A great deal of attention is focused on the recent raids on the FLDS compound in Texas. The behavior of the state has rightly been condemned, most effectively by Les Jones who wrote:
Imagine that some parents in a school district were accused of child abuse. Now imagine that the authorities took every […]
Ron Paul has attracted the support of a few unsavory characters, but we’re all sure that Ron Paul doesn’t agree with them on their unsavory beliefs, and his record proves it.
Mike Huckabee? Not so much. He seems pretty certifiably wacko, and his supporters are most definitely unsavory:
I read in Robert Novak’s column this […]
In light of tarran’s excellent post about government recognition of religious holidays, I found this article from The Politico to be both amusing and disturbing:
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced a resolution (H.Res. 847) saying, and I am not making this up, that Christmas and Christians are important. The House is scheduled to vote on […]
A perennial question that comes up this time of the year is the question of how Christmas should be celebrated in public places, with a significant amount of anger and heated accusations being traded between proponents and opponents of the idea.
The Argument For
Christmas is a major part of American culture, especially since it was heavily […]
CNN reports that the German Government is moving to ban Scientology:
BERLIN, Germany (AP) — Germany’s top security officials said Friday they consider the goals of the Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation’s constitution and will seek to ban the organization.
The interior ministers of the nation’s 16 states plan […]
Mitt Romney was deluged today with questions about yesterday’s speech on faith, specifically about the statement that: “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.” “It was a speech on faith in America, first of all,” Romney said, during a testy exchange with reporters after a town hall forum here. He said he was paraphrasing […]
Doug has posted over the last day or so about Mitt Romney’s speech on religion and politics… Romney, as a Mormon, is facing some interesting attacks from the evangelical wing of the Republican party, who don’t regard Mormons as “true Christians”. Doug’s opinion is that such a worry is pointless, and that voters […]
Ron Paul with, so far, the sanest thing I’ve heard anyone say on the subject of religion and politics:
“We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who […]
Mitt Romney gave his much anticipated speech on faith and politics today:
COLLEGE STATION, Texas — Republican Mitt Romney, confronting voters’ skepticism about his Mormon faith, declared Thursday that as president he would “serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause,” and said calls for him to explain and justify his religious beliefs go […]
RSS 2.0 Feed
Unfortunately you miss a fundamental source of fear: the fear that they will go to hell for eternity if they say no to the bishop. Because of this even if all persecution from the outside ceased immediately institutionalized abuse would still continue.
Also, just legalizing polygamy is unlikely to stop persecution by itself. The historical persecution of polygamists goes far deeper than just bigamy laws. Even non-polygamist mainstream Mormons have found significant anti-Mormon sentiments from others, and add in isolation and “funny clothes” and the like and some people just seem to think that’s some sort of invitation to bully, oppress and condemn.
I do think legalizing polygamy would seriously help by forcing law enforcement and helping the media differentiate between illegal (but not too harmful) polygamy that isn’t really that distinguishable from adultery, having lots of baby mamas or the various other more socially acceptable familial forms and illegal (and quite harmful) abuse of men, women and children.
Comment by V.S. — May 7, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Mother Nature supports monogamy, not polygamy. Polygamy is anti-social. There are not even two women for every one man. Therefore, if polygamy were legalized, who would collect all the extra “wives”? (In reality, concubines.) Rich men would collect concubines for their harems, but poor men would have to do without a sexual partner with whom to raise a family. That would make for social unrest. And concubines and harems are part and parcel of backward Third-World countries where women are 2nd-class citizens. They do not belong in any First-World country that claims men and women are equal.
Comment by Jancis Andrews — May 8, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Jancis, I give you an assignment;
write 100 times: “That which is not forbidden is not compulsory.”
If this is confusing, ask yourself whether adultery should be legal or illegal.
Oh and having one alpha males who mates with all the females in his band and prevents other males from mating with them shows up repeatedly in the great apes, including our species. From an evolutionary standpoint it is the natural, or primitive condition of human societies. That’s not to say I advocate for people to set up their families that way - most women do not want to live in a polygynous group. Nor do most men want to live in a polyandrous family. Thus the fraction of polygamous families would be quite small if it were legalized and not stigmatized.
Edited to fix numerous spelling errors :(
Comment by tarran — May 8, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
minor correction: “That which is not forbidden is not necessarily compulsory.”
Comment by Jeff Molby — May 8, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
One other thought: I find it interesting that when one is talking about polygamy, most people assume that one is really talking about polygyny: one man paired with multiple women.
We could just as easily be talking about polyandry which is one woman paired with many men, which is rare but not unheard of.
It is kind of strange how everyone makes a simmilar assumption about something that Jancis claims is not a part of human nature.
Comment by tarran — May 8, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Very interesting article. I especially liked the quote given from the woman who grew up in a polygamous family. If only more people would hear those kinds of stories instead of the ones where woman and children are being abused!
As for what Jancis said about men out numbering women, statistically women out number men world wide. Women are about 51% of the world’s population, men are 49%. In polygynous societies less than 5% of married men have multiple wives, and even then they usually only have two. Large harems are not very common.
As for being anti-social, what’s wrong with two or more women falling in love with a man who is able to provide for his family? Often that is the case with Christian polygyny (not what the FLDS practice). It is not to gain status or to become more holy. It’s about adults being in love.
Again, good article. I enjoyed reading it!
Comment by WSG — May 8, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Jancis, “Mother Nature” overwhelmingly supports polygyny over monogamy. More than 90% of all human cultures have been polygamous throughout history, and of the 1200 or so documented in modern times, more than 80% are polygamous.
As for equality, is it EQUAL to tell adult women that they cannot have the one man they choose? What about their rights?
Anyway, the fact is that men and women aren’t equal–they’re different. Equal means the same. Physically and mentally, men and women are very different. Value-wise, men and women are equal, of course, but to say that polygamy makes them unequal when it is by CHOICE, is to ignore the fundamental differences between the genders in spite of science and Biblical evidence to the contrary.
Comment by John_for_Christ — May 8, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
I am glad that many of you can look so dispassionately upon polygamy, but something is missing in your legalistic arguments:
the suffering of the women and children
I am from a fifth generation mormon pioneer family. The first polygamist in my family joined the mormon church in 1835.
I heard as a child many personal stories from
grandparents of how they suffered and their
mothers suffered in polygamy.
I have read many pioneer journals and histories.
There is no way that polygamy or polygny or polyandry or plural marriage or multiple wives should be legalized or decriminalized.
It would be bad social and bad political policy.
SLAVERY and POLYGAMY (POLYGNY,POLYANDRY,ETC.) ARE FOREVER LINKED.
There is no equality in SLAVERY/POLYGAMY/BIGAMY.
Comment by ann mere — May 10, 2008 @ 11:29 am
ann - with respect, the problem is not with polygamy itself, but with a religious belief that in effect treats women as slaves of their fathers or husbands. By making women’s salvation dependent on their husband’s salvation and prohibiting divorce, the Mormon church effectively made women chattel of men.
Even if the Mormon church had been monogamous, you would still have the tales of misery.
If a person chooses to be in a relationship that isn’t monogamous, it is none of our business. I have no business stopping my neighbor from marrying anyone for any reason.
If a man tries to compel a woman to marry him by force, then it is a crime regardless of how many (or how few) wives he already has. Prosecute that crime, rather than outlawing all sorts of victimless behavior in hopes that somehow among all the innocent people who are harmed a few criminals will be thwarted.
Comment by tarran — May 10, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
I agree with what Tarran says. Polygamy is not the root of the problem of woman and children being abused. Woman and children have been, are being, and, unfortunately, will be abused with or without polygamy.
I am a woman who is not opposed to polygyny, but will not stand for abuse. I will not allow my husband to harm either myself or our children, but I wouldn’t mind if he had a second wife. The key here is that it’s not for gain on a religious level for us. It is simply a choice of a different life style than most others. He is not abusive, I am not forced to stay home, I don’t have to wear funny clothes or go to church everyday. It’s not about our religion (we’re not Mormon). When you turn that, or anything really, into a symbol of religious status, thats when you end up with problems.
Marriage should be between the people who are entering into that union and no one else. It should be for reasons of love, not force or gain.
Comment by WSG — May 11, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
As far as nature being supportive of monogamy but not polygyny, I offer the following:
There would be enough women to go around because there’s enough men who find men attractive it leaves a surplus of women. I suspect this will increase hugely as we reach the end times.
IF, and I say if for a reason, polygyny was legalized, women would be able to choose a good man who’s already married and avoid the ‘losers’ who just sit on their butts. The only thing women would find oppressive is they wouldn’t be able to rule the roost nearly as easily as in a monogamy only society. But if they love their man, are treated well as they should be, it’s not oppressive at all. Our government is way more oppressive than marriage…. Then again, considering the state of monogamy, maybe that is more oppressive….
Plenty of men stay single for whatever reason, if we can only have monogamy, that leaves many women with poor options. Statistically more women wish to marry than men, seems to be built into them. So actually this creates a situation that is anti-social because women fight amongst themselves for rights to the man they control. Ever see a cat-fight between women competing for a man? It’s just not pretty, and is certainly not an indication of an evolving society.
So, this makes me wonder which society is more progressive, one that allows multiple wives where a woman isn’t abandoned for another, or one that recognises a responsible man can love more than only one wife?
Comment by KGM — May 16, 2008 @ 3:11 am
KGM
What about the women who don’t want a man? This morning my wife was commenting that men tend to be slovenly pigs- that pigs were in fact preferable as they didn’t put on pretentious airs (Someone forgot to clean up after capping a marathon coding session with a late night snack). ;)
I also notice that you talked about legalizing polygyny but not polyandry… Out of curiosity, why?
Comment by tarran — May 16, 2008 @ 5:26 am