[clipsy]

> We believe faith matters.

No, that's the problem: you don't. If you did, you'd be appalled that JD was so callous in wanting Usha to abandon her faith. What you really mean is that you believe faith matters when it's the right sort of faith held by the right sort of person, and when that's the case you use it as justification for ignoring basic human decency.

[jaldhar]

Oh ffs. I belong to the one true faith (big fat /s so you comprehend). I do not agree with people of inferior beliefs but I _understand_ why and how their beliefs drive their actions. So I’m not alarmed by Vance because he is a Christian and that’s what Christians do. I would have advised Usha not to get involved in that but 1. It’s too late and 2. She didn’t ask me.

I have noticed that for all their vaunted “empathy” leftists have great difficulty in understanding what motivates other people. Read Jonathan Haidt, he has a lot to say about it.

[clipsy]

> Oh ffs. I belong to the one true faith (big fat /s so you comprehend). I do not agree with people of inferior beliefs but I _understand_ why and how their beliefs drive their actions. So I’m not alarmed by Vance because he is a Christian and that’s what Christians do. I would have advised Usha not to get involved in that but 1. It’s too late and 2. She didn’t ask me.

Why do you single out Christians by saying "that's what Christians do" when you already stated "A Hindu in the equivalent situation would want his Christian spouse to share his"?

The disagreement we're having here fundamentally is that you want to portray this as an argument about how liberals "don't even understand" faith, but the content of your argument treats faith as nothing more than an excuse for the husband to dominate the wife. When a Christian husband disrespects his wife's Hindu faith, you support the husband. When a hypothetical Hindu husband disrespects his hypothetical Christian wife's faith, you support the husband. What's the determining factor? Spoiler alert: It's not faith.

So please, just be honest about the reason you really support JD, about the real thing liberals "don't even understand": that women should be subservient to their husbands.

[jaldhar]

I single out Christians BECAUSE WE ARE DISCUSSING J D VANCE. You keep talking about faith in the abstract but no one believe in Faith, they believe in specific faiths. Remember the story that started this thread was about how MAGA Indian-Americans are purportedly having second thoughts about it. Of all the things Vance could do to contribute to that feeling, this is not one of them.

Now traditional Hindus are unabashedly patriarchal; we don’t even try and pretend but if you think that’s what’s happening here you really don’t understand. (And let me again point out understanding != endorsement.)

A major difference in viewpoint is between those who believe the fundamental moral unit is the individual versus the family (or tribe or nation depending on context.) The labels left and right don’t really fit; let’s say universalist and particularist. Vance and I both believe that our faith is true and better than any other therefore it is important that our families who we love more than anyone else share that true belief. Vance also has the universalist belief that _everyone_ should share his faith whereas I do not but as far as spouses are concerned we are in agreement.

The only unusual thing about this is typically it’s the other way around. The husband is blasé about religion and it’s the wife who is more devout, drives family church attendance etc. Take one of my neighbors for instance. She is almost a parody of a Jewish liberal; there are few universalist causes she doesn’t support except when it comes to Judaism. Her husband is of Jewish descent but raised as an atheist in the Soviet Union. He goes along with all her observances even though he doesn’t afaik care personally because “it’s good for the kids.” Is he “subservient”? Is he being “dominated”? That would be a very jaundiced way of looking at it.