Does Religion Matter

Spoke to Shibhabni today, things really look bleak for her
Freud had once remarked .. "love is nothing but sexual urge, blocked !" & ofcourse he couldn't have been any more correct. which brings me to what "should" be given a higher priority .. & obviously, anything that is more amenable to us & forms a closer part of our identity ought to be given (& is given, if better sense prevails) a higher preference !however, circumstancial factors may end up making the situation complicated (& sometimes even add to it's complexity) & can therefore result in the optimality of a choice, which (otherwise) would have been more redundant than the rest. But assuming a free & fair ambience, it's very plausible to say that "love" (according to it's definition above) must be given a higher preference .. because it indicates (even if indirectly) one of the most basic instincts known to man ! Indeed, an experiment would also show a human propensity towards favouring "love" over "religion" !In case of chronologically newer bodies of dogma like Islam (as compared to it's much older, wizened cousin Hinduism) .. public sentiment & fear of reprisal is far more deep rooted. Also, for a religion (or any ideology or 'ism', for that matter). which is still in the active proselytizing stage early psychological engineering of 'baptized' individuals is extreme [more so in women, owing to the patriarchal nature of most societies]. they develop a very "set" or "stiff" mindset, in general & have a tendency to be provoked easily or cause provocation (strictly in matters of faith). Infact, all collective human ideologies, irrespective of the content of their dicta (whether malicious or benign) indicate extreme intolerance in early phases of development - which are often marked by bloody revolutions & regime overthrows ! Cases in point are the nazis, early communists, imperialists, zionists, islamic fanatics, fanatic hindu revivalists, christian crusaders, even neo-nationalists .. in short, you name it. Infact, the gandhian crusade which showed such intolerance to the stiff-upper-lip British imperialism, albeit "non-violently" was as much violent in spirit as say the nazis ! It just was novel in a way that it turned the violence to itself & asked masses (that belonged to the movement) to inflict pain on oneself (through an external agent) & in turn cause a moral dilemma to those whom they chose as their agents. It was based on the fundamental paradox that a party, which champions the "morally superior" virtues of humbleness & weakness, is the strongest in conflict (in the long run). But before I get any more digressive, I must say that the above analysis does indicate the nature of Islamic mass-psychology (which has got LESS to do with Islamic scriptures & MORE to do with the humans that follow them). Therefore, due to the currently entrenched nature of this system of beliefs & also its perceived threat to its identity as one of the major organised religions of the world - its followers, the muslims tend to be inflexible (at the expense of mental-equilibrium) even against the strongest of lures known to man. Thus a muslim girl in love with, say, a hindu boy is far less probable to marry him than if it were a muslim boy & hindu girl. But this decision not to marry would be made under extreme self-imposed psychological pressure, which can result in very messy situations. A personal opinion: I believe (with insufficient evidence) that a muslim boy in love with a girl of a different religion is more amenable to conversion to the spouse's faith, than a muslim girl in analogous circumstances. This is based on the patriarchal nature of human societies, where a man has a higher sense of individuality & is therefore less dictated by societal biases.
At the end all I can say is best of luck to you both aftab and Shibu u know I would be there for u guys , whatever u decide just remember its your life you are talking about...
From An New Atheist's value