Re: CoS in the news
On 29 Jan 2008, at 01:57, Doug Pensinger wrote: Dave wrote: Yes, it's amazing how a practice of your Church of roughly 100 years ago which, by some accounts, was not all that widely practiced, and by no means _the_ defining characteristic of the Church) is all that most people seem to know about. To some extent, you can thank HBO's Big Love, which, like most interest in Mormon Polygamy, seems to be based on the titillation factor, more than anything else. You don't think that polygamy was a major selling point when attempting to attract adherents? It's also notable that statehood was withheld from Utah long after it was eligible primarily _because_ of polygamy. Brigham Young, one of the most prominent figures in the LDS history, had 52 wives!!! It's interesting that the USA with its supposed religious freedom suppressed LDS polygamy and also doesn't recognise Islamic polygamy although men having (up to) four wives is a part of the religion of 1.61 billion Muslims. Britain, which has established Christian church(es), does tacitly recognise polygamous Muslim marriages that took place in countries where such are permitted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=POHBDAX2TRRLVQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal. Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal. The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record. The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law. New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polygamy
At 01:00 PM 2/3/2008, William T Goodall wrote: snip It's interesting that the USA with its supposed religious freedom suppressed LDS polygamy and also doesn't recognise Islamic polygamy although men having (up to) four wives is a part of the religion of 1.61 billion Muslims. There is an interesting discussion about which sex benefits from monogamy in Robert Wright's _Moral Animal_. I can't find my copy at the moment, but as I remember his analysis said women were more likely to benefit where men differ a lot in quality. I.e., better a fraction of a top ranked man than all of a loser. Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Polygamy
William T Goodall wrote: (snip) It's interesting that the USA with its supposed religious freedom suppressed LDS polygamy and also doesn't recognize Islamic polygamy, although men having (up to) four wives is a part of the religion of 1.61 billion Muslims. theocracy violates the separation of church and state. there are limits to religious freedom, otherwise any one can claim to be the next joseph smith and prophecize that any child can be forced into marriage before they even hit puberty. i watch big love and poor bill hendrickson had to take multiple does of viagra a day. it's hard enough (no pun intended) to satisfy just one woman. polyandry makes a lot more sense, but has been only practiced in one society, that i know about. the question i have is, since the genders are close to evenly balanced, what happens to the left overs... jon l. mann Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On 3 Feb 2008, at 22:10, jon louis mann wrote: William T Goodall wrote: (snip) It's interesting that the USA with its supposed religious freedom suppressed LDS polygamy and also doesn't recognize Islamic polygamy, although men having (up to) four wives is a part of the religion of 1.61 billion Muslims. theocracy violates the separation of church and state. So does making laws that support a Judeo-Christian notion of marriage whilst outlawing the practises of other religions. there are limits to religious freedom, otherwise any one can claim to be the next joseph smith and prophecize that any child can be forced into marriage before they even hit puberty. The limit to 'religious freedom' in the USA is that it doesn't apply to non-Judeo-Christian traditions. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Conservative Declaration and Liberal Constitution?
Folks, I'm going to attend an Aspen Institute seminar in a couple of weeks, so I've been reading the source materials, and an intriguing thought occurred to me. I'd like to see this group's reaction to it. In American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic, Joseph J. Ellis writes: There were really two founding moments: the first in 1776, which declared American independence, and the second in 1787-88, which declared American nationhood. The Declaration of Independence is the seminal document in the first instance, the Constitution in the second.The former is a radical document that locates sovereignty in the individual and depicts government as an alien force, making rebellion against it a natural act. The latter is a conservative document that locates sovereignty in that collective called the people, makes government an essential protector of liberty rather than its enemy, and values social balance over personal liberation. It occurred to me that this view of the Declaration of Independence, with its focus on individual sovereignty standing against an alien government, is at the core of contemporary (neo-)conservatism, while this view of the Constitution, with its focus on government as representing the collective will of the people, is at the core of contemporary liberalism (Ellis's application of the word radical to the Declaration and conservative to the Constitution notwithstanding). I was amazed how (at least Ellis's depiction of) each document represents one of the ends of the current political spectrum, and wondered if there is not, in this observation, the seed of an idea to bring these polar opposites together, not that I know what manner of seed it is, at this point: this is no more than an observation whose full development to date is represented in this email, but it warrants further consideration and discussion. Conservatives and liberals alike claim to be the true heirs and defenders of the Constitution: touting its assertion of the right to keep and bear arms and its minimization of the federal, for example, on one side, and freedom of (and especially from) religion and protection of minorities from the overwhelming will of the majority, for example, on the other. Similarly, liberals and conservatives alike seek to reclaim their concept of founders' intent as enshrined in the Constitution, especially in light of the excesses (as acknowledged by both left and right) of the current administration. But liberals especially embrace the way the constitution formalizes and endorses communal action through government for the benefit of the people. On the other hand, liberals might embrace the Declaration's radical spirit of throwing off the shackles of the old guard grip on power, but it seems to represent conservatives' longing to throw the bums out and declare independence from the overweening arrogance of wasteful bureaucracy. What do you think? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Feb 2008, at 03:24, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a connection or why. I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise the men without women will revolt. If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. It was an intriguing suggestion, though. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SCOUTED: NYT Article: Steven Pinker The Moral Instinct
Folks, Some of you no doubt know (of) the linguist Steven Pinker, who wrote The Language Instinct and other books. Here's a fascinating article about morality, including Pinker's thoughts on its neurological origins, or at least where it seems to reside, neurologically: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9804EFDB1F3CF930A25752C0A96E9C8B63sec=spon=pagewanted=print http://tinyurl.com/23hcre Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
William wrote: If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than straight men. Unless lesbians buy into the polygamy thing, this is probably a wash. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Polygamy
Julia wrote: You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles) That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square one. It was an intriguing suggestion, though. Oops, didn't see this until after I had sent mine. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
