Morning Roundup 04/18/13: Legalize Polygamy; Andrew Sullivan Visits a Megachurch; Church Attendance Lowers Risk of Depression
In 2004, The Washington Post's Slate.com published an article which refutes what they see as Santorum's silly slippery slope argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. In 2012, Slate reports that Santorum is still making the crazy claim. Now, in 2013, Slate publishes an article saying that gay marriage will, well, lead to that thing they mocked earlier. Here is the article... which at least acknowledges the irony of the moment (with no apology for earlier articles).
For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)
But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn't legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.
Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC's Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows--making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.
Many people argue that there is no such thing as a "healthy, responsible" polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. "Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch," argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post. "Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin," agreed Libby Copeland in Slate. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can't be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don't rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes--why not recognize that legally?
Andrew Sullivan writes a fascinating piece on his visit to a megachurch.
The World Of Kuo -- Andrew Sullivan
I have never been to a mega-church service - which is something to be ashamed of, since I have written so often about evangelicalism's political wing. And it was revealing. The theater was called a sanctuary - but it felt like a conference stage. There were no pews, no altar (of course), just movie-theater seats, a big complicated stage with a set, and four huge screens. It looked like a toned-down version of American Idol. I was most impressed by the lighting, its subtlety and professionalism (I've often wondered why the Catholic church cannot add lighting effects to choreograph the Mass). The lyrics of the religious pop songs - "hymns" doesn't capture their Disney channel infectiousness - were displayed on the screens as well, allowing you to sing without looking down at a hymnal. Great idea. And the choir was a Christian pop band, young, hip-looking, bearded, unpretentious and excellent. Before long, I was singing and swaying and smiling with the best of them. The only thing I couldn't do was raise my hands up in the air.
This was not, in other words, a Catholic experience. But it was clearly, unambiguously, a Christian one.
There was little sadness - and no purgative drunken wake. We were told not to wear suits and dark clothes, so the crowd was in greens and blues and whites (Joe bought a special pink plaid number just for the occasion). And the reason for this was quite obvious: almost everyone there, including myself, were completely sure that a) David was still there and b) his death was something to be celebrated if you loved him. He was certainly looking forward to it. His extraordinary wife, Kim, was effervescent and stunning in a white dress. She has been through hell and back several times in the last decade. And yet she wore that toll lightly today. The tears were for another time. The sobs for another one too.
What I guess I'm trying to say is that so many of us have come to view evangelical Christianity as threatening, and in its political incarnation, it is at times. But freed from politics, evangelical Christianity has a passion and joy and Scriptural mastery we could all learn from. The pastors were clearly of a higher caliber than most of the priests I have known - in terms of intellect and command. The work they do for the poor, the starving, and the marginalized in their own communities and across the world remains a testimony to the enduring power of Christ's resurrection.
In some way, this was David's last gift to me. His own unvarnished, embarrassingly frank belief helped me get over my prejudices against evangelicalism as a lived faith. His faith strengthened mine immeasurably, especially when we were among the first two to bail on the Bush administration in its first term. It was not a shock that his last day above the ground opened up more windows and doors in my mind. He doubtless hoped it would.
Study after study continues to remind us that people of faith tend to be more emotionally healthy than the community as a whole.
Attendance at Religious Services Lowers Risk of Depression, Study Finds -- National Post
A major new study that tracked more than 12,000 Canadians over a period of 14 years has found that regular attendance of religious service offers significant protection against depression.
In an article published in the April issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, researchers at the University of Saskatchewan write that incidence of clinical depression was 22% lower among those who attended religious services at least once a month compared with people who never attended.
"Significantly fewer monthly attenders reported having episodes or a diagnosis of depression," the authors write. "This ... suggests a protective effect of religious attendance."
Marilyn Baetz, head of the department of psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan, co-wrote the study with Lloyd Balbuena and Rudy Bowen. In an interview she said the explanation for the effect remains something of a mystery.
The researchers controlled for the subjects' sense of "social support" -- for example, whether they felt they had someone to confide in or felt loved -- and found that religious attendance had an impact beyond the sentiment of belonging to a community.
"The feeling is that if you belong to a religious organization, what you are really getting is just social support, nothing else," Dr. Baetz said. "But it would appear it is something over and above that."
The Exchange is a part of CT's
Blog Forum. Support the work of CT.
Subscribe and get one year free.
The views of the blogger do not necessarily reflect those of Christianity Today.
