BENEFITS OF RELIGION IN THE SOCIETY
News Articles,Public Affairs
An article written by Don Horrocks in response to the Charity Commission’s consultation on ‘Public Benefit and the Advancement of Religion’
08 July 2008
The Charity Commission’s consultation on ‘Public Benefit and the Advancement of Religion’[1] ended on 30th June. We can expect a period of serious reflection and critical questioning before the Commission finalises its guidance to the religious charitable sector in accordance with its monitoring of charities in the light of the Charities Act 2006.
Many religious groups, including the Evangelical Alliance, have generally welcomed the new Act and have broadly supported the new concept of charities in future having to demonstrate their contribution to public benefit rather than it being presumed as in the past. However, some serious concerns remain. The Church of England, for example, warned that Christian charities in particular are in danger of political interference from the new public benefit rules. It is worried that a charity existing exclusively to promote traditional Christian views in a particular area – such as marriage and sexual ethics – could have its charitable status threatened, and that the Commission’s intention to assess membership criteria, evangelism methods, doctrinal interpretation, and public opinion represents a serious exceeding of powers and competence. It also points out that religious groups who provide pastoral care are already under pressure in other areas to suppress their religious character and distinctives.[2]
Whilst the benefits of religion and belief do have to be assessed and articulated in satisfactory ways to be comprehensible to a largely secular legal world, because spiritual benefit, for example, may be less easy to quantify, it is important that its distinctive language should not become marginalized in favour of purely secular categories. Spiritual benefit is not a notional concept but its relevance and significance is often only appreciated by experience. The challenge of understanding and recognising the validity, nature and language of religion and belief in terms of its own particular character relating to public benefits needs to be respected and taken on board, not least as religion and belief now forms a major human rights strand of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Attempts to reduce the language of religion and belief to purely secular/sociological terminology or the lowest common language denominator of ‘non-religious belief systems’ and so-called humanist ‘spiritualised principles’ should be resisted. Whilst it clearly needs to explain itself in understandable categories, in dealing with religion and belief its own terminology should not be discarded whilst attempting to force it into a ‘one size fits all’ secular mould that may be unsuited to its particular nature and characteristics. Requiring religion to speak only the language of the non-religious is a dangerous notion since secular organisations are frequently diametrically opposed to faith and share little in common, notwithstanding attempts by e.g., humanist groups to present themselves as a secular version of religion. It is therefore crucial that religious charitable organisations are asked the right and the most appropriate questions and are not merely required to check lowest common denominator tick boxes.
In other areas, the Charity Commission suggests that it is sufficient to demonstrate public benefit merely to ‘appreciate the arts’ or to ‘experience positive feelings when helping sick animals’. In which case self-evident spiritual benefits provided by religion and belief should be acknowledged for what they are on their own terms, traditionally expressed in the ‘edification and improvement’ of a religion’s followers. Measurement of public benefit should effectively depend on usage – i.e., the fact that people find religion helpful and evidence this by what they do – e.g., in attending church or by other forms of participation. If the felt benefit may be described, for example, in terms of the sense of forgiveness and assurance of salvation experienced through the cross of Jesus Christ, then that should represent a valid religion and belief public benefit descriptor. Though tangible social and community activities often accompany religious faith as inspiration for and manifestation of the outworking of that faith, religion and belief should not necessarily have to demonstrate such other tangible benefits but should be accepted as affording spiritual health and wellbeing in its own right – however indirect or intangible. The whole point is that faith generally equips individuals and groups with the mental and spiritual motivations necessary to be good citizens, a fact that is usually uncontested but that can relatively easily be demonstrated by reference to statistics relating to e.g., crime and social action. Religion does not claim exclusivity in positive contribution to society, but it does claim disproportionate contribution. Indeed, most major charitable institutions owe their origins to religious motivation.
The Evangelical Alliance, in its recent submission to the Charity Commission, took the opportunity to restate some of the features that make the Christian community a vital part of the charity sector:
The value contributed to society by the Christian community in particular and religion and belief in general has often been highlighted. Recent responses by Christian groups to the Charity Commission seek to highlight and articulate the case for charitable status to be retained for all forms of legitimate Christian religious activity, including proclamation of the Christian gospel. Government, Prime Minister,
Chancellor and Home Secretary have all expressed strong recent support for faith groups and the role they play in developing civic society and providing crucial social support community networks.
With regard to missionary or evangelistic Christian charities, questions are still asked as to whether activity solely aimed at presenting and seeking responses to the Gospel should be regarded as meeting the public benefit test. This question was addressed in Government consultations and it was clearly accepted in the consequent parliamentary debates on the Charities Act 2006 that such organisations unquestionably qualified for charitable status. It was recognised that religious organisations need to be able to sustain themselves into the future, something that has always been done through the medium of evangelism (the non-coercive communication of the Christian faith to those not yet committed to the gospel of Christ).
Does Religion Benefit Society?
In my travels I’ve come across the claim that the United States would be much better if everyone was a Christian (or sometimes it’s just some kind of theist) many times. I haven’t seen any polls done on that belief, but based on my experience I bet a good number of people hold it.
Which I why I found this study to be so interesting. It’s titled Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies (say that ten times fast), from the Journal of Society and Religion. Gregory S. Paul analyzed a whole boatload of data on nearly every indicator for societal health, from violence to STDs, from nearly every first-world country, and compared that to the country’s religiosity. Lets see what he found.
For starters, almost everyone knows that the US is pretty religious. But just in case you didn’t: “[T]he United States is the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity otherwise limited to the second and third worlds.” The polls I’ve read vary, but it’s usually between 80 and 90 percent of people believing in a god of some form, with over half taking the Bible literally (although this study says 30%), and a solid majority attending regular services (although this study says 40%). Like I said, polls vary, but the numbers are in that range.
One good indicator of societal health is murder rates. People in a healthy society don’t kill each other. Plus, the Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill”, so if people take the Bible seriously (as a large number of Americans do), we should have lower murder rates. This is not the case: “[T]he U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard.” We’re not the only one, either: “Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm.”
High religiosity doesn’t help our kids much either, we have far more school shootings and the same teen suicide rates as the other Western democracies. How about violent crime? The story is a little bit better here: “Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime, and are often lower in this regard.” Well, that’s some good news. Kind of.
How do we fare with teenage pregnancy? After all, every religion I know of preaches abstinence until marriage, so shouldn’t religion decrease teenage pregnancy? Well, no: “Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies… but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest.” As you would expect with this data, we also have poor STD rates: “[R]ates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies... The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates.”
But surely we get less abortions. We have the largest percentage of people who believe in God, and quite a large number of (generally religious) pro-lifers, so we must kill less babies? Right? Again, no: “Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution.”
It’s pretty clear that high religiosity doesn’t help out our society very much. But that’s not the end of it, we even tend to die sooner than other democracies: “Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise, especially as a function of absolute belief.”
To sum up:
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies... The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.
[…]
Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.
Because I’m pretty sure that some people will protest, I want to point out a few things. First, I don’t think religious people are bad, and this study does not make that claim. Second, I’m not saying that religion makes society bad. As I’ve said before, correlation does not mean causation. It could very well be that there is something else underlying this trend; the US is different enough from Europe where that’s entirely possible. However, it would be very, very difficult for the claim that religion makes societies better to be true. As Mr. Paul says:
The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
Also, don’t write this off as only one study, especially without looking through his references (which I deleted from the quotes, there were quite a few). Even dismissing this one, I’ve read others (such as one here, although it’s a bit buried), and I’ve seen a good portion of the data. It would be almost impossible for religion to make society as a whole better given the fact that secular Europe beats us in every measure of societal health. However, I doubt that anyone who has made this claim will be influenced by studies like this one. Which is unfortunate, because the sooner we move past the ridiculous claim that more religion is what we need, we might actually be able to work on improving our society. I’m not holding my breath.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
CEREBRAL MALARIA
What is cerebral malaria?
Cerebral malaria (CM) collectively involves the clinical manifestations of Plasmodium falciparum malaria that induce changes in mental status and coma. It is an acute, widespread disease of the brain which is accompanied by fever. The mortality ratio is between 25-50%. If a person is not treated, CM is fatal in 24-72 hours. The histopathological hallmark of this encephalopathy is the sequestration of cerebral capillaries and venules with parasitized red blood cells (PRBCs) and non-PRBCs (NPRBCs). Ring-like lesions in the brain are major characteristics. Disease risk factors include being a child under 10 years of age and living in malaria-endemic area.
There is a clear need for a strict definition of cerebral malaria in order to properly diagnose and assess the condition. A pragmatic definition based on the Glasgow Coma Score exists. Its key elements are: (1) unrousable coma--no localizing response to pain persisting for more than six hours if the patient has experienced a generalized convulsion; (2) asexual forms of P. falciparum found in blood; and (3) exclusion of other causes of encephalopathy, i.e. viral or bacterial. (Newton and Warrell)
The Blantyre Coma Scale, a related diagnostic tool, has been devised for young children.
What are the symptoms?
Clinical manifestations of cerebral malaria are numerous, but there are three primary symptoms generally common to both adults and children: (1) impaired consciousness with non-specific fever; (2) generalized convulsions and neurological sequelae; and (3) coma that persists for 24-72 hours, initially rousable and then unrousable.
What is the cause?
The cause of cerebral malaria is not well understood. Currently, there are two major hypotheses explaining its etiology. They are the mechanical and the humoral hypotheses.
The mechanical hypothesis asserts that a specific interaction between a P. falciparum erythrocyte membrane protein (PfEMP-1) and ligands on endothelial cells, such as ICAM-1 or E-selectin, reduces microvascular blood flow and induces hypoxia. This selective cytoadherence of PRBCs and non-PRBCs, also known as rosetting, can apparently better account for CM’s histopathological hallmark and its characteristic coma condition. However, this hypothesis is inadequate in explaining the relative absence of neurological deficit even after days of unconsciousness.
The humoral hypothesis suggests that a malarial toxin may be released that stimulates macrophages to release TNF- and other cytokines such as IL-1. The cytokines themselves are not harmful, but they may induce additional and uncontrolled production of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide would diffuse through the blood-brain barrier and impose similar changes on synaptic function as do general anesthetics and high concentrations of ethanol, leading to a state of reduced consciousness. The biochemical nature of this interaction would explain the reversibility of coma.
What are possible treatment options?
As cerebral malaria is the fatal within days of malaria infection if left untreated, immediate treatment is crucial. Because natural immunity to malaria is not fully understood (Immunity) and thus cannot yet be artificially imitated by drugs, control and prevention strategies are significant. Two of these are antimalarial chemotherapy and adjunctive measures. Public health interventions are also critical (Public Health).
P. falciparum parasites in brain capillary (J.S. Tatz)
• Chemotherapy for cerebral malaria now primarily involves the use of quinine, for a patient with severe CM must be assumed to have chloroquine resistance. It is one of the four main alkaloids found in the bark of the Cinchona tree and is the only drug which over a long period of time has remained largely effective for treating the disease. Quinine has similar activity to chloroquine in that it is likely to interfere with the parasite’s enzymatic digestion.
• Artemisinins have been shown in some clinical trials to clear parasitemia and fever faster than quinine or chloroquine, but they had no effect on mortality rates. Artemisinin has been used by the Chinese as a traditional treatment for fever and malaria. It is a sesquiterpene lactone derived from Artemisia annua. The two most widely used are artesunate and artemether. Because it is both cheap and effective, it is beginning to be included in treatment schedules. However, it is not yet licensed for use in Australia, North America or Europe. Its main value is in the treatment of multi-drug resistant falciparum malaria. As the possibility of quinine resistance looms, artemisinin and its derivatives may soon become the drugs of choice for CM treatment (Newton and Warrell).
• Adjunctive measures for CM treatment exist, but they are debatable in both use and efficacy:
Anti-pyretics Such as paracetamol to reduce fever. However, it is not clear if a reduction in core temperature benefits cerebral consequences.
Anti-convulsants Such as phenobarbital sodium for seizures. It is crucial to control or prevent seizures, as they can cause neuronal damage and are associated with a fatal outcome.
Reduce intracranial pressure Using agents such as osmotic diuretics.
Hypoglycemia correction Using hypertonic glucose. However, theoretically, correcting hypoclycemia in the presence of tissue hypoxia can worsen tissue acidosis.
Exchange transfusion Generally only been justified when peripheral parasitemia exceeds 10% of circulating erythrocytes. The role of these blood transfusions remains highly controversial, as they are both expensive and potentially dangerous in many malaria-endemic areas.
Anti-Inflammatories Such as corticosteroids. However, there have been few controlled studies demonstrating benefit.
Desferrioxamine An iron-chelating adjuvant agent with antimalarial properties. Reduces formation of reactive oxygen species by reducing amount of free iron.
Microcirculatory Flow
Such as pentoxifylline. Reduces red cell deformability and blood viscosity, decreases systemic vascular resistance, and impairs platelet aggregation, thus improving microcirculatory flow.
What is cerebral malaria?
Cerebral malaria (CM) collectively involves the clinical manifestations of Plasmodium falciparum malaria that induce changes in mental status and coma. It is an acute, widespread disease of the brain which is accompanied by fever. The mortality ratio is between 25-50%. If a person is not treated, CM is fatal in 24-72 hours. The histopathological hallmark of this encephalopathy is the sequestration of cerebral capillaries and venules with parasitized red blood cells (PRBCs) and non-PRBCs (NPRBCs). Ring-like lesions in the brain are major characteristics. Disease risk factors include being a child under 10 years of age and living in malaria-endemic area.
There is a clear need for a strict definition of cerebral malaria in order to properly diagnose and assess the condition. A pragmatic definition based on the Glasgow Coma Score exists. Its key elements are: (1) unrousable coma--no localizing response to pain persisting for more than six hours if the patient has experienced a generalized convulsion; (2) asexual forms of P. falciparum found in blood; and (3) exclusion of other causes of encephalopathy, i.e. viral or bacterial. (Newton and Warrell)
The Blantyre Coma Scale, a related diagnostic tool, has been devised for young children.
What are the symptoms?
Clinical manifestations of cerebral malaria are numerous, but there are three primary symptoms generally common to both adults and children: (1) impaired consciousness with non-specific fever; (2) generalized convulsions and neurological sequelae; and (3) coma that persists for 24-72 hours, initially rousable and then unrousable.
What is the cause?
The cause of cerebral malaria is not well understood. Currently, there are two major hypotheses explaining its etiology. They are the mechanical and the humoral hypotheses.
The mechanical hypothesis asserts that a specific interaction between a P. falciparum erythrocyte membrane protein (PfEMP-1) and ligands on endothelial cells, such as ICAM-1 or E-selectin, reduces microvascular blood flow and induces hypoxia. This selective cytoadherence of PRBCs and non-PRBCs, also known as rosetting, can apparently better account for CM’s histopathological hallmark and its characteristic coma condition. However, this hypothesis is inadequate in explaining the relative absence of neurological deficit even after days of unconsciousness.
The humoral hypothesis suggests that a malarial toxin may be released that stimulates macrophages to release TNF- and other cytokines such as IL-1. The cytokines themselves are not harmful, but they may induce additional and uncontrolled production of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide would diffuse through the blood-brain barrier and impose similar changes on synaptic function as do general anesthetics and high concentrations of ethanol, leading to a state of reduced consciousness. The biochemical nature of this interaction would explain the reversibility of coma.
What are possible treatment options?
As cerebral malaria is the fatal within days of malaria infection if left untreated, immediate treatment is crucial. Because natural immunity to malaria is not fully understood (Immunity) and thus cannot yet be artificially imitated by drugs, control and prevention strategies are significant. Two of these are antimalarial chemotherapy and adjunctive measures. Public health interventions are also critical (Public Health).
P. falciparum parasites in brain capillary (J.S. Tatz)
• Chemotherapy for cerebral malaria now primarily involves the use of quinine, for a patient with severe CM must be assumed to have chloroquine resistance. It is one of the four main alkaloids found in the bark of the Cinchona tree and is the only drug which over a long period of time has remained largely effective for treating the disease. Quinine has similar activity to chloroquine in that it is likely to interfere with the parasite’s enzymatic digestion.
• Artemisinins have been shown in some clinical trials to clear parasitemia and fever faster than quinine or chloroquine, but they had no effect on mortality rates. Artemisinin has been used by the Chinese as a traditional treatment for fever and malaria. It is a sesquiterpene lactone derived from Artemisia annua. The two most widely used are artesunate and artemether. Because it is both cheap and effective, it is beginning to be included in treatment schedules. However, it is not yet licensed for use in Australia, North America or Europe. Its main value is in the treatment of multi-drug resistant falciparum malaria. As the possibility of quinine resistance looms, artemisinin and its derivatives may soon become the drugs of choice for CM treatment (Newton and Warrell).
• Adjunctive measures for CM treatment exist, but they are debatable in both use and efficacy:
Anti-pyretics Such as paracetamol to reduce fever. However, it is not clear if a reduction in core temperature benefits cerebral consequences.
Anti-convulsants Such as phenobarbital sodium for seizures. It is crucial to control or prevent seizures, as they can cause neuronal damage and are associated with a fatal outcome.
Reduce intracranial pressure Using agents such as osmotic diuretics.
Hypoglycemia correction Using hypertonic glucose. However, theoretically, correcting hypoclycemia in the presence of tissue hypoxia can worsen tissue acidosis.
Exchange transfusion Generally only been justified when peripheral parasitemia exceeds 10% of circulating erythrocytes. The role of these blood transfusions remains highly controversial, as they are both expensive and potentially dangerous in many malaria-endemic areas.
Anti-Inflammatories Such as corticosteroids. However, there have been few controlled studies demonstrating benefit.
Desferrioxamine An iron-chelating adjuvant agent with antimalarial properties. Reduces formation of reactive oxygen species by reducing amount of free iron.
Microcirculatory Flow
Such as pentoxifylline. Reduces red cell deformability and blood viscosity, decreases systemic vascular resistance, and impairs platelet aggregation, thus improving microcirculatory flow.
Should ‘Polygamous’ marriages be abolished?
Published October 4, 2009
Having a wife and entertaining a concubine or a mistress elsewhere is the modern type of polygamy. What benefits does polygamy bring to a nation, a society or individual? Nothing. Eliminate it then, writes AMOR NAMUOTO.
In Kenya, marriage hitherto viewed as an achievement, or a form of social graduation, is currently changing into a necessity catapulted by hard economic times and changing lifestyles, especially in cities.
Having a wife and a concubine or a mistress, is the modern type of polygamy. Although many of these mistresses, or ‘other wives’ come to light when a man dies; they all perform the duties of a wife.
In the United States, citizens have the right to engage in any kind of sexual relationship, with any number of partners as long as it is consensual. Consent in this case is not well-defined (same sex individuals can also consent to be intimates). In addition, consensual can be momentary (a.k.a. booty call), or long lasting (a.k.a. cohabitation). With this kind of setup, it is possible for any person, American or not, to legally sire several children outside marriage with different partners.
Whereas many religious practices around the world die hard, the choice between being a polygamist (being legally married to many women), bigamist (criminal offence of marrying one person while still legally married to another), or polyandrous (being married to more than one husband at a time), is very flexible. One does not need to rely on his or her family ethics to make that choice.
We need to repackage our marriage laws to accommodate current social and cultural differences, so that we can put new definitions to the limits and morals in marriage. However, the choice in some African and Asian cultures leans on social status of the individual and the economic capability. That to me sounds like a lifestyle.
Polygamy in the US
I called my friend in California and asked if she thought polygamy in the US is a premeditated crime, or a legitimate religious or cultural practice. “Currently, as an American,” she explained, “I can have multiple husbands, so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. If I were to legally marry two men right now, I would immediately become the matron of California state prison for at least five years.”
“Mmh” I sighed inaudibly. “Then come to Kenya…. When it comes to marriages, the society is very tolerant.” “I don’t mean that polygamy isn’t happening in the US, but many times it is viewed as a speck in our civilization,” she went on. “It is more complicated than it seems. Some decisions made by states across this nation, enforcing laws criminalizing lifestyles such as polygamy may make it look as if the practice is criminal in nature. Yet the constitution allows us the right to engage in various arrangements without government’s intervention,” she explained.
“But that’s good,” I interjected. “I mean, it is for the benefit of the society.” “Yeah, I agree,” she said. “I think that is why polygamy and polyandry are criminal offences.”
What does religion say about polygamy?
Polygamy is a hot issue among Christians, Jews, Muslims and Mormons. The book of Deuteronomy in the bible speaks about polygamy and division of property. Abraham, David and Solomon were polygamists. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but he was still favored by God. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to only four.
Polygamy is still practiced among the Jews. Again, in the US alone, we currently have more than 50,000 polygamists. In countries such as Tibet, like in some cultures around the world, polyandry is still accepted. It is hard to accept this, but such practices sometimes satisfy human weaknesses.
Is polygamy a crime?
In a discussion on Fox News on July 24, 2008, the panelists claimed that polygamy is “lawless” and “a form of organized crime,” which demands national attention and federal action. During the show, Senator Harry Reid claimed that some of the crimes polygamists commit are bigamy, child abuse, forced marriage of teens, and pre-teens to older men, welfare fraud, tax evasion and other “strong-arm tactics” such as witness intimidation.
So, why is polygamy a crime?
Because we struggle to keep our societies sane, by making laws that challenge man’s weaknesses. Both sexes are at fault because we allow these practices and assume they are cultural. Legalizing such marriages hurts our morality.
The fear of polygamy in marriages
Several women residing in Nairobi today prefer to remain single because they do not want to commit to relationships that will later turn abusive or polygamous. As you would imagine, women prefer undivided attention from their husbands. Kenyan women are no exception. Many of them dislike the idea of their husbands entertaining secret concubines across the city, which is the new form of polygamy in Kenya.
Men cite various reasons for engaging in such habits including the need for more sex (for lack of adequate sex in their relationships) and misplaced anger (being angry with the wife, and rather than deal with the problem, he engages in an affair to make her pay).
But the men can’t hide such clandestine affairs for long and at some point the legal woman finds out. Interestingly, very few of such revelations usually lead to separation or divorce.
In most cases, the other woman is usually someone who knows the family and understands the legal woman’s weaknesses. Therefore, she simply fills in the gap, and finds solace that she gets all she wants from the man, and remains away from the legal woman’s radar.
Many women are now privy to methods of identifying cheating husbands. For example, many of them have joined Facebook and other social networks web sites using unique names and tricked their husbands into a relationship, to determine whether they would cheat on them or not.
Men cheat left, right and center. It is almost a curse from creation. Few are able to deal with lust outside their marriages. Many are trapped by passion and dreams for new pastures. Women know about these and fear that if unchecked, their marriages could turn polygamous, and secretly pass unnoticed.
Why polygamy should be eliminated
Polygamous marriages shouldn’t be allowed in this century plagued by several problems. First, it negates the Biblical sense of marriage (between one man and one spouse). Whereas the Bible allows a young woman to remarry, it is very specific and only allows remarriage if the woman is widowed at a young age, and not when she needs a booty call.
Second, women are attention seekers, and love cannot be split equally between two or more wives. It creates jealousy, family feuds and separation, which increases the number of single parenthood cases.
Third, one lives a lie. A man knows where his love is, but simply sleeps with a concubine or mistress with a self-given title of wife. This could explain why my former desk mate still insists on allowing polygamy. I wish he were a woman!
Fourth, AIDS continues to claim the lives of many young men and women today and promiscuity is the main ingredient.
Fifth, many young people are now educated, and know that irresponsibility, leading to children out of wedlock has bred street children. What are women supposed to do when the law doesn’t protect them against unscrupulous men? What about the children?
Sixth, a society that tolerates forced marriages also tolerates emotional suffering among women. Such situations occur when a married rich old man eyes a very young lady; and with the parents eyeing the economic blessings that come from such, they are oblivious of the suffering they afflict. They marry their daughters off as second or third wives to some rich old men, and forget that she could be widowed and begin the vicious circle of problems.
So, what benefits does polygamy bring to a nation, a society or individual? Nothing! Eliminate it then.
Published October 4, 2009
Having a wife and entertaining a concubine or a mistress elsewhere is the modern type of polygamy. What benefits does polygamy bring to a nation, a society or individual? Nothing. Eliminate it then, writes AMOR NAMUOTO.
In Kenya, marriage hitherto viewed as an achievement, or a form of social graduation, is currently changing into a necessity catapulted by hard economic times and changing lifestyles, especially in cities.
Having a wife and a concubine or a mistress, is the modern type of polygamy. Although many of these mistresses, or ‘other wives’ come to light when a man dies; they all perform the duties of a wife.
In the United States, citizens have the right to engage in any kind of sexual relationship, with any number of partners as long as it is consensual. Consent in this case is not well-defined (same sex individuals can also consent to be intimates). In addition, consensual can be momentary (a.k.a. booty call), or long lasting (a.k.a. cohabitation). With this kind of setup, it is possible for any person, American or not, to legally sire several children outside marriage with different partners.
Whereas many religious practices around the world die hard, the choice between being a polygamist (being legally married to many women), bigamist (criminal offence of marrying one person while still legally married to another), or polyandrous (being married to more than one husband at a time), is very flexible. One does not need to rely on his or her family ethics to make that choice.
We need to repackage our marriage laws to accommodate current social and cultural differences, so that we can put new definitions to the limits and morals in marriage. However, the choice in some African and Asian cultures leans on social status of the individual and the economic capability. That to me sounds like a lifestyle.
Polygamy in the US
I called my friend in California and asked if she thought polygamy in the US is a premeditated crime, or a legitimate religious or cultural practice. “Currently, as an American,” she explained, “I can have multiple husbands, so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. If I were to legally marry two men right now, I would immediately become the matron of California state prison for at least five years.”
“Mmh” I sighed inaudibly. “Then come to Kenya…. When it comes to marriages, the society is very tolerant.” “I don’t mean that polygamy isn’t happening in the US, but many times it is viewed as a speck in our civilization,” she went on. “It is more complicated than it seems. Some decisions made by states across this nation, enforcing laws criminalizing lifestyles such as polygamy may make it look as if the practice is criminal in nature. Yet the constitution allows us the right to engage in various arrangements without government’s intervention,” she explained.
“But that’s good,” I interjected. “I mean, it is for the benefit of the society.” “Yeah, I agree,” she said. “I think that is why polygamy and polyandry are criminal offences.”
What does religion say about polygamy?
Polygamy is a hot issue among Christians, Jews, Muslims and Mormons. The book of Deuteronomy in the bible speaks about polygamy and division of property. Abraham, David and Solomon were polygamists. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but he was still favored by God. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to only four.
Polygamy is still practiced among the Jews. Again, in the US alone, we currently have more than 50,000 polygamists. In countries such as Tibet, like in some cultures around the world, polyandry is still accepted. It is hard to accept this, but such practices sometimes satisfy human weaknesses.
Is polygamy a crime?
In a discussion on Fox News on July 24, 2008, the panelists claimed that polygamy is “lawless” and “a form of organized crime,” which demands national attention and federal action. During the show, Senator Harry Reid claimed that some of the crimes polygamists commit are bigamy, child abuse, forced marriage of teens, and pre-teens to older men, welfare fraud, tax evasion and other “strong-arm tactics” such as witness intimidation.
So, why is polygamy a crime?
Because we struggle to keep our societies sane, by making laws that challenge man’s weaknesses. Both sexes are at fault because we allow these practices and assume they are cultural. Legalizing such marriages hurts our morality.
The fear of polygamy in marriages
Several women residing in Nairobi today prefer to remain single because they do not want to commit to relationships that will later turn abusive or polygamous. As you would imagine, women prefer undivided attention from their husbands. Kenyan women are no exception. Many of them dislike the idea of their husbands entertaining secret concubines across the city, which is the new form of polygamy in Kenya.
Men cite various reasons for engaging in such habits including the need for more sex (for lack of adequate sex in their relationships) and misplaced anger (being angry with the wife, and rather than deal with the problem, he engages in an affair to make her pay).
But the men can’t hide such clandestine affairs for long and at some point the legal woman finds out. Interestingly, very few of such revelations usually lead to separation or divorce.
In most cases, the other woman is usually someone who knows the family and understands the legal woman’s weaknesses. Therefore, she simply fills in the gap, and finds solace that she gets all she wants from the man, and remains away from the legal woman’s radar.
Many women are now privy to methods of identifying cheating husbands. For example, many of them have joined Facebook and other social networks web sites using unique names and tricked their husbands into a relationship, to determine whether they would cheat on them or not.
Men cheat left, right and center. It is almost a curse from creation. Few are able to deal with lust outside their marriages. Many are trapped by passion and dreams for new pastures. Women know about these and fear that if unchecked, their marriages could turn polygamous, and secretly pass unnoticed.
Why polygamy should be eliminated
Polygamous marriages shouldn’t be allowed in this century plagued by several problems. First, it negates the Biblical sense of marriage (between one man and one spouse). Whereas the Bible allows a young woman to remarry, it is very specific and only allows remarriage if the woman is widowed at a young age, and not when she needs a booty call.
Second, women are attention seekers, and love cannot be split equally between two or more wives. It creates jealousy, family feuds and separation, which increases the number of single parenthood cases.
Third, one lives a lie. A man knows where his love is, but simply sleeps with a concubine or mistress with a self-given title of wife. This could explain why my former desk mate still insists on allowing polygamy. I wish he were a woman!
Fourth, AIDS continues to claim the lives of many young men and women today and promiscuity is the main ingredient.
Fifth, many young people are now educated, and know that irresponsibility, leading to children out of wedlock has bred street children. What are women supposed to do when the law doesn’t protect them against unscrupulous men? What about the children?
Sixth, a society that tolerates forced marriages also tolerates emotional suffering among women. Such situations occur when a married rich old man eyes a very young lady; and with the parents eyeing the economic blessings that come from such, they are oblivious of the suffering they afflict. They marry their daughters off as second or third wives to some rich old men, and forget that she could be widowed and begin the vicious circle of problems.
So, what benefits does polygamy bring to a nation, a society or individual? Nothing! Eliminate it then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
