Answering Readers, Part 9

Biblical (תַּנַ״ךְ) depiction of
the flight from Sodom and Gomorrah

Concerning Interfaith Matters |
Thursday – September 3, 2026

Interfaith matters or issues regarding the relationship between people of the same faith that belong to different orders or denominations is an issue that sometimes comes up here in the modern day, although I should admit that it seems to me that issues of this kind seem less common these days. At any rate, I am going to attempt to provide some advice and guidance to one of my readers in this post regarding exactly that matter, and then also another matter, which I will return to below. I should mention that I have already responded to a similar letter/issue in this post, although in a completely different context.

    This post will be the 9th part of this series, "Answering Readers series", and I will surely be delighted to answer this and many other readers questions to me. Again, at this point I still have some letters left to cover, but if you cease sending me your letters asking me questions, then I will have to halt this series, which would be unfortunate, not that I have to post a response almost every week answering your questions, but just in order to keep up your expectations.

    I should also say that the previous part of this series did erupt in some outrage, because I have received some letters—that I do not intend to cover in this series–complaining about my stance when it came to the issue of plastic surgery specifically involving underage persons, in that case an underaged girl. Well, to everyone complaining about this, I can only say that I have been consistent in my stance on plastic surgery, and I am in favor of plastic surgery for reasons that go beyond the merely corporeal. Sure, if we only concern ourselves with the appearance of a young girl, then I can see that plastic surgery can come across, again in that context, as something quite reprehensible, something that I also mentioned in that part. The whole point of plastic surgery for her had to do with her particular community and the particulars of her community, or rather the peculiarities of her community, and in that context it was also appropriate to bring up plastic surgery. In one strongly worded letter that I received, the person, who shall remain anonymous, claimed that it might be illegal for a child to undergo plastic surgery unless there are "obvious" and clear "medical" reasons for her to do so, and again to this point I have nothing to say, except that I should redirect you to this footnote.* Of course, I did not expect to receive so much negative and malign attention, but the matter that I wrote about in the previous part had nothing to do with encouraging children, or anyone else for that matter, to get plastic surgery for no reason.

    Now that I have had the opportunity to respond to all of the angry complaints about my previous part, I may move on to this part and the rules that I may or may not apply in this post. Generally, I do not employ nor do I apply hard rules. I do however engage in a certain amount of ediotrazation, such as removing profanities and offensive language. By "removing" I simply refer to me substituting the offensive language with less offensive language, and this will be indicated by the usage of two brackets, [text]. Again, I do not engage in this policy because I am attempting to adhere to the anti-principals of political correctness; I am engaging in this policy because I am in charge of this blog, of this page, and there has to be some kind of order. Now, if it happens that some letter is too long for me to quote, I will also indicate this by the usage of two brackets, three dots inside two brackets in that case, [...]; three dots inside two brackets because this indicates that there are parts of the letter being excluded, before or after. Now, I may also do this if it is necessary for me to protect the person addressing me in their letter, but so far that has not happened and I do not anticipate that this will happen or that I will respond to such a letter. This does not mean that I reject anonymous writers/inquiries, but I would much prefer that you state that you wish to be anonymous directly, rather than doing so later. Again, there is no need or indeed any reason for you to reveal any details about yourself, as this is not required for me to answer your questions, and I suppose as well that I do gather a certain sense of annoying individualism in the fact that certain people almost refuse to be anonymous, but this is also a story for another time.

    Now, to deal with the current letter at hand. I will say that this letter did not strike me as exaggerated, as some of these letter can tend to be, which is why I will attempt to put great effort into answering each and every part of the letter addressed as a question to me. Now, I will attempt to not engage in conjecture, but sometimes I need to do this, as certain letters simply do not contain enough information. This is also the first letter written by a woman, which will not change anything except perhaps certain dynamics, read "Gender Roles".

    Mrs. Judith Palmer asks:

"Hello Mr. Dutt, my name is Judith Palmer and I am very anxious about the future. You see, my father believed in a Jehovah merciless towards unbelievers, he was a calvinist, and when I married my late husband he disowned me, calling me a whore and claimed that I was going to burn in hell. My late husband was a catholic. Was he right, is Jehovah merciless towards unbelievers? Was he and my childhood community right in being scandalized by my marriage?" — Judith Palmer.

I welcome your question and that you took time out of your day to ask me this question. Now Mrs. Palmer, you have raised a profound question regarding the nature of what moderns refer to "interfaith marriages", and I can imagine that this has been quite difficult for you, and I can imagine further still that you must have faced a rather hard time in your youth always looking behind your back wondering if your community was going to take further action. Now, since I do not know your particular faith and/or denomination, I will not be able to delve into any detailed answers here. I will say this though, if you disobeyed your father he would be quite right in being scandalized in your marriage, especially if you are not catholic. Now, you marrying a man from another denomination is quite a problem for several reasons, including the fact that you may end up causing great distress to your community, and this could further backfire on your children, which is undesirable. This marriage to your late husband may also, in the view of certain people, be quite illegitimate, but it would not be for me to tell. Now, as it goes with catholics, the praxis, especially since you are the wife, would be to essentially take the children out of the community and introduce them to catholic doctrine and lifestyle, which today too often means modernity and deviation. This is not to say that you do not have any autonomy, but I would warn any and all readers against the temptation of romance, read more about that here. I stated that I did not know your particular denomination, as you stated that your father was a calvinist. Since you did not obey your father, I take it that you did not cling on to calvinism? This explains the confusion above. I will say this about unbelievers: most of them may be said to be cursed in the here and now, for they are almost or completely solidified at this point, and so whether or not we worry about Jehovah and his mercy, or lack thereof in the case of your fathers theology, we must realize that the example of these people should be enough, read "My Views on the Modern Soldier Archetype".

    Now, in terms of Jehovah's view of you and your actions, I simply cannot say. I will say this though: you asked whether Jehovah was merciless towards unbelievers, and as the issue here is down to revelation and the unity of the sources, I believe we would do good in avoiding the comforts of absolutism and fundamentalism. Now, I would suggest that indeed, to a certain extend Jehovah is merciless towards unbelievers, and to the extent that this ties into the particularism of Calvinism, I will only say that if your father believed in predestination, it would make sense for a Jehovah merciless towards unbelievers, and this would also explain why predestination is the main emphasis of the fate held by you father and his co-religionists. Remember here that we are not dealing with revelation, but rather individuation, deceit, and potentially blashmemy, which in the case of your father certainly would do him no good in his standing with Jehovah. This is not to say that your father was wrong, but it is to suggest that he likely had a very narrow view of things, and I should further clarify that I in no way mean to indite your father of blaspheme; certainly I did not know your father and his intentions.

    As far as your father being scandalized by your marriage, you must understand that after all, he and his community, your former community, likely expected you to obey him (your father), and while the secular law provides guards when it comes to grievances of this kind, but from the standpoint of your father and his community, I hold that it was quite right for them to send you away; after all you decided to lead another lifestyle, and in accordance with the convictions of your father you must attempt to see his perspective. Now, whether or not you are a wench I cannot answer, but I am sure that you are not, and indeed that kind of language was not called for. Had your father had the purview in mind that his daughter might go off to marry a strange man one day, perhaps he would have moved you and the rest of your family out of your then predicament.

    Lastly and to return to the point that I made about Jehovah: let us remember that in the theology and in the doctrine of most major Christians denominations, there is no such thing as a Jehovah merciless towards unbelievers; in fact most of your coreligionists would concur whit what I stated above. This is not to say that Jehovah of the Bible is a good that tolerates those things that should not be tolerated, but it is to suggest that perhaps you must seek solace in the story of Christ, rather than in the past, especially now that both your husband, and I gather your father, are no longer around. And now Mrs. Palmer, may God be with you.

Reginald Drax (AKA, M. C. Dutt) – September 3, 2026.

Footnote

* Again, if you want to learn more about my stance with regards to secular laws, then I direct you to my posts specifically dealing with that subject: "The Problem of Secular Law", "Should You Break Rules?", "Is God Above the Law?", "The Law Of The Land", and "Why Science Fails". Again, these posts directly deal with this subject, read also my "About Me" page.