as reading books or watching TV — must be negotiated and compromised. When someone begins to get upset, all personal desires go out the window because it is now your responsibility to make one another feel better.

The biggest problem of developing these codependent tendencies is that they breed resentment. Sure, if my girlfriend gets mad at me once because she’s had a shitty day and is frustrated and needs attention, that’s understandable. But if it becomes an expectation that my life revolves around her emotional well-being at all times, then I’m soon going to become very bitter and even manipulative towards her feelings and desires.

What You Should Do Instead: Take responsibility for your own emotions and expect your partner to be responsible for theirs. There’s a subtle yet important difference between being supportive of your partner and being obligated to your partner. Any sacrifices should be made as an autonomous choice and not seen as an expectation. As soon as both people in a relationship become culpable for each other’s moods and downswings, it gives them both incentives to hide their true feelings and manipulate one another.


5. Displays of “Loving” Jealousy

What It Is: Getting pissed off when your partner talks, flirts, touches, calls, texts, hangs out, or sneezes in the general vicinity of another person and then you proceed to take that anger out on your partner and attempt to control their behavior. This often leads to insano behaviors such as hacking into your partner’s email account, looking through their text messages while they’re in the shower or even following them around town and showing up unannounced when they’re not expecting you.

Why It’s Toxic: It surprises me that some people describe this as some sort of display of affection. They figure that if their partner wasn’t jealous then that would somehow mean that they weren’t loved by them.

This is absolutely clownshit crazy to me. It’s controlling and manipulative. It creates unnecessary drama and fighting. It transmits a message of a lack of trust in the other person. And to be honest, it’s demeaning. If my girlfriend cannot trust me to be around other attractive women by myself, then it implies that she believes that I’m either a) a liar, or b) incapable of controlling my impulses. In either case, that’s a woman I do not want to be dating.

What You Should Do Instead: Trust your partner. It’s a radical idea, I know. Some jealousy is natural. But excessive jealousy and controlling behaviors towards your partner are signs of your own feelings of unworthiness and you should learn to deal with them and not force them onto those close to you. Because otherwise you are only going to eventually push that person away.

6. Buying the Solutions to Relationship Problems

original What It Is: Any time a major conflict or issue comes up in the relationship, instead of solving it, one covers it up with the excitement and good feelings that come with buying something nice or going on a trip somewhere.



My parents were experts at this one. And it got them real far: a big fat divorce and 15 years of hardly speaking to each other since. They have both since independently told me that this was the primary problem in their marriage: continuously covering up their real issues with superficial pleasures.

Why It’s Toxic: Not only does it brush the real problem under the rug (where it willalways re-emerge from even worse the next time), but it sets an unhealthy precedent within the relationship. This is not a gender-specific problem, but I will use the traditional gendered situation as an example. Let’s imagine that whenever a woman gets angry at her boyfriend/husband, the man makes everything “solves” the issue by buying the woman something nice, or taking her to a nice restaurant or something. Not only does this give the woman unconscious incentive to find more reasons to be upset with the man, but it also gives the man absolutely no incentive to actually be accountable for the problems in the relationship. So what do you end up with? A checked-out husband who feels like an ATM, and an incessantly bitter woman who feels unheard.

What You Should Do Instead: Actually, you know, deal with the problem. Trust was broken? Talk about what it will take to rebuild it. Someone feels ignored or unappreciated? Talk about ways to restore those feelings of appreciation. Communicate!

There’s nothing wrong with doing nice things for a significant other after a fight to show solidarity and to reaffirm commitment. But one should never use gifts or fancy things toreplace dealing with the underlying emotional issues. Gifts and trips are supposed are called luxuries for a reason, you only get to appreciate them when everything else is already good. If you use them to cover up your problems, then you will find yourself with a much bigger problem down the line.

Interfaith Marriages - Religious Double Standards Leave Many Muslims Single

URL - http://interfaithmarriages.blogspot.com/2013/07/interfaith-marriages-religious-double.html

Indeed, there are more single Muslim women in the United States than single men.

As a pluralist and an interfaith specialist who has conducted many interfaith marriages between people of different faiths, I continue to learn, understand and know the issues, and the more I learn, the more openings pop up, learning is an endless commitment.

The ultra-conservatives reject the interfaith marriages or insist on conversion of one party or the other, per them they have seen it all; there is no certainty in 'mixed' marriages and it is guaranteed to bring unforeseen miseries, that is their fear. Deep down they seem to want the marriages of their loved ones to fail - just so they can say, I told you so.

Their fears are legitimate, but what they miss out is factoring in the statistics. Far fewer interfaith marriages end up in divorce than the regular marriages, the reason is simple; their love for each other is stronger, as it was their choice to enter into the relationship,  and their commitment to make the marriage work remains stronger.

 As long as the society is homogenous and no one steps out of the known bounds, everyone is secure, and as long you do not interact with others (faith, culture, ethnicity, race), you are fine, and the system works like a charm with its own cultural and religious balance.

However, that is not the reality – no Muslim (Hindu, Jew or the other)  in America lives in a shell, he or she is constantly interacting with people of different cultures and faiths, races and ethnicities. He or she is bound to respect their friend, even if parents or religious teachers tell them that their friend will go to hell for not accepting Jesus as the savior; not following Islam or abandoning Hinduism. Indeed, the girl or the boy believes that his/her good friend will go to heaven,  and decides to accompany him or her.
A few men and women fake conversions, and the parents gloat on that victory, I have seen parents even fake it, telling their friends that their Bahu or Damaad (daughter or son in law) is a better Hindu, Muslim or Jew than their own kids. Sometimes, I wonder, what is important in life, being truthful or keeping up with the Jones'?

A couple of years ago, a Jewish mother disowned her daughter because she was marrying a Bahai, a Christian father had nothing to do with his son for choosing to marry a Hindu girl, its with every one, but not many are tested. 

For the black and white mind-sets, the world is full of colors. Accepting the interfaith couples does not mean you open the doors for the herds to go marry in other faiths, that is demeaning the love God magnetizes between any two people. 
Love happens, and I can never forget a couplet from Urdu and Hindi Languages, written by the Master Indian poet Mirza Ghalib:

Ishq par zor naheeN, hai ye woh aatish ‘GHalib’
ki lagaaye na lage aur bujhaaye na bane

Love is such a flame Ghalib (pen name),
you cannot lit or extinguish it, it just happens.

Marriage is between two individuals who are willing to commit to each other’s well-being. 

Like all couples, the interfaith couple also endures similar strains in their relationship, (8.4 and 7.9 marital satisfaction on Riley Scale) but it may take the avatar of faith if they are at each other’s throat. It is always easy to blame the religion for our failings. However, interfaith and other inter-relationships tend to be stronger.

 

Interfaith couples must be admired by one and all. When many a couples are having difficulty in getting along, they are setting a new standard: respecting the otherness of someone else and accepting the God-given uniqueness of each other. They may have grown up in different religious traditions, but yet, religion is not a barrier. The poet philosopher of the East, Dr. Allama Iqbal, says, Religion does not teach one to have ill-will.

No one in the American Cities goes without interacting with others. Even the Rabbis, Bhikkus, Gyanijis, Pandits and Imams  at times are accused of shaking hands with a woman in interfaith meetings. 

WARNING to the parents:  the more you denigrate your kid's friends faith, the more your kids will distance from your faith and culture. If you express any prejudice towards Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews or others, your kids are likely to reject your attitude. However, some will get entrenched in the conservative ideals, and find it difficult to live with the society at large, what a shame!

The question to ponder is this: Do we like Christian, Jewish or Hindu bigots? If we don't, then let our kids be not seen as bigots to the Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other groups. We are all guilty of bigotry.

What did the prophet say? Think for your brother what you think for yourselves, he did not say "Muslim" brothers, nor would he have said that, as he was the Rahmatul Aalameen (mercy to mankind). We have a choice to constrict him to Muslimeen or accept and give due value for being Rahmatul Aalameen and live up to the ideals of Aalameen (universality).  

40% of Muslims (near similar percentage holds good for Jewish, Christian, Hindu and others) marry outside their faith and this will continue to increase, the solution is not distancing from them, but being open to them. Whether you like it or not, it is their life and they are going to marry the ones they are in love with.  I have known many parents who boast raising their child with perfect values (obedient) and that he or she will marry the spouse of their choice and it does happen and works well as well, but they are subject to the same rules as others. 

The bigger part of Muslim singles are women over 40 – nearly half of Muslim single women are over 40 and they rightfully don’t want to marry another guy without knowing him – but how? Every man she talks with feels he is entitled to her,  shame on men and their culture for their stinky attitude. No one is entitled, they have to earn the relationship. The Muslims women I have talked to resent men's attitudes,  and hate talking to another Muslim (same with Hindus) Man for a relationship.

I looked up several matrimonial ads, and an overwhelming majority of women (over 50) have checked no religious preference in the box provided, and even go on to say that they are not religious. Many have marked spirituality instead of Islam or Hinduism. Mind you they are not advertising in Hindu or Muslim exclusive matrimonials, they are reaching the generic meeting singles places.  Many women have remained single for a very long time. Why should they?

We may not like our women folk to marry outside, but it is a crime to cause them to remain single because of our societal pulls. It is the God given right of woman to live a happy life with a man of her choice, and she needs to have that choice. We need not be a pain to them, if they bring in a friend from other races or faiths to a gathering, we should treat it as a normal social relationship, and not spend imaging things up. We should be accepting them, we should be happy for them to have made that effort.

For those who are ready to stick the religion in your face, believe me, the lady has tried all avenues and finally had made that choice. As a reminder, individuals are responsible for their actions on the Day of Judgment and not anyone else. She is the one who has to live with the right man and she must explore all the options.

God is merciful, that is your God, my God and every one's God, and he loves those of us who care for his creation. Per the Islamic tradition, stories abound where a sinner would feed a hungry dog, or quench a thirsty cat and God graces him or her with his bounty, and forgives their sins for that act of kindness. Marrying outside is not a sin, it would be a sin to live in hopes of a life together, but not finding one.

What are your other choices?

Mike Ghouse is an interfaith marriage minister and a speaker on Islam, pluralism, interfaith, multicultural and future societies.  www.MikeGhouse.net

Religious Double Standards Leave Many Muslims Single

By Naomi Schaefer Riley

WeNews guest author

Sunday, June 30, 2013

http://womensenews.org/story/religion/130629/religious-double-standards-leave-many-muslims-single#.Ue9Aco21HD7

Sex segregation can also make it hard for Muslim youth to get to know each other, leading to higher interfaith marriages, says a marriage counselor in this excerpt from Naomi Schaefer Riley's "'Til Faith Do Us Part."

(WOMENSENEWS)-- Munira Ezzeldine, a marriage counselor in Irvine, Calif., who is one of the instructors of a premarital course, tells me that Islam in America is at a "kind of crossroads now."

She explains, "We don't have something called dating in the Western context, you know with pre-marital sex and all the stuff that comes with it." But young Muslims are also not interested in having arranged marriages as their parents and grandparents did. "They actually want to get to know the person for a certain amount of time, but also within the boundaries."

If a young Muslim is aiming for this kind of compromise, there are other resources too. Ezzeldine, who wrote a short book called "Before the Wedding: Questions for Muslims to Ask Before Getting Married," tries to offer her coreligionists a way of getting to know each other without violating the standards of the faith. Ezzeldine wants Muslims to have "the conversations to get to know somebody for marriage in a way" that is more than superficial. Right now they often just say, "Oh I think we get along," but they don't know "what you need to know about a person" before you marry him or her. She also notes that families in the Muslim community have wildly different expectations of religious life and marriage so it is important for everyone to be on the same page.

Interestingly, the lack of communication between Muslim men and women before marriage noted by many Muslim leaders is actually part of a larger problem that Ezzeldine believes is resulting in more interfaith matches. Ezzeldine suggests that the Muslim community's standards for interacting with members of the opposite sex are actually having a deleterious effect on marriage in the community. It is often easier for a Muslim to meet a non-Muslim of the opposite sex--in school for instance--than for a Muslim to meet another Muslim in a religiously sanctioned setting because Muslim prayer and religious education are all segregated by sex.

'Wakeup Call'

Ezzeldine says that the high interfaith marriage rates should be a "wakeup call" for the community. She thinks Muslims are "making it so hard for our young people to get to know each other at the mosque or any youth groups or Muslim Student Associations, and then you end up tying their hands and then they end up getting to know [a non-Muslim] really well and befriend somebody in a class or at work. Then of course they are going to make a connection and get married."

Even though such marriages are religiously sanctioned when they involve a Muslim man and a Jewish or Christian woman, Ezzeldine still thinks these interfaith marriages are creating problems for the community. She believes that the theological justification for allowing men to marry non-Muslim women has been rendered moot by the sociological realities of life in America. "The way it is presented is that the Muslim man is the one who is supposed to keep the faith in that family . . . He's responsible for the children to get educated within the faith . . . ." Ezzeldine says that's not what she witnesses in her community and others she has visited. "The reality is, the woman is the one who is teaching the children, and you know, influencing that family and the faith that they follow."

In addition to the fact that the children of such marriages are not being raised in the Muslim faith, there are other difficulties that have been generated by the double religious standards for men and women. The number of men marrying out has actually created a severe gender imbalance, leaving many Muslim women without partners. In other words, the religiously sanctioned intermarriages are forcing more religiously forbidden intermarriages.

In a 2011 article in the Guardian, Syma Mohammed reported on the imbalance at the Muslim matchmaking events she attends in England, where there are sometimes as many as five women for every man. She writes, "Nearly all Muslim singles events are female-dominated, unless organizers artificially construct a level playing field by selling equal numbers of male and female tickets."

Lack of Equal Partners

Shortly after Mohammed's piece appeared, the American Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed made similar observations in a USA Today op-ed: "Muslim women living in non-Muslim majority nations frequently lack intellectually and professionally equal Muslim partners. Instead we are eschewed by our male Muslim counterparts for younger, less career-advanced Muslim women, often from countries of parental heritage. These forces drive Muslim women to either select suitable marriage partners from outside the faith or face unremitting spinsterhood."

There are two potential solutions to this crisis: The first is to allow Muslim women to marry out as well, something that Ahmed advocates in the name of gender equality. She says women should be able to make their own decisions in this regard, that they should be guided by the principles of ijtihad, which allows Muslims to interpret religious texts according to their own judgments. This view has been presented most forcefully by Imam Khaleel Mohammed, a professor of religion at San Diego State University. He says that the only reason that the Quran does not allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men is the concern that a man's religion would always become the dominant one. But in 21st-century America, with our sense of sexual equality, this should not be a problem.

Even religious leaders who are sympathetic to this argument and are willing to support a less literal interpretation of the Quran may not find themselves in agreement with Imam Mohammed or Ahmed. Rather, they may see the strong religious influence that mothers have over their children in America as a reason to prohibit interfaith marriage across the board. If women here are so "equal" that the child of an interfaith marriage is more than twice as likely to adopt his mother's faith as his father's, then why should religious authorities trust that a Muslim man married to a Christian woman will end up with Muslim children?

Reprinted from "'Til Faith Do US Part" by Naomi Schaefer Riley with permission from Oxford University Press USA. Copyright © 2013 by Naomi Schaefer Riley.

Naomi Schaefer Riley is a former Wall Street Journal editor and writer whose work focuses on higher education, religion, philanthropy and culture. She is the author of "God on the Quad" and "The Faculty Lounges."

For More Information:

Buy the Book, "Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage Is Transforming America":
http://www.powells.com/partner/34289/biblio/9780199873746?p_ti

Texas Faith: Are Interfaith Marriages Good for Couples?

Texas Faith: Are Interfaith Marriages Good for Couples?

Interfaith couples must be admired by one and all. When couples are having difficulty in getting along, they are setting a new standard: respecting the otherness of someone else and accepting the God-given uniqueness of each other. They may have grown up in different religious traditions, but yet, religion is not a barrier. The poet philosopher of the East, Dr. Allama Iqbal, says, Religion does not teach one to have ill-will. 

Texas Faith :Are Interfaith Marriages Good for Couples?
Dallas Morning News | Published on June 18, 2013
By Bill McKenzie  
 

Naomi Schaefer Riley has a new book out with the title Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage is Transforming America. You can read about that book at this link and then this link.

Interestingly, Riley, a former Wall Street Journal editor who has written extensively about religion and culture, notes that 45 percent of all U.S. marriages in the last decade were between people of different faiths. Naturally, we may look at that as a sign of greater acceptance and tolerance, which a broadsociety needs to remain dynamic and growing.

But Riley also reports that marrying across religious lines may be very difficult for the couples involved. Their deeply-held differences may eventually become a problem, especially when it comes to raising children.

There are a number of ways we could go with this question, including why dating couples may spend more time worrying about political differences than religious distinctions. Feel free to chime in on that aspect, if you like. But the main point I would like you to consider is this:

Interfaith marriages may help the broader society, but are they good for the couples?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism

Marriage is between two individuals who are willing to commit to each other’s well-being. They dedicate their lives to each other till death does them apart. The couple marries as a fulfillment of their desire for each other, and there is rarely a consideration to help the broader society.

However, interfaith, inter-racial and inter-ethnic marriages have paved the way for others in the larger societies who were once denied the right to pursue their happiness. Stories abound, where the lovers were prevented, harassed or killed by the parents, society or the clergy. We must appreciate their sacrifice, even though that was not their intention.

I must add a couplet from Urdu and Hindi Language, written by the Master Indian poet Mirza Ghalib:

Ishq par zor naheeN, hai ye woh aatish ‘GHalib’
ki lagaaye na lage aur bujhaaye na bane

Love is such a flame Ghalib (pen name),
you cannot lit or extinguish it, it just happens.

Like all couples, the interfaith couple also endures similar strains in their relationship, (8.4 and 7.9 marital satisfaction on Riley Scale) but it may take the avatar of faith if they are at each other’s throat. It is always easy to blame the religion for our failings. However, interfaith and other inter-relationships tend to be stronger.

Political differences provide humor to some couples. My father and mother voted differently but never had a fight over it except the occasional cold wars. I am a Republican and my wife is a Democrat, and we make attempts to convince each other, but back off as quickly as we initiate it, when she quotes me the Quran, “That you cannot compel your spouse to believe what she does not want to believe.”

Interfaith couples must be admired by one and all. When couples are having difficulty in getting along, they are setting a new standard: respecting the otherness of someone else and accepting the God-given uniqueness of each other. They may have grown up in different religious traditions, but yet, religion is not a barrier. The poet philosopher of the East, Dr. Allama Iqbal, says, Religion does not teach one to have ill-will.

I am a marriage officiant and have performed a range of interfaith marriages as a part of my pluralism work.
.....
To see all the other responses, at Dallas Morning News at:http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-faith-are-interfaith-marriages-good-for-couples.html/
.......
Added: Interfaith marriages marriages performed include; Jewish-Christian; Hindu-Christian; Muslim-Jain; Hindu-Muslim, Atheist Hindu and  Jewish-Muslim and other combination for more details, please visit:http://www.interfaithmarriages.blogspot.com/

.....Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes his work through many links.

Marrying Out of the Faith

Please check out my sermons on any one of the weddings listed on this blog

Courtesy of New York Times:

By STANLEY FISH

Back in 1963, my brother Ron was going out with (that was the phrase then) an Irish Catholic girl named Ann who was attending the University of Rhode Island. One day, she was sitting in class and suddenly through the window she saw my father, who, it turned out, had tracked her down by finding out from the university administration what classes she was taking and at what times. He took her to dinner and then proceeded to tell her that it would ruin his son’s life if he were to marry a non-Jewish girl. He then asked if she would be willing to have no contact with Ron for a year; in return, he offered to pay all her expenses during that time. She refused.

Meanwhile I had been asked if I could get Ron into the University of California at Berkeley, where I was then teaching. (My father, as I recall, was for this plan, and may even have initiated it.) I went to the head of the admissions office and said, “My brother has to get out of Rhode Island. Can you admit him here?”

“Sure,” he said, and it was done. (Those were the days; if I tried that in 2013, I would be run out of town.)

If the idea was to separate the two young people, it didn’t work. Shortly after Ron got to California, he sent Ann a plane ticket. When she arrived, they got married and have remained married to this day. She got a job at the university, took a class in Judaism and, much to my brother’s surprise, converted, although it took her a while to find a rabbi willing to give her the required course of instruction. Just the other day she remarked, “It was a hard club to get into.”

In 1963 I didn’t know any interfaith couples, but things have changed, as Naomi Schaefer Riley reports in her new book, “’Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage Is Transforming America.”

According to Riley’s research — in 2010 she commissioned a large interfaith marriage survey — the interfaith marriage rate in the United States is 42 percent. The book is chock-full of fascinating statistics (“Jews are the most likely and Mormons are the least likely to marry members of other faiths”), but at its heart is a cautionary thesis: the growing number of interfaith couples don’t know what they’re getting into. “Interfaith couples tend to marry without thinking through the practical implications of their religious differences. They assume that because they are decent and tolerant people … they will not encounter difficulties being married to someone of another faith.”

They do, however, worry about marrying someone whose political views differ from theirs. Riley’s data show that “inter political party marriages are far less common than interfaith marriages.” Why, she asks, “do Americans seem so much more reluctant to marry outside of their political affiliation than their faith?”, and she answers that they may be “unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that religion can be a serious dividing in a marriage.” Because debating political differences is part of the culture in a way that debating religious differences is not, two people entering into a relationship are likely to be more concerned with the former than the latter.

That, Riley suggests, is a mistake. Early on, a difference in faith may seem unimportant and an occasion for practicing tolerance, while a difference over same-sex marriage or global warming or gun control may seem intractable and full of future hazard. (I can’t marry someone who believes that!) “But faith,” Riley insists, “is a tricky thing and it sneaks up on people,” especially at significant moments when the pull of old loyalties supposedly outgrown reasserts itself. “The death of a loved one, the birth of a child, the loss of a job, a move to a new city — all of these things can give people a sense of religious longing, a desire to return to the faith of their childhood.”

This can be true even of those whose childhood faith was weak and perfunctory. A Christian may think of herself or himself as not being religious at all, yet “find it hard to imagine family life without a Christmas tree.” A wife or a husband, also not particularly religious, may feel that having a Christmas tree goes too far. In an interfaith marriage, Riley observes, holidays can “become like bargaining chips.” (I’ll do this if you’ll do that, and if the children get to choose.) Even when one of the partners has converted and religious tensions have supposedly been eliminated, the fact of conversion can be the source of its own tension, as when one spouse, in the course of an argument, “plays the conversion card” and says “but I left my faith for you,” or, in other words, “You owe me big-time and for a long time.”

Once you begin to think about it, it’s obvious how many potential pitfalls await interfaith couples, but it is often not obvious to them, Riley says, for at least four reasons.

First, the liberal rhetoric of individualism and personal choice is casually affirmed without sufficient attention to the ways in which one’s choices and much else are influenced by tradition and community. Many interfaith couples have “chosen the romanticism and the individualistic ethos of America over the demands of the communities that they have come from” only to find, later on, that those demands still exert a force.

Second, young people today “consider religion to be a pursuit of the individual” and therefore downplay differences in ritual and doctrine; they minimize the requirements of faith by conceiving of faith as something without a specific content that might become the source of friction.

Third, the assertion, found everywhere in American cultural life, that differences are to be celebrated and embraced — our “obsession with tolerance at all costs” — obscures the extent to which those differences touch on something deep and immovable. “Ironically, interfaith marriage may awaken people to the fact that … that the particulars of practice and belief do matter, and that not all interfaith conflicts can be solved with the placement of a menorah next to a manger.”

And fourth, faith has become “racialized”; that is, we have come to think that “like skin color [it] is a trait that need not divide us.” But, Riley demurs, believing that faith “is a superficial characteristic the way race [and] ethnicity are” doesn’t make it so. In fact, “religious identity … can and should be considered” as more substantive than racial identity; and like any other substance it remains in place even when the commonplaces of multicultural doctrine tell us that it shouldn’t really matter.

My rehearsal of Riley’s points may suggest that her book is a brief against interfaith marriage. Far from it. She is herself a partner in an interfaith marriage (and in an inter-racial one, too), and she and her spouse have made it work. She just wants prospective interfaith couples to know that it is work, that love doesn’t conquer all, that “a rocky road may lie ahead of them” and that they “need to think in practical terms about their faith differences — how it will affect the way they spend their time, their money, and the way they want to raise their kids.” Her message is that if you don’t make the mistake of thinking it will be a bed of roses, you’ll have a better chance of its not being a bed of thorns.

The Church and the State of Matrimony

I am please to share articles related to interfaith wedding. Please read my partial sermon in any one of the weddings listed on this blog - Mike Ghouse

Courtesy : New York Times

’Til Faith Do Us Part,’ by Naomi Schaefer Riley

By GUSTAV NIEBUHR

Published: May 23, 2013

Americans have always been a religiously diverse people, even as the definition of what counts as diversity has changed. In 1774, members of the Continental Congress protested the idea of bringing in a chaplain to lead prayers: “We were so divided in religious sentiment,” one of them explained, “that we could not join in the same act of worship.” Overwhelmingly Protestant, they nonetheless recognized the significant differences of theology and practice that divided Anglicans from Presbyterians, Baptists from Quakers.

Enlarge This Image

Pablo Amargo

’TIL FAITH DO US PART

How Interfaith Marriage Is Transforming America

By Naomi Schaefer Riley

234 pp. Oxford University Press. $24.95.

On this pluralistic foundation, immigrants and native-born innovators freely built. Transoceanic travel brought explosive growth to America’s Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian and Jewish minorities from the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries. More recently, liberalized immigration laws have swelled the ranks of religious adherents who trace their theological roots to South and Southeast Asia, with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs often sharing our college and corporate campuses.

In “ ’Til Faith Do Us Part,” Naomi Schaefer Riley continues the exploration of these trends, but she chooses a particular territory: beyond the challenge of interfaith proximity lies that of interfaith intimacy. The people we casually meet in class or the next cubicle may become our marriage partners, despite real religious differences. Such unions are on the increase, and Riley reminds us how touchy a subject interfaith marriage can be, among religious authorities as well as parents. Both groups fret about potential disappointments short- and long-term, including unforeseen disagreements between partners and, among the next generation, a waning of religious and ethnic identity — a kind of extinction.

Riley, a former editor at The Wall Street Journal, is neither a cheerleader nor a scold. Her book functions more as a flashing yellow light at an intersection: slow down, be alert — pay attention to what serious differences may mean to a close relationship. She brings a careful, nuanced and thoughtful approach to an often contentious subject. And she adds considerable value by including results of a poll she commissioned to survey 2,450 Americans on the subject of interfaith marriage. Thus we learn that same-faith couples report somewhat higher rates of “marital satisfaction” (8.4 on a scale of 10) than do their interfaith counterparts (7.9). But the responses by specific groups vary. For example, mainline Protestants seem happy in their interfaith unions, at 8.2 on Riley’s scale. So, too, do Roman Catholics, at 8.1. Evangelical Protestants (those who describe themselves as “born-again”) are further down the scale at 7.7. Still, given the various challenges marriage itself can pose, none of these numbers are bad.

Riley’s initial interest in the subject is personal. A Jew who married a lapsed Jehovah’s Witness, she reassured her future husband — on their first date — that her family would like him as long as he agreed their children should be raised as Jews. Years on, it’s a happy marriage. (Her sister, by the way, is married to an Orthodox rabbi.) But this is no memoir. Riley rigorously sticks to her role as inquiring journalist, crossing the nation to interview people in interfaith marriages, as well as clergymen and -women who think a great deal about these unions. She covers a broad waterfront, even including mention of niche products that cater to interfaith couples (for example, holiday cards with elves spinning dreidels).

Unsurprisingly, the couples she interviews prove most interesting for the stories they tell. Amy, an evangelical Christian married to Farid, a Muslim, have a relaxed, gently humorous way of relating to each other. David, a Jew married to a Catholic, finds his wife emphatic that their family be observant, transposing her childhood experience in church onto her new family’s Jewish practice. As her husband says, that has “forced me to be much more active and engaged and involved” as a Jew. But such success stories have their unhappy counterparts; Riley’s chapter on divorce makes for painful reading. One woman, a lapsed Christian who married a Jew and rediscovered a powerful faith after her father died, bluntly tells Riley that she would “recommend against” marrying someone of a different faith. “Marriage is hard enough to not add the added dimension of such a fundamental disagreement,” she said. “Both faiths warn against marrying outside the faith for good reasons.”
Deeply interwoven with Riley’s narrative is an inevitable question: How do the children of these unions turn out? Will they have a religious identity or practice in a nation where pollsters tell us the population at large values religion?

This is actually an old question. The rifle barrels of the Revolution had barely cooled when a French immigrant, J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur, published “Letters From an American Farmer,” a book-length description of the emerging nation. He frankly marveled at the tolerance that allowed Catholics, Lutherans and Protestant sectaries to coexist peacefully. But he also worried about the consequences for religion: “It may happen that the daughter of the Catholic will marry the son of the seceder, and settle by themselves at a distance from their parents. What religious education will they give their children? A very imperfect one.”

But maybe not. The durability of religious affiliations in America seems to defy the dire predictions. Religionists have fretted about spiritual decline since the second generation of the Puritans. Had Crèvecoeur been right, his co-national Alexis de Tocqueville wouldn’t have discovered a population steeped in religious faith and practice. Tocqueville arrived in 1831, ahead of the great waves of immigration, yet at a time when prophets enlivened the spiritual scene. He visited a colony of Shakers near Albany, followers of Mother Ann Lee. But he missed the biggest religious story of the time: the revelations of Joseph Smith that led to the founding of what would become the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Riley notes that Mormons — while distinctly friendly to the non-Mormon spouses of mixed-faith couples — are the least likely among major religious groups to form interfaith marriages. She attributes this in part to the high demands the church makes on young men and women to serve as missionaries in their late teens, a deeply formative religious experience.

But back to that question about the progeny of interfaith couples. Are Riley’s findings intriguing? Yes, certainly. But they do not seem to fit a clear model. Take the case of Eileen, a Roman Catholic who had three children with her Jewish husband. Now adults, “one identifies as Catholic, one as Jewish, and one she describes as a ‘philosophy major.’ ”

And then there’s Judy, a Jew who also married a Roman Catholic — in this instance in 1964, with disapproval from both families. Their union lasted until her husband’s death. Their grown children include two who are religiously unaffiliated and a third who is a Roman Catholic priest. The cousins include Orthodox Jews. Perhaps a plot for a sitcom can be found here. But the issue goes well beyond entertainment. Is interfaith marriage good for America? To the extent that it dispels ignorance, punches holes in stereotypes and deflates bias, I would say it surely can be.
Gustav Niebuhr, who teaches at Syracuse University, is the author of “Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America.”

Jewish Woman Weds a New Thought Christian Man by a Muslim Officiant

The bride and groom must be admired by one and all, in this divisive world, where people have difficulty in agreeing, and difficulty in getting along – they are setting a new standard, that of respecting each other’s uniqueness.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SpeakerMikeGhouse@gmail.com
  

Jewish Woman Weds a New Thought Christian Man by a Muslim Officiant   Wedding in Dallas on Saturday Aug 25 2012 

Officiant Mike Ghouse with Bride Rebekah and Groom Mark

Dallas, Texas - Not only are two special people being joined together, so are two spiritual traditions, as well. Out of different spiritual paths, they have come together to learn the best of what each has to offer, appreciating their differences, and confirming their love. So this is not only a joyous occasion, but a holy one, as well.  May they see that their love for each other is truly a gift from God.

The groom spent many years of his younger life in Hawaii so Mark and Rebekah wanted to include a few native rituals from the islands. The Hawaiian word for love is Aloha. Today we’ve come together to celebrate the special Aloha that exists between Mark and Rebekah and their desire to make their Aloha eternal through the commitment of marriage. When two people promise with Aloha in their hearts to share the adventure of life, it is a beautiful moment that they and all of us who are present today will always remember.

Since the bride is Jewish, Rebekah and Mark wanted to use the chuppah (canopy) as a symbol of the home that they will build together. It is open on all sides to welcome people in with unconditional hospitality. All of the attendees are the most important people in their lives, sharing their best and worst days and an irreplaceable part of their yesterdays, their today, and all of their tomorrows.

The couple gives and receives a precious gift from one another. It is the promise that they shall each continue to be deserving of the faith and trust that they place in one another as husband and wife. This responsibility is not taken lightly.

Almost nothing offers a greater possibility for happiness and living life well. When marriage works it justifies all the effort. Life is richer when experience is shared. We are more ourselves when we are responding to the stimulus of others, especially when we are responding to the gift of love. A truly loving relationship brings out the best in each other.

Blessed are life, health, and love, which enable us to enjoy the happiness of this beautiful day.

“May the sun bring you new energy by day.
May the moon softly restore you by night.
May the rain wash away your worries.
And may you live the days of your lives in peace, love, and happiness."

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day.  He is a professional speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, civic affairs, Islam, India, Israel, peace and justice. Mike is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity Show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News and regularly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. The blog www.TheGhouseDiary.com is updated daily.

--- end ---