Should not literacy and sanity tests be imposed on candidates for public office?

[fpb]

An example of what passes for discussion of public issues in Canada:

...Mark Holland, Liberal MP for Ajax-Pickering,... claimed that marriage could be whatever anyone wants it to be because 'cultures change over time.' He said that religions have nothing legitimate to say on the subject because "the religious definition of marriage, the idea of marriage being a religious ceremony, did not come into being until the 16th century." Though Mr. Holland did not specify which culture's history he was revising, he asserted that, "It was in the 14th century that the clergy began to get involved in religious ceremonies performed by the state because the clergy was literate, so we undertook a change then."

I can only say that as a historian, I find it offensive that such a pitiful moron should be able to take part in the governing of a modern state. And if I need to explain to anyone that this is brutish, dim-witted, pathologically incompetent nonsense, then I can only recommend that that person should go back to his/her school and sue them for their complete failure to educate him/her in elementary history.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

To be brief: the Church consecrated marriage from the beginning, and there has been no substantial change in its doctrine of marriage from the second century to today. (This applies, largely, to the Orthodox Church as well, though there are strong differences in emphasis and interpretation between Orthodox and Catholics.) Before Rome and Greece became Christian, marriage ceremonies had a religious dimension in most cultures. At no point in history has there ever been such a thing as homosexual marriage (in spite of the desperate attempts of one James Boswell to prove the opposite). Many cultures before Christianity practiced polygamy, and a very few polyandry (one wife many husbands); practically all of them had some form of divorce. The great innovation of Christianity was the denial of divorce and the insistence on single-man-single-woman marriage, but the Church was consistent in its teachings within itself. Until the twentieth century, NO Christian church had ever accepted divorce for any reason, and the only case of polygamy on record (Martin Luther's politically motivated permission to the Duke of Hesse to have two wives) caused such scandal that it nearly destroyed Luther. In other words, the institution of marriage is largely the same in most cultures and always the same in any properly Christian culture. End of story.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

I always thought the Church of England allowed divorce?

One wife, many husbands: why would you want to? ;)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I always thought the Church of England allowed divorce?
As on many things, the CofE's position on divorce has ben fuzzy - and for good reason, since it was artificially invented to allow a tyrannic king to divorce his unwanted wife. (To make a parallel, if Philip of Hesse had got away with his bigamous arrangements, mandated by Luther and Melanchthon, it is hard to see how the Lutheran Churches could have opposed polygamy afterwards; only he didn't.) The CofE, however, has claimed for much of its history that it is a branch of the universal Church - to use its own language, the Church Catholic; and the universal Church certainly does follow its Master in condemning divorce. Hence a difficult situation. Church teachings condemn divorce, but a slightly fuzzy manner, and Church practice winks at second marriages. Bear in mind that although English law allowed divorce ever since Henry VIII, until the eighteen-fifties it took a decision from Parliament to allow it; and afterwards it was transferred to the criminal courts, from which the Divorce Court was hived off. (I may be getting some detail wrong here, and I would recommend checking; but I am fairly clear about the outline of events.) Until the nineteen-fifties, English society regarded divorce as something disgraceful, that told against both parties; they got rid of a king who wanted to marry a divorcee (Edward VIII) and forced the Queen's sister, Margaret, to break her love affair with a divorced man. (The evidence is that Margaret was unhappy for the rest of her life.) The sixties, as with the rest of the world, changed everything; and the Church of England is left with a rather fuzzy condemnation it would dearly like to ditch but is not allowed to. The doctrinal absurdities this leads to are shown by the recent public statement by the CofE Bishop of Salisbury, who said that the Prince of Wales "should apologize" to Andrew Parker Bowles (Camilla's ex-husband), as if that would make everything all right. Sorry, my Lord Bishop, divorce is either wrong, or it is not. And if it is wrong, an apology from the co-respondent cannot make it right before God, can it?
One wife, many husbands: why would you want to? ;)
Cultural peculiarities. In some mountain parts of India, for instance, where it exists, it is justified by the precedent of the legend of the Mahabharata, India's great epic, whose five heroes all married the same woman at the same time. However, it is very rare. To take the same instance, although the Mahabharata is common to all of India (and various neighbouring areas such as Indonesia), only a few small tribal areas use the story as a precedent.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Well, my comment about having many husbands was sort of a joke. :)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I know. But while no culture had yet invented homosexual marriage, some had gone down some pretty crazy by-ways. In ancient Persia, incestuous marriage (father-daughter or brother-sister) was regarded as peculiarly holy, indeed it was felt that it banished demons and protected the world. The evidence is that it never became popular, however. It was one of those cases (of which there are plenty) where cultural ideology is too opposite to human nature to succeed.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe it's time to try something new? Meaning the gay marriage thing. *ducks flying objects*

Why, exactly, would you consider multi-husband marriage (can't remember the word for it) any weirder than polygomy? I mean, I recognise some evolutionary reasons why this can happen, but really, polygomy creates such an imbalance!

Regarding incest - we were discussing this in one of our tutes recently. One of the girls, who has relatives in Lebannon, said that first-cousin marriage - a notion that produced major "Ewww!" reactions from the rest of us - is very common there, and considered acceptable.

Still, father-daughter and brother-sister makes me squirm at the deepest level. Much more than gay marriage.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess that I have grown up reading stories about Oriental princes and their many wives, so I am used to the idea. I mean, not only in the Bible and history, but for instance in such things as children's adventure novels set in the East. There is also a physical advantage in that one man and many women can produce a correspondingly larger number of children (some historical sovereigns, such as Ramses II, could have staffed whole battalions with their sons), whereas there is no such advantage with polyandry.

By the way, it is spelled P-O-L-Y-G-A-M-Y, not polygomy.

Yes, I know that cousin marriage is normal in Islamic countries. Many of them also allow marriage at nine years for women, because Muhammad married the last of his wives when he was 54 and she was 9. These are two features in which (to put it mildly) they depart from Western practice.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

There is also a physical advantage in that one man and many women can produce a correspondingly larger number of children

This is what I meant by evolutionary reasons, though it's only practicable if the man has the resources to provide for all these children.

I don't know much about marriage laws in Islamic countries, though I'm pretty sure marrying a 9-year-old is not likely to be common practice these days. (At least, not in Lebannon - I'm sure my friend would've mentioned it if it was.)

One of my friends has family in Pakistan - from what she's told me, the culture there is quite restrictive, but not as bad as one might expect. Divorce, for example, is possible, though frowned upon. Arranged marriages do happen, though what's more common is semi-arranged. From what I understand, this involves the parents choosing a suitable candidate (this goes for girls and boys) and allowing the couple to meet a few times. If they don't like what they see, they can say no, but most husbands and wives barely know each other before they get married. My friend is quite terrified that her parents are going to start looking for suitors soon - she's just turned 20 and this is a definite possibility.

And thanks for the spelling lesson, Professor. ;)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You see, you think of Muslim marriage laws as being "less restrictive than you would think" is because your cultural background is Christian, and the worst thing that could happen to your ancestors is to be stuck with a criminal or a moron with no way to break with them this side of death. However, the dangers that threaten an Islamic bride are different. You have not been told that the man alone has the right to divorce, and that he can do so at his pleasure, dumping his wife as he pleases. The woman never can, and if she leaves her husband for someone else she can be charged with adultery. And I prefer not to tell you what Shariah law prescribes for women found guilty of adultery. You must bear in mind that there is a natural instinct among Muslims to soften the hard edges of their traditions and understate the ferocity of much of their law, when speaking with others - after all, nobody likes to see someone they are talking with suddenly become shocked, or assume that over-bright insincere attitude that tells you that you have just disgusted them and they are too polite to tell you.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

No, I asked about a woman's right to divorce - I'm sure it's different in different countries, but apparently in Pakistan, they can ask for a divorce, but they have to make sure they put a clause into the marriage contract that says so.

I've heard about what some countries do to women charged with adultery.

Don't think I consider their way of doing things "okay" - I don't. My friend, though she's living in Australia, though she was born and grew up in Australia, faces the very real possibility of that "semi-arranged" marriage, and trust me, she's not happy about it. But it's not as bad as I thought. Keep in mind that I consider certain Catholic practices and laws restrictive and unnecessary. :) But that's another story altogether.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Of course; you're not Catholic. People are not converted by marriage laws. If you ever come to accept that the Church is the bearer of some serious and important trutns, then it will be time to talk about specific laws.