07-03-2013, 04:25 PM
I disagree Eppie.
We can't automatically assume that something is "unequal" purely because something has a history of it. Things change, times change. Equality is an ever progressing concept, one that we still struggle with.
But that doesn't mean that we automatically assume that a polygamous marriage would be unequal because a portion of the population shows inequality. I'm sure the four women that Mav mentioned would have a relatively equal polygamous existence. Arguing that it only has a chance of equality because another group of people in a completely different ideological setting normally have rather unequal-"atic" polygamous marriages does a disservice to those people.
It's very likely that polygamous unions born outside of a specific ideology will be equal, because it isn't the polygamous union that is unequal, it is the ideology of the religion that makes them unequal. Calling all Polygamous Unions unequal with a chance for equality based on one religious experience, would be the same as saying that Every Apple in the world has a worm in it, because some apples in some orchard that didn't properly plan for insecticide treatments ended up with worms in their apples.
The problem with what we see in the church in question is not an uncommon thing to find in many churches. Women are still, by and large, second class citizens in many religious entities. Their position is better than it was 30 years ago, but it is still a work in progress. If you take the bible as a biblical literalist, without historical and cultural context, they will always remain that way, and they will actually show regression in their position, because the bible is very strict about it.
But what people fail to see, and realize, is that the culture within which these texts were written was far closer to the dreaded "Sharia Law" style Islam that everyone fears. Woman are to be subservient. They are to be quiet in church. They are not to question their husbands. They are to obey his every command.
There are people who still spout this nonsensical babble today. Not too long ago, that reject on the 700 club told a woman that she should make her home more enticing for her husband so he wouldn't cheat. As in, it's her fault that the home doesn't keep him home.
These people will slowly evolve, and slowly change their perceptions. But the problem is, religious perceptions are a lot like geology. The reference of time with which you need to measure them is far slower than what you think. It doesn't make it right, or ok, but change is happening, slowly.
I rambled there. Sorry.
We can't automatically assume that something is "unequal" purely because something has a history of it. Things change, times change. Equality is an ever progressing concept, one that we still struggle with.
But that doesn't mean that we automatically assume that a polygamous marriage would be unequal because a portion of the population shows inequality. I'm sure the four women that Mav mentioned would have a relatively equal polygamous existence. Arguing that it only has a chance of equality because another group of people in a completely different ideological setting normally have rather unequal-"atic" polygamous marriages does a disservice to those people.
It's very likely that polygamous unions born outside of a specific ideology will be equal, because it isn't the polygamous union that is unequal, it is the ideology of the religion that makes them unequal. Calling all Polygamous Unions unequal with a chance for equality based on one religious experience, would be the same as saying that Every Apple in the world has a worm in it, because some apples in some orchard that didn't properly plan for insecticide treatments ended up with worms in their apples.
The problem with what we see in the church in question is not an uncommon thing to find in many churches. Women are still, by and large, second class citizens in many religious entities. Their position is better than it was 30 years ago, but it is still a work in progress. If you take the bible as a biblical literalist, without historical and cultural context, they will always remain that way, and they will actually show regression in their position, because the bible is very strict about it.
But what people fail to see, and realize, is that the culture within which these texts were written was far closer to the dreaded "Sharia Law" style Islam that everyone fears. Woman are to be subservient. They are to be quiet in church. They are not to question their husbands. They are to obey his every command.
There are people who still spout this nonsensical babble today. Not too long ago, that reject on the 700 club told a woman that she should make her home more enticing for her husband so he wouldn't cheat. As in, it's her fault that the home doesn't keep him home.
These people will slowly evolve, and slowly change their perceptions. But the problem is, religious perceptions are a lot like geology. The reference of time with which you need to measure them is far slower than what you think. It doesn't make it right, or ok, but change is happening, slowly.
I rambled there. Sorry.
nobody ever slaughtered an entire school with a smart phone and a twitter account – they have, however, toppled governments. - Jim Wright