I've been looking over the Harry Potter series, and it strikes me that in some ways that Generational theory could apply to the story--however not in a perfect sense:

Important events in the Wizarding World:

1897 - Grindewald and Dumbledore meet - plan to create a world order where Wizards rule over muggles "for the greater good"; argument later ensues and the plan is abandoned

1925 - Voldemort born via a Love Potion marriage

1945 - Defeat of Grindewald by Dumbledore

1966 - Voldemort begins his campaign of terror
1981 - Voldemort is stopped by Harry

1994 - Pettigrew returns to the service of Voldemort
1998 - Defeat of Voldemort

Turnings:

1897 - "Greater Good" Awakening Year

1925 - Clearly an Unraveling Year

1945 - End of External Crisis - Grindewald's War
1945 - 1966 - High
1966 - 1981 - Awakening - Conservative Pureblood Awakening & Liberal Muggleborn Awakening turns into VWI
1981 - 1993 - Unraveling - Fudge Years (he didn't serve all of them as Minister of Magic, but his policies best describe the attitude of the times)
1993 - 1998 - Internal Crisis - Wizarding Civil War

Both Grindewald and Dumbledore mark me as Idealist archetypes, especially when contrasted with Dumbledore's younger brother: Aberforth who marks me as more Nomad given his cynicism to his older brother's grand schemes, his chosen vocation as a bar tender and a man who practices illegal activities on goats.

Birth years of Albus and Aberforth: 1881 & 1884.

So:

Idealist Generation ? - 1882

Both Muriel Prewett (1890) and Merope Gaunt (1907) mark me as Nomad women-- Muriel's behavior at the wedding--going straight for the alcoholic beverages, insulting behavior, and proceeding to tell every last bit of gossip she's collected. She seems to be a stereotype from the English equivalent to the Losts (Contemptibles) and a character out of an Agatha Christie or Dorothy Sayers novel. Merope marks me more as a late wave Nomad who's fallen on desperate times and resorts to desperate measures--a modern equivalent (as stereotypical as it is) would be to think of a Gen Xer in a trailer park. Add to this, Aberforth Dumbledore (1884) and you can almost neatly define this Generation's years:

Nomad Generation - 1883 - 1907

We only get two examples of a Civic generation as far as this early Generation goes: Walburga Black (1925) --Sirius Black's mother--and Minerva McGonagall (1926). They clearly show the differing natures between the latter end of this Civic generation: Minerva faithfully follows Dumbledore's command as any Headmistress would do, but she also does it with a manner of attending to the rules and abiding by Dumbledore's Idealism rather than questioning it. Similarly, Walburga Black displays the conservative strain of this Civic generation in how she adheres to the old rules and traditions set forth by prior family members. She disinherits her rebellious late wave Idealist son (Sirius) and erases all those who don't fit the bill of purity from the family tree.

Civic Generation - 1908 - 1926

We only get one definite example of an Artist generation for this early generation. Although Cornelius Fudge would most likely fit into this generation, we don't know his birth year for certain. Hagrid (1928) is like most Artist children-- intermixed progeny. In the Great Powers Saeculum this would be the stereotypical mixed religions child; while in the Millennial Saeculum this would be the African-American/Anglo child. He's also had to suffer for his heritage, since it wasn't an acceptable mix (Wizard/Giant). The reason I end this generation at 1942 is the impact the Grindewald War would have had on toddlers in such a small community as the Wizarding community.

Artist Generation - 1927 - 1942

Molly Weasley - October 30th, 1949 (Scorpio) - Idealist
Arthur Weasley - February 6th, 1950 (Aquarius) - Idealist
Rita Skeeter - 1951 - Idealist
Bellatrix Lestrange - 1951 - Idealist
Andromeda Tonks - 1953 - Idealist
Narcissa Malfoy - 1955 - Idealist
Bertha Jorkins - 1956 - Idealist/Nomad
Sirius Black - 1959 - Idealist/Nomad

The above are the examples of the following Idealist Generation which occurred during the Muggleborn Awakening. This generation split into two factions concerning the ideal of Muggleborn acceptance: Conservative Purebloods who joined Voldemort in leading a Year of Awakening style revolution, and Liberal Muggle lovers who joined Dumbledore in supporting the rights for Muggleborns & Humanesque Creatures. Rita Skeeter, while not fitting the typical profile of an Idealist--except maybe for one that's sold out to the media like the woman in the movie Network--she works in that she's more of a 3T type of Idealist, stirring up the fault lines of what splits the Wizarding community apart. The fact that Voldemort turned the Awakening into a war, sped up the Generational shift and pulled the latter Idealists into a possible Wizarding equivalent of Generation Jones.

Idealist Generation - 1943 - 1959

Peter Pettigrew - 1959/1960 - Nomad
Severus Snape - January 9th, 1960 (Capricorn) - Nomad
James Potter - March 27, 1960 (Aries) - Nomad
Remus Lupin - March 10th, 1960 (Pisces) - Nomad
Regulus Black - 1961 - Nomad
Bartemius Crouch Jr. - 1962 - Nomad
Bill Weasley - November 29th, 1971 (Sagittarius) - Nomad
Charlie Weasley - December 12th, 1973 (Sagittarius) - Nomad
Nymphadora Tonks - 1973/1974 - Nomad
Viktor Krum - 1976 - Foreign Nomad
Fleur Delacour - 1977 - Foreign Nomad

The above are examples of the Nomad Generation. The early ones born in the early 1960s would have been Idealists, but Voldemort's First War turned them into Nomads. This is best shown by the moody and cynical Severus Snape as well as Regulus Black, who starts out the war fully prepared to fight for Voldemort and his parents' causes without question. However once apart of the group and his idealism crushed, cynicism creeps in, and he dissents from Voldemort's army. This would be the effects of having an Awakening turning into an all out war, which all in this Generation felt in some form or another. The later examples mark me as the typical Nomadic wild characters you would find enjoying an Unraveling. I included Viktor and Fleur to show how this generation extends in foreign countries, but not so much in England.

Nomad Generation - 1960 - 1974

Percy Weasley - August 22nd, 1976 (Leo) - Civic
Oliver Wood - 1976 - Civic
Cedric Diggory - 1977 - Civic
Katie Bell - 1978 - Civic
Fred Weasley - April 1st, 1978 (Aries) - Civic
George Weasley - April 1st, 1978 (Aries) - Civic
Cho Chang - 1979 - Civic
Ron Weasley - March 1st, 1980 (Pisces) - Civic
Draco Malfoy - June 5th, 1980 (Gemini) - Civic
Neville Longbottom - July 30th, 1980 (Leo) - Civic
Ginny Weasley - August 11th, 1981 (Leo) - Civic
Luna Lovegood - 1981 - Civic
Colin Creevey - 1981 - Civic

The above are examples of the small and tiny Civic Generation which crops up in the Wizarding World. They are small and few, but they are the ones who are old enough to fight in the Final Battle and either die as war heroes, or live and become empowered from the experience. Typically clannish (in a Communist Scare kind of way) -- not usually accepting a fellow cohort member who doesn't conform to the norm as they do on several occasions when Harry's reputation is trashed or the few Civics who choose to follow fringe Idealist's beliefs like Luna. They parrot the beliefs of their parents that they've been instilled with as Ron Weasley and Draco Malfoy both exemplify. They are there to hear and be the most influenced by the pleas for unity and teamwork which both Dumbledore and the Sorting Hat give throughout the years, and are the most influenced by it. There is still a sense of some Nomadic mischief about them, as both Fred, George, & Ginny display. However facing Voldemort War II and fighting in the final battle changes this attitude, and turns them from Nomad/Civic cuspers to outright Civics. They also learn for themselves the idea of Civic teamwork through joining Dumbledore's Army in protest of not having proper Defense Against the Dark Arts classes. This also shows a slight dedication and inclination to learning--although in general the fringes better exemplify the stereotypical Civic Nerds or Geeks: Percy Weasley and Neville Longbottom; rather than the members of Dumbledore's Army. The empowerment of the Final Battle is best exemplified through Neville Longbottom.

Civic Generation - 1975 - 1981

Dennis Creevey - 1983 - Artist
Ted Remus Lupin - 1998 - Artist

These best show the following artist generation that comes from after the Wizarding Civil War or Voldemort War II. They comprise of those too young to fight in the battle or not present at the Final Battle (Dennis Creevey), as well as those being born and effected by the WCW/VWII-- Ted looses both of his parents to the war. Ted also represents the classic Artist first time intermingle of mixed marriages: Werewolf (unacceptable fringe) and Metamorphagus (acceptable fringe).

Artist Generation - 1982 - 1998

So put together:

? - 1882 - Idealist - Set down the ideals of how the Wizarding world should be run. Dumbledore in this case was an early fringe believer in Muggle support and Muggleborn rights. I'd compare him to the likes of Helen Keller - imagine if she had lived to today and then died.
1883 - 1907 - Nomad - 24 - Felt the effects of Grindewald's use of the Elder Wand and/or fell on hard times after a brief period of prosperity
1908 - 1926 - Civic - 17 - Fought in Grindewald's War
1927 - 1942 - Artist - 15 - Were effected by Grindewald's War
1943 - 1959 - Idealist - 16 - Either Pureblood Maniacs or Muggle Lovers
1960 - 1974 - Nomad - 14 - Fought in VWI or felt the effects of it.
1975 - 1981 - Civic - 6 - Were able to fight in the Final Battle and become Empowered by it to reform the Wizarding World thereafter
1982 - 1998 - Artist - 16 - Unable to fight in the Final Battle, or were born and highly effected by the battle
Except for the six year Civic generation. All of the Generations after 1910 are around a 15/16 year length. This probably stems from the fact that the time a Wizard/Witch is considered an adult is 17.

Compare to actual English Generations:

Ecumenical (Prophet) – 1870 – 1886
Contemptible (Nomad) – 1887 – 1905
Victory (Hero) – 1906 – 1927
Air Raid (Artist) – 1928 – 1945
Mod (Prophet) – 1946 – 1965
Hooligan (Nomad) – 1966 – 1987
Millennial (Hero) – 1988 -

Now you may be wondering why I'm not including Harry, Hermione, and most importantly Voldemort in my considerations on how to label the different Generations. The fact of the matter is, they were raised in the Muggle world, and although the Generational alignment in the Wizarding World doesn't start going haywire until the 1960s & 1970s, they were raised and have influences more from the Muggle world to begin with. Either that or the author altered the characters to fit her story or ideas.

Harry's upbringing for example is a stereotypical Nomad childhood in which he is emotionally neglected. He never leaves this mindset, even after he gets the Nomad's fantasy come true: (escape from the neglectful society). Once in the Wizarding society, he is believed and accosted and has to undergo several periods where he is rejected by his clannish Civic generational peers throughout the series. Harry thus is effectively a Nomad who continues being a Nomad once he has entered into

Hermione is an authorial caricature of herself. Rowling is a late Idealist, and Hermione reflects this in the author's self-parody of herself. Hermione neither relates with the Muggle Nomad generation she would have belonged to (expect perhaps in regards to the ease in which she cuts all ties from her Muggle parents and how easily disposable they are to her--with her often choosing her friends over her family.) Her Idealist qualities are best exemplified by her dedication to House-Elf reform and liberation. Now while she does react to these ideals by going about organizing groups like S.P.E.W. as well as the passing around pins. She also takes to organizing the case for Buckbeak's trial for Hagrid. These Civic-like actions never take off the ground and aren't as popularly supported by either her friends, her peers, or even the House-Elves themselves. When these methods fail she attempts to begin a rebellion through the House-Elf community by knitting hats and "setting House-Elves free" by tricking them into taking clothes--which backfires. These manners also come from a disconnect with her muggle upbringing and the wizarding world she finds herself in. While in the muggle world this would be the way to garner support for a cause, these are clearly the wrong tactics for the Wizarding world and the wrong way to approach the culture. In the end more parallels could be made to John Brown and Hermione.

Voldemort is an authorial allusion to Adolf Hitler and has the uncharacteristic Nomad-like background inserted into the books' history to support this.

~Chas'88

Cool! Thanks, Chas!

BTW - there's some debate on other lists & forums as to whether Hermoine is an idealist type or a rational type - a Ravenclaw at heart - or a very bright Hufflepuff. Because I note the causes she espouses are those reflecting the operating rules of the Muggle World. A good law-abiding conventional Muggle in the year 2000 who meets a case of outright slavery would be shocked down to her socks by the Wizarding world's acceptance of it - as Hermoine is.

Her failure is in not understanding that house elf psychology is not human. It appears to me to be more canine. Any bets that the house elf Harry freed thinks of himself as Harry's elf now?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Cool! Thanks, Chas!

BTW - there's some debate on other lists & forums as to whether Hermoine is an idealist type or a rational type - a Ravenclaw at heart - or a very bright Hufflepuff. Because I note the causes she espouses are those reflecting the operating rules of the Muggle World. A good law-abiding conventional Muggle in the year 2000 who meets a case of outright slavery would be shocked down to her socks by the Wizarding world's acceptance of it - as Hermoine is.

Her failure is in not understanding that house elf psychology is not human. It appears to me to be more canine. Any bets that the house elf Harry freed thinks of himself as Harry's elf now?

Dobby does in fact think so, IMO. Or at least takes upon a certain manner by protecting & eagerly attempting to please Harry for the rest of the series.

~Chas'88

Ecumenical (Prophet) – 1870 – 1886
Contemptible (Nomad) – 1887 – 1905
Victory (Hero) – 1906 – 1927
Air Raid (Artist) – 1928 – 1945
Mod (Prophet) – 1946 – 1965
Hooligan (Nomad) – 1966 – 1987
Millennial (Hero) – 1988 -

Are they actually called that in England?

n the Great Powers Saeculum most Artist children-- intermixed progeny. In the Great Powers Saeculum this would be the stereotypical Irish/Jewish child.

What could they have had against Irish Jewish people?

OK, I'll bite...

I too was unaware of the existence of a "stereotypical" Irish/Jewish child. Could you explain this stereotype?

I notice you analogized it with the HP werewolf/Animagus child, who you described as "unacceptable fringe"/"acceptable fringe." How close an analogy was this? Was one of Irish/Jewish "acceptable fringe" and the other "unacceptable fringe" back then? Why? What about now -- the stereotypical black/white child? (I'm leaving "Anglo" out of it because "Anglo" is a loaded term. Half of my family is Anglo, sure, but the other half are *very emphatically not* tyvm. Meanwhile most black people I know prefer the term "black," so yeah.)

The *stereotype* (not talking about actual people, just the stereotype) of the black/white child that I'm aware of is that:
1. Both parents' extended families mostly live in the South.
2. Both parents have immediate families who came to a Northern city during or after WWII (anywhere from oh, 1940-1980 or so) in order to better themselves.
3. But failed to better themselves and are still poor and "unruly."
4. So both parents are "hillbillies" (or "Southern trash") who "don't really belong here" -- it's just that one is white and the other is black.

(I'm not sure how much currency this stereotype has, though -- it may just be a Northern cities thing. And are there other stereotypes I'm not aware of?)

Would this stereotype fit your "both fringe, but one is more 'acceptable' than the other" pattern?

BTW:

It's true that each of my Artist parents was more of a mix than had come before: My mom had a purely English(-American) dad and a purely Pennsylvania Deutsch mom; my dad's parents both immigrated from different areas of the old country as kids and so though they married fellow immigrants from the same country, they did not marry folks from the same local area of the old country as their parents and grandparents had.

However, my parents' Anglo-Saxon Protestant + Eastern European Catholic marriage was *not* an acceptable mix. Most of their family members boycotted the wedding; Mom's dad told my dad that because she was "a good Protestant on the inside," she would eventually leave him so he might as well give up now; the priest told my dad that since it wouldn't be a Catholic wedding, it wouldn't be a real marriage so he should feel free to leave at any time; etc.

Later, my Boomer cousin felt the need to defend *her* choice to marry a non-Anglo Catholic with, "Aunt Tedsmom did it!" Still not an acceptable mix, even during the Awakening.

Reminds me of Snape the Nomad, offspring of probably-Artist pureblood and Muggle -- and what we see of that family implies Eileen and Tobias have been cut off from their respective families for having married out (they sure aren't getting any help). Point is, there's that aspect of the Artist experience too.

Xers I asked about an "Irish/Jewish stereotype" had no clue what I was talking about, but the first Silent I asked immediately remembered "Bridget Loves Bernie" (TV show, 1972-73). I'd never heard of that, but when I looked it up, I learned it was based on "Abie's Irish Rose" (Broadway play, 1922-27; film, 1928), which come to think of it I had heard of but forgotten about. I guess that's what you were thinking of, Chas?

Then I'd like to point out that even during the next saeculum's Awakening, "Bridget Loves Bernie" was still so controversial that the network received so many protest letters they actually canceled it even though it had high ratings! :boggle: (Interesting how during the Great Power saeculum's Unraveling, Abie's family was the wealthy, "acceptable fringe" one, whereas during the Millennial saeculum's post-JFK Awakening, Bridget's was.)

(Adina, in case you don't know: "Bridget" is an Irish name; "Bernie" is one of those names that Kelly85 was talking about that is not actually an Old Testament name but was so widely adopted by Jews that it has a "Jewish flavor"; "Abie" of course is "Abraham," an Old Testament, stereotypically Jewish name; "Rosemary" is a Catholic name. And I suspect every American of Gen X or older knows all this without having to think about it; the previous paragraph assumes the reader knows.)

Chas, I'd suggest changing your "stereotypical Irish/Jewish child" to "stereotypical mixed-religion child." The former is so specific as to be confusing; in the Great Power saeculum there was opposition to many types of religious mixing, not just that one. My parents' experience fits right into that, of course (holding over to the next Awakening -- as I suspect the "unacceptability" usually does). Bottom line, if you'd said "mixed-religion," I'd have known what you meant, and so I think would the Xers I talked to today who'd never heard of a specifically Irish/Jewish stereotype.

Originally Posted by Ted '79

Xers I asked about an "Irish/Jewish stereotype" had no clue what I was talking about, but the first Silent I asked immediately remembered "Bridget Loves Bernie" (TV show, 1972-73). I'd never heard of that, but when I looked it up, I learned it was based on "Abie's Irish Rose" (Broadway play, 1922-27; film, 1928), which come to think of it I had heard of but forgotten about. I guess that's what you were thinking of, Chas?

Then I'd like to point out that even during the next saeculum's Awakening, "Bridget Loves Bernie" was still so controversial that the network received so many protest letters they actually canceled it even though it had high ratings! :boggle: (Interesting how during the Great Power saeculum's Unraveling, Abie's family was the wealthy, "acceptable fringe" one, whereas during the Millennial saeculum's post-JFK Awakening, Bridget's was.)

(Adina, in case you don't know: "Bridget" is an Irish name; "Bernie" is one of those names that Kelly85 was talking about that is not actually an Old Testament name but was so widely adopted by Jews that it has a "Jewish flavor"; "Abie" of course is "Abraham," an Old Testament, stereotypically Jewish name; "Rosemary" is a Catholic name. And I suspect every American of Gen X or older knows all this without having to think about it; the previous paragraph assumes the reader knows.)

Chas, I'd suggest changing your "stereotypical Irish/Jewish child" to "stereotypical mixed-religion child." The former is so specific as to be confusing; in the Great Power saeculum there was opposition to many types of religious mixing, not just that one. My parents' experience fits right into that, of course (holding over to the next Awakening -- as I suspect the "unacceptability" usually does). Bottom line, if you'd said "mixed-religion," I'd have known what you meant, and so I think would the Xers I talked to today who'd never heard of a specifically Irish/Jewish stereotype.

Yep, it was exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote that--Abie's Irish Rose. So I'll make that distinction. In the Great Powers saeculum, mixing religions was a big no-no (think of how much Teva protests about his youngest daughter's marriage to a Christian in Fiddler on the Roof--which is set in turn of the century Russia), not so much in the Millennial Saeculum, although I've found trying to mix Mormon & Methodist is a bad combo... I broke up with my last girlfriend because she tried to convert me.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Yep, it was exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote that--Abie's Irish Rose. So I'll make that distinction. In the Great Powers saeculum, mixing religions was a big no-no, not so much in the Millennial Saeculum, although I've found trying to mix Mormon & Methodist is a bad combo... I broke up with my last girlfriend because she tried to convert me.

~Chas'88

I take it you were the Methodist, and she the Mormon?

Originally Posted by Adina

I take it you were the Methodist, and she the Mormon?

Correct.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Correct.

~Chas'88

I know Mormons are pretty strict. How strict are Methodists?

Originally Posted by Adina

I know Mormons are pretty strict. How strict are Methodists?

Methodists used to be strict about 100 years or so ago, but since then they've slowly become more laxed about things. Personally I don't like the encroaching Catholic influence that divorced Catholics remarrying in Methodism (because Methodist ministers are one of the few who'll remarry divorced Catholics) have brought, so I'm kinda a loner in terms of religious beliefs.

I have run into some crazy whackos in terms of religious belief--one who believes that the second comming of Christ has already happened (he came back through books apparently)... that was an "interesting" debate, to say the least.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Methodists used to be strict about 100 years or so ago, but since then they've slowly become more laxed about things. Personally I don't like the encroaching Catholic influence that divorced Catholics remarrying in Methodism (because Methodist ministers are one of the few who'll remarry divorced Catholics) have brought, so I'm kinda a loner in terms of religious beliefs.

Interesting! My mom was raised Methodist. Her (Lost + GI) parents were really strict teetotalers. The song I quoted in the "Silent Styles of Parenting" thread, "Letter from May Alice Jeffers," is based on a letter from a 1900 Lost and also includes the line, "My first husband was a Methodist: We did not drink, but we did dance." My mom would say that's how she was raised, too.

Do Methodists still believe the following? Have I misunderstood any of them? Where are you seeing Catholic influence?

• Total depravity -- Because of original sin, people don't naturally choose to pursue salvation.
• Conditional election -- God chooses to save you only if you have faith.
• Unlimited atonement -- Jesus died for everyone, not just the saved.
• Prevenient grace -- God's grace gives everyone the free will to accept or reject salvation.
• I forget the last term but -- Even if you've been saved, you can fall from grace if you sin and don't repent.

Catholics have a lot of those, don't they? My Catholic relatives are big on free will (as an explanation for suffering in the world, but still). I thought the main difference was faith vs. works?

Here are my experiences with Protestants:

-Denominational Protestants: Santa Claus style religion. Many do not attend church every single week. Follow all the rules they like, and defend those rules, but discard other rules. Generally in good humor, and loves their religion. Seem like normal, rational, reasonable people.

-Non-denominational Protestants: See nothing wrong with dancing or drinking alcohol. Go to church every week unless deathly ill. Believe that every word in the Bible should be taken literally. Consider Catholicism, etc. as heresy. If anyone disagrees with your particilar interpretation of what the Bible literally says, insist that it's blasphemy or heresy. Insult the pope and Catholicism and Anglicanism, and Judaism, and Islam. Carry a Biible everywhere you go, and try to convert everyone you meet. Talk about the influence of Satan in every converesation.

Those are just the experiences of the people I've met. Probably not everyone is like that.

Originally Posted by Adina

Here are my experiences with Protestants:

-Denominational Protestants: Santa Claus style religion. Many do not attend church every single week. Follow all the rules they like, and defend those rules, but discard other rules. Generally in good humor, and loves their religion. Seem like normal, rational, reasonable people.

This one seems to fit me perfectly. Especially the last sentence.

Although I will admit I've gone through a period (still going actually) of questioning my religion and the purpose of God. I do not believe that the church has the answers I'm looking for.

I'm at that same point in my religious development. I've actually found that solitary meditation with God on those questions, and having a personal relationship with God is more valuable than all the Sunday mornings I've ever spent at a church, or the summers I went to a church camp.

I will say that church does provide a good foundation for educating and introducing religion and spirituality to the young. It can even be a good place to go for community support and for those who wish to discuss with others about these questions. However, I feel that religion is a private matter best settled on an individual level.

As for the Catholicization of the particular Methodist church, it isn't anything large such as beliefs, it's when the Catholics start getting nostalgic for "blessings of the animals" and start opposing our female ministers, that I start to cringe.

~Chas'88

However, I feel that religion is a private others about these questions. However, I feel that religion is a private matter best settled on an individual level.

I usually think so too.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Yep, it was exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote that--Abie's Irish Rose. So I'll make that distinction. In the Great Powers saeculum, mixing religions was a big no-no (think of how much Teva protests about his youngest daughter's marriage to a Christian in Fiddler on the Roof--which is set in turn of the century Russia), not so much in the Millennial Saeculum, although I've found trying to mix Mormon & Methodist is a bad combo... I broke up with my last girlfriend because she tried to convert me.

~Chas'88

This was the case in my family. My WASPy grandparents were not all that pleased that my aunt married a Greek man of immigrant parents. I've heard in the beginning of their marriage there was a lot of tension regarding this. Then my Greek uncle went on to become very sucessful. (At that point, he was totally accepted, and they thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. Imagine that? ) However, even though my cousins were raised in the Greek Orthodox church and my aunt attended that church her entire married life, she never offically converted and gave up her membership in the Protestant church of her childhood. I believe this was to appease my grandparents. Some time within the last ten years, after my grandmother died, my aunt, who is now almost 80, offically joined the Orthodox church. Her reasoning for doing at this point in her life is so that her Greek Orthodox raised children will be able to hold her funeral in the church.

BTW, I do remember the show Bridget Loves Bernie. We watched it in my house, but I was too young to really understand why it was so controversial.

By the time the Xer generation in my family (siblings & cousins) started getting married there was no problem with people marrying outside of their faith or culture. We have plenty of in-laws from various religions and nationalities. One of my Greek Orthodox cousins even married a muslim woman from Turkey. The family loved her. They are no longer married. They did end up getting divorced but it had nothing to do with religion or their different upbringings. It had more to do with the fact that my cousin was an idiot, but that's a whole other story. At any rate, most of the family wishes they were still married.

We also have several Catholics and a Jewish in-law. My husband's father's side of the family are Morman. So, I know about that religion too. And all these people of different religions and ethnic backgrounds all get along just fine and are respectful of each others beliefs. I doubt my WASPy grandparents ever expected when they were young and starting their family, that their descendants would be so diverse.

I doubt my WASPy grandparents ever expected when they were young and starting their family, that their descendants would be so diverse

I wonder what kinds of ideas about diversity will be in vogue during the next Awakening.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

although I've found trying to mix Mormon & Methodist is a bad combo... I broke up with my last girlfriend because she tried to convert me.

~Chas'88

Another note to Chas...

My husband's parents were a Methodist/Mormon mix and it didn't work out to well for them either. Although it may not have been the central issue for their marriage falling apart it most definitely caused tension. It was mostly on the side of the paternal Mormon grandparents. My Methodist raised mother-in-law wanted nothing to do with the religion and there were constant battles between her and her in-laws.

After the divorce, my father-in-law married another non-Mormon woman. Although that time around the second wife did convert. I believe part of it was her understanding what difficulties it had causes in her husband's first marriage and understood the tension which exsisted with his first wife and his parents. So everyone was happier the second time around and my father-in-law and his second wife have been married for about 30 years and are still going strong.

I believe this one area where religion can cause problems because of the lifestyle and thinking is so very different. Catholics and mainstream protestants can co-exist just fine together. Mormans and Methodists or those of other similar type protestant backgrounds, maybe not so much. I'm not saying it can't work. There is just a lot to over come.

I would never convert , unless I was absolutely sure that I would be ok with it for the long term. Otherwise I would regret it, and it would probably cause a lot more friction in a marriage.

Originally Posted by ASB65

This was the case in my family. My WASPy grandparents were not all that pleased that my aunt married a Greek man of immigrant parents. I've heard in the beginning of their marriage there was a lot of tension regarding this. Then my Greek uncle went on to become very sucessful. (At that point, he was totally accepted, and they thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. Imagine that? ) However, even though my cousins were raised in the Greek Orthodox church and my aunt attended that church her entire married life, she never offically converted and gave up her membership in the Protestant church of her childhood. I believe this was to appease my grandparents. Some time within the last ten years, after my grandmother died, my aunt, who is now almost 80, offically joined the Orthodox church. Her reasoning for doing at this point in her life is so that her Greek Orthodox raised children will be able to hold her funeral in the church.

BTW, I do remember the show Bridget Loves Bernie. We watched it in my house, but I was too young to really understand why it was so controversial.

By the time the Xer generation in my family (siblings & cousins) started getting married there was no problem with people marrying outside of their faith or culture. We have plenty of in-laws from various religions and nationalities. One of my Greek Orthodox cousins even married a muslim woman from Turkey. The family loved her. They are no longer married. They did end up getting divorced but it had nothing to do with religion or their different upbringings. It had more to do with the fact that my cousin was an idiot, but that's a whole other story. At any rate, most of the family wishes they were still married.

We also have several Catholics and a Jewish in-law. My husband's father's side of the family are Morman. So, I know about that religion too. And all these people of different religions and ethnic backgrounds all get along just fine and are respectful of each others beliefs. I doubt my WASPy grandparents ever expected when they were young and starting their family, that their descendants would be so diverse.

This is very similar to the generational changes in my family. None of my aunts or uncles (or my parents) on either side married non-Protestants. My mother was Episcopalian, my father Presbyterian. My father became an Episcopalian. Whooee. Big deal.

Now, my generation is very different. And I suspect the Millies and Homelanders to be even more so as they get married. I don't even know what religion my niece's fiance was raised in. None of us cares, either. Unlike my paternal grandmother. In that generation, in my family, marrying the "wrong" person could get you kicked out of the family.

Wait, come to think of it, my maternal grandmother was raised Irish Catholic. She became an Episcopalian. However, my cusper Missionary/Lost grandfather was not at all concerned about that kind of thing. He was astonishingly unprejudiced for his time.

Some of this may have to do with the nature of the religion in which someone is raised, however. For example, when I was seriously involved with a Jewish man and we talked about marriage, I would have had little problem converting to Judaism.

I think when it comes religion and marriage, you need to find someone you are compatible with. I am a Liberal Mainline Protestant (Methodist), which means that it might not be best for me to have a marriage with someone who is a conservative Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Mormon.

This doesn't mean that I am against their right to worship freely. I will defend the right of these people to worship freely whenever given the chance. Furthermore, I have no problem with having these types of religious people as friends either, as long as they are respectful to me. As for a marriage, however, I feel that its success will depend a lot on my wife and I's religious compatibility.

Also, if I were to ever marry someone who was not a Methodist, I would not expect them to convert, nor I would I want them to convert me either.

Originally Posted by Wes84

I think when it comes religion and marriage, you need to find someone you are compatible with. I am a Liberal Mainline Protestant (Methodist), which means that it might not be best for me to have a marriage with someone who is a conservative Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Mormon.

This doesn't mean that I am against their right to worship freely. I will defend the right of these people to worship freely whenever given the chance. Furthermore, I have no problem with having these types of religious people as friends either, as long as they are respectful to me. As for a marriage, however, I feel that its success will depend a lot on my wife and I's religious compatibility.

Also, if I were to ever marry someone who was not a Methodist, I would not expect them to convert, nor I would I want them to convert me either.

I totally agree that people have the right worship how they please and they should not be judged by that. My family's religious background was Methodist (father's side) and Presbyterian (mother's side). These are not too far apart from each other. I attended both Methodist and Presbyterian churches growing up. I'm currently a member of a Presbyterian church. I can tell you of my siblings and cousins who were raised in these churches, some of them did marry Catholics. This has not been a problem. Although the protestants and Catholics do have their differences, the differences are not as wide as there are between some Protestant demonations. By this I mean, that there is not real lifestyle differences. I believe that's where some of the problems arise. Like with the Mormons who believe drinking caffeine beverages, drinking alcohol or smoking are sins. The Mormons also have special garmets that they wear under their clothing. They don't have priests or ministers. They have lay people who lead their worship. Plus a host of all kinds of other things. Then there are the "born agains" and penecostal (or evangelicals) people who don't believe in drinking or even things like dancing. I know that the Southern Baptist and other penecostals don't even let their children trick or treat on Halloween. That's considered devil worship. So I think it really depends on what kind of religions you are trying to balance in a marriage.

Honestly, I kind of doubt I would have even dated someone who was say, Mormon or Southern Baptist because I probably wouldn't have found much common ground with them in the first place.

My husband was pretty opposed to the whole idea of religion when we first met. He believed there was a God but wasn't real crazy about the whole idea of organized religion. I think his Mormon grandparents kind of turned him off of the whole idea of it. He never attended church with me the first 10 years of our marriage. (I didn't go much back then either), but I never pushed him. When our first son was born, I told my husband that I wanted to have our son baptized and I wanted our son to attend Sunday School. It was around this time that my husband decided he would go and check it out. He has attended church with us eversince. But that was his decision. You can't force people into believing the way you do. I found that it usually doesn't work and tends back fire on you anyway.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I totally agree that people have the right worship how they please and they should not be judged by that. My family's religious background was Methodist (father's side) and Presbyterian (mother's side). These are not too far apart from each other. I attended both Methodist and Presbyterian churches growing up. I'm currently a member of a Presbyterian church. I can tell you of my siblings and cousins who were raised in these churches, some of them did marry Catholics. This has not been a problem. Although the protestants and Catholics do have their differences, the differences are not as wide as there are between some Protestant demonations. By this I mean, that there is not real lifestyle differences. I believe that's where some of the problems arise. Like with the Mormons who believe drinking caffeine beverages, drinking alcohol or smoking are sins. The Mormons also have special garmets that they wear under their clothing. They don't have priests or ministers. They have lay people who lead their worship. Plus a host of all kinds of other things. Then there are the "born agains" and penecostal (or evangelicals) people who don't believe in drinking or even things like dancing. I know that the Southern Baptist and other penecostals don't even let their children trick or treat on Halloween. That's considered devil worship. So I think it really depends on what kind of religions you are trying to balance in a marriage.

Honestly, I kind of doubt I would have even dated someone who was say, Mormon or Southern Baptist because I probably wouldn't have found much common ground with them in the first place.

My husband was pretty opposed to the whole idea of religion when we first met. He believed there was a God but wasn't real crazy about the whole idea of organized religion. I think his Mormon grandparents kind of turned him off of the whole idea of it. He never attended church with me the first 10 years of our marriage. (I didn't go much back then either), but I never pushed him. When our first son was born, I told my husband that I wanted to have our son baptized and I wanted our son to attend Sunday School. It was around this time that my husband decided he would go and check it out. He has attended church with us eversince. But that was his decision. You can't force people into believing the way you do. I found that it usually doesn't work and tends back fire on you anyway.

I agree. You should not not force anyone into following a certain religion, you have to let people decide what's best for themselves.