Religious Prejuidice?

I take a social science course as one of my electives. It's called Canadian Children. In this course, we explore all things related to canadian children, including abuse, discrimination, neglect, and prejuidice. The lecture I attended last night focused mainly on discrimination and prejuidice and was, for the most part, very interesting. But then, as it inevitably happens, the professor said something that made me first angry, then offended, and then finally forced me to think. And I spent the better part of the night thinking about it, despite having to be up at 5:30am. In case you haven't figured it out, she talked about religious prejuidice.

Now, by definition, religious prejuidice is when a person judges someone based solely on their religion. Like other types of prejuidice, it can be detrimental and harmful. For instance, a potential employer may be considered religiously prejuidiced if they refuse to hire someone because they are, for example, Sikh. This is not only morally wrong, but it also goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights. Whether or not you believe that true human rights exist or whether they are something society has created to answer social dillemas, I think we can all agree that it is not our responsibility to judge anyone based on who they are, what religion they follow, or what their ethnicity is. It is our responsiblity to love everyone based on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ.

However, my professor took it one step further, and this is where I became slightly offended. She made a statement that said "It is unacceptable for parents to tell their children to marry within their religion, race, or ethnicity. It is discriminatory and limiting to the child. Discrimination is the act of prejuidice. Prejuidice is primarily a symptom of the inadequacy of the person holding the prejuidice". She also stated that "religious training does not make the individual accepting towards other ethnicities, religions, or races".

These are only a few quotes. Throughout the course of the lecture, my professor basically stated that not dating or marrying someone because they are outside of your religion or faith is prejuidiced. Also, by following these comments with comments such as "The only unacceptable type of difference is if it is cruel and antisocial", and "the person who hates is a victim of their own ignorance and distortions", she implied that the actions stated previously (so-called religious prejuidice), cause the person to be defined as a "hater".

I felt it was necessary for me to respond to these comments, because, if my professor's definitions are to be believed, I am religiously prejuidiced.

Now, in examining the different types of prejuidice, this professor relied heavily on one study. This study examined racial awareness, racial identification, and racial preference. In this study, the researchers examined children who were either African-American, white, or from an interracial marriage/union. The children were each given four dolls. Two were white and two were black. The researchers asked a series of questions concerning the dolls including "which doll is the good doll, which doll is the pretty doll", etc. The results concerning racial identity and preference were quite interesting, but not at all what I was expecting. And then came the kicker.....

the study was done in the United States in the 1940s. Can we honestly say that this particular study is valid in Canada in 2005? But my professor seemed to think it was. And from the results of this study, she came up with her suppositions about other types of prejuidices, including religious prejuidice. Now, if she had a reliable, accurate, valid study published recently, I might have been willing to give her benefit of the doubt, but c'mon!! I am a thinking student. It has been drilled into me to question research, no matter who presents it. If you are going to make such offensive comments, at least have something valid to back it up with.

This wasn't the end of her tirade. She did not take into consideration the very things she was trying to teach. She is teaching about acceptance. She said "Tolerance is not politically correct. It indicates you merely 'put up with something'. We must teach our children to accept everyone, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or religion. It is unacceptable for a multicultural society such as Canada to judge based on religion, race, or ethnicity".

yet, in all this, she is doing the very thing she is preaching against. She is not accepting the fact that there are many different cultures and things may be done differently then we are used to. Doesn't mean it's wrong. For instance, in many middle eastern cultures, including Islam, it is unthinkable to marry someone outside of your religion. Likewise, in East Indian culture, arranged marriages are very common. In many denominations of Christianity, it is spiritually important to be married to someone who shares the same faith. This can be for many different reasons, not the least of which is the spiritual health of any children. Did you know that according to Jewish religion, the child follows the faith of the mother, but according to Islam, the child follows the faith of the father? Or how about a child with a Christian parent and an atheist parent. These children could effectively be receiving two opposing viewpoints and it can become very confusing. Children do not have the insight to be able to decipher mixed messages. For those of you that say all religions are equal and raising a child like this could be done, well, that is a post for another day.

However, by stating that the idea of only marrying within your religious/cultural group is wrong, one is basically stating that this may be the way things are done where you're from, but here in Canada, we preach acceptance and tolerance, so you have to change your way of thinking.

This idea is far more prejuidiced then someone choosing not to be romantically involved with someone based on their religion. This idea effectively strips away any individuality a person might once have had. It forces them to conform to what modern Canadian society views as "normal" and "morally right".

This idea does not allow us to celebrate our differences. Instead, it says that our differences are ok, as long as they aren't too different because if they are, they have to change.