| |
On August 28, 2006, Warren Jeffs was arrested in Las Vegas. He had been placed on the Top-10 Most Wanted List of the FBI earlier in the year. Jeffs was the leader of the Fundamental Latter Day Saints church and was a practicing polygamists who formally promoted the practice to his followers as leader of that church.
As readers of my site will know, I strongly support the acceptance and practice of polygamy in accordance with Srila Prabhupad's teachings on this topic. Not only polygamy, but also fathers should arrange for the marriage of their daughters and should do so when the girl is young age. Srila Prabhupad promoted that girls be married at young ages. Some of the most serious charges against Mr Jeffs, for which he could get life imprisonment, is that he arranged for the marriage of at least 2 girls who were under age 16 to be married to older men who already had at least one wife.
These are not ideals that are commonly upheld by the mainstream of today's modern societies. Especially polygamy is often much disdained. Even on religiously centered sites I have seen it listed side-by-side with beastiality, incest, and other irrelgious and repugnant practices. Thus, it is difficult enough to present and promote the proper moral understanding for acceptance of the practice in a world that has such a vile misunderstanding of it's tremendous social benefits. Especially, the modern feminists are staunchly opposed when it has been proven to be something that can benefit them greatly. And, then, we have these Foundamentalist Mormons who make the matter so much worse as they actually mix their practice of polygamy with too close of inter-family marriages, have too many incidents of forced or strongly coerced child-bride marriages, etc.
In as much as I personally support the proper moral understanding of and acceptance toward polygamy and child-brides, I must also vehemently distance our views and moral standards from those of the FLDS Church and this Mr. Jeffs. Many years ago devotees argued that polygamy had given the Mormons a bad name and that for this reason ISKCON should stay clear of polygamy. But, in reality, it is these Mormons who have given polygamy a bad name. Unfortuantately it creates a very difficult situation, one that does not help support my effort to promote a better understanding of the need for acceptance of our views toward the subject.
However, that does not mean that I will drop my efforts to do so. No. The science remains valid. Our views differ in several key foundamental areas from the FLDS church. The need for society to grasp and understand and eventually accept our views remains as valid now as it was previously. Yet, I will admit that I am no longer optimistic for a widespread acceptance of the understanding toward our view happening in my life time, as I was hopeful of in the past. I will contiunue to support and promote my realizations on this topic, but I do so now more for future times when society is more ready to accept. For now, however, it is a personal matter for people to make personally, if one wants to take up and practice these things.
Most of the members of ISKCON, those who identify themselves as devoteed followers of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, do not accept the idea that polygamy should be accepted or practiced amoung it's members. It is especially not something that parents consider for their daughter's marriage. I would say the majority have thought that it was something that Srila Prabhupad himself had rejected. But, the true fact of the mattre is, it is something that he, himself, taught that polygyny should be accepted. Still, even on accepting this understanding, the majority of members of ISKCON reject it because of the strong prejudice against it outside, and also the practice is not legal and to enter into its's practice would be difficult at best. So, for the outsider, the non-ISKCON devotee, they should not misunderstand from this website that this is something widely practiced or accepted in ISKCON. Just the opposite. There are very few in ISKCON that side with my understanding, and of them I know of no one who has put into action what I present here. Even myself, I have not either had the opportunity or pushed hard to practice what I preach.. I used to desire a second wife, and had made a number of attempts to find someone who would agree, but I never found anyone who was either willing, or who met my qualifications. And, then I also ran into financial difficulties later, so I gave up the persuit, as it was no longer practical for me to persue. I am now older, so I also have not put into practice what I preach. Previously, that was my intention, to do just that, put into practice what i preached. I even had a number of members press me on this. But, at the same time I stuck by my principles and did not do anything rashly that would compromise my existing marriage and family. Still, even though it seems society, both inside ISKCON and out, is turning more and more against these things, I will continue to promote the proper understanding of why this must become accepted. Afterall, it is based on a higher moral principle, it is based on the teachings of our ISKCON Founder-Acharya, and there will always remain the need in society for more acceptance and proper understanding. I will stay my course in continuing to promote the proper understanding if for no other reason that it can be taken up at a future time and place that is more favorable then today. That remains my service and religious duty to do so. .
Polygamy, why is it allowed in Vedic Culture (and same reason for Islam)?
First, the need to protect women
It is founded on the principles of religion. Women's chastity is to be protected. Women become pregnant, not men. Women who are not well protected can become seduced, unwanted pregnancies result. This is becomes a burden on the socieyt, and ultimately if not checked will become the down fall of a society. Because a woman can be seduced, and because only the woman becomes pregnanant, she is to be protected. As a child she is to be protected by her father. She is to be given to a husband in youth and then protected by her husband. In older age she is to be protected by her son(s).
This concept that a woman must be protected is often rejected by modern society, however, it is a foundamental basis of social religion. It is a concept found in all religions, including Christianity.
Women are always attractive to men, that is the nature of life. But, a woman is the most beautiful in her youth. Young girls are very attractive to all ages of men. And, young girls are also very easily attracted to a wide variety of men and will spur on the first male who takes interest in them. Thus, young girls must be protected the most from being exploited. That is why Vedic culture gives that the best protection for young girls is marriage. This way she will not become atrracted to just any play-boy or any unscrupulous man. She will have her lawful religious husband, and as husband he will take the responsibility to keep her protected from other men.
Why Child-Brides?
To keep a woman protected she must be also protected from her own desire to associate with men. Thus, it is best for the girl to marry young, so that she can freely associate with her lawful religious husband.
The Vedic science of psycology is that a girl who is kept very strict, who does not have any boy-friends or free association with boys or men prior to marriage, that the first man she is allowed to associate with she will fall in love so deeply with that man that she will love that man for the rest of his life. This is the psycology of young girls. Contrasted with the modern idea as we refer to the first love of a young girl as 'puppy-love'. Modern society functions to as to break a girl's first love. First, modern society does nothing or at least does far too little to protect a girl from falling in love pre-maturely or with the wrong person.
Girls generally take notice of boys at the time of puberty. It is most natural for them to give their heart to the first boy that takes notice of them. That is natural. But modern society rejects the idea that a girl should marry at a young age. Thus, society encourages a girl to 'get over it', to see her first love as childish and immature. Whereas Vedic science puts great emphasis on the girl's first-love, seeing it as a very powerful issue.
In the modern society a girl's first love is generally broken. Especially if she falls in love with someone at too young of an age, or with someone much older, or someone already married. Society demands that she break that love. Meaning, the girl's heart is broken. In contrast to modern ideas, Vedic science teaches that their is a very strong power in the first love of a young girl's heart. If it is allowed to be broken a great loss is occured. That girl will loose her soft-hearted feminine nature. Young girls are very feminine and soft-hearted by nature. This soft-heartedness of such women is a very valuable asset to a society. When a woman grows up with her natural soft-heartedness remaining intact she flowers to become a most loving and caring wife and more importantly a very loving and caring mother of her children. The soft-hearted feminine nature is a priceless thing. It cannot be replaced. Therefore, it is the religious duty of society to properly protect this irreplaceable and priceless asset, the soft-hearted feminine nature of young girls.
But, it is a fragile thing. And, there is only one way to preserve the priceless soft-hearted feminine nature of women, that is to strictly protect the chaste and pure heart of a young girl. Once a girl gives her heart to someone, and then must break her heart by not being able to fulfill her heart's desire with that person, she begins to lose her soft-hearted innocence. If she falls deeply in love with a man (boy, any member of the opposite sex) but must then break off that love, the result is she must harden her heart. She is told by soceity to 'get over it'. The only way to do so is to harden the heart. Very quickly she looses her soft-hearted feminine qualities. It cannot, easily, be gotten back once it is lost.
Also, it sets up a bad precedence. She falls in love, then breaks it off. She finds another boy and likes him, then breaks her heart again, and finds another. After a while her heart becomes so hardened. But just as bad, or worse, is that she gets accustomed to leaving a relationship when the going gets a little tough. When things are not as convinient as she like it. She gets accustomed to moving from one relationship to another. When such a woman marries, it becomes very difficult to make that relation last. As soon as some problem comes she is more likely to move on and find another man.
Vedic science recognizes the priceless value of a young girl's soft-hearted feminine nature. Thus, it functions as to keep women's soft-heartedness intact. How? By protection.
The girls' soft-hearted heart must be protected, it is a very fragile, yet very priceless asset. A young girl should not be put into or allowed to enter a situation where she could give her heart to the wrong person. The first love of a girl's heart is very powerful, it is not something that should be wasted on impractical, impossible, or undesireable relationships.
However, recognizing that it is a powerful force that a young girl wants to fall in love, the only way to really protect this is to allow her to fall in love, but not with just anyone, but, with the person that will become her life-long husband. For this reason Vedic culture encourages, no, it demands, that a girl must be married in her budding youth. This is the science why Child-Brides is accepted as most desirable for human society.
But, who and how will she find someone? That is why the father is to find. The father knows the nature of his daughter. He has her best interest at heart. So, the father selects a qualified man to be his daughter's husband. Once the girl is married, rather then protecting her from giving her heart, rather then discouraging her, or forcing her to break her heart if and when she does give it, instead, the famly and society encourage her, go - give your heart to that young man completely. Don't hold back. He is your religious husband, give him your heart without any limit or restriction. There is a natural attraction between the sexes. As long as the selection is made properly by the father, which does in fact work in nearly all cases when the science is understood properly, then the man and girl will automatically become helplessly attracted to one another. That is natural. There is a very powerful binding force in the first love of a young girl's heart. A very powerful force of nature. When a girl gives her heart freely and openly, without restrictions, her heart binds so strongly with that man that nothing can break it. That is the mystic power of a girl's first love. It is a power that must not be wasted.
And, there is a reciporcation which is also a part of nature's laws. When a young girl gives her heart fully to the man, the man's heart in turn melts. He falls helplessly in love with that young lady. In such a helpless state the man will do anything to make that girl happy. Of course, the father's duty is to select a young man who is morally decent and respectable. Such a young man will then have the powerful motive, his helpless love for this girl, that he will do everything he can to become successful in society, to at least earn sufficiently to take care of the priceless gift he is given, the unrestricted heart of this young girl.
This combination of a girl who gives her heart for the very first time, fully and completely to the first man she has ever had relationship with, and a man of good character who becomes a victim of her love, and falls into a helpless situation of wanting to do whatever she desires of him, who is driven to the mad state of doing whatever he morally can to make this girl happy, this is actually the most desireable relationships for the highest benefits for human society. Such relationships not only will make a life-long marriage where divorce will never be an option, where the chldren of that relationship will find the greatest loving shelter, who grow and are nurished by the soft-hearted mother's love and affection, but the entire society as a whole will prosper in wealth and in the high character of the citizens that such religiously strong relationships give birth to.
Thus, this is the scientific foundation supporting the acceptance and practice of child-brides in society. It is a science that today is lost and forgotten. And the practice is so wrongly disdained and looked down upon as being degrading and horrible for the girl.
But, cases like this with some religious groups who wrongly mix child-brides with undue force, or who who mix it with repugnant and wrong inter-family marriages, works only to fuel society's bent on prohibiting such marriages, when in reality, when properly performed are to the society's greatest long-time benefit.
Why the man should be some years older?
If one can grasp the need for protecting girl's hearts, and thus the need for gettng the girl married at a young age in order to proect her soft-heart and feminine innocence, then we come to the next step. If it is best for the girl to be married very young, what age should her husband be?
If the girl is married by 13 - 16, should she marry a boy 13-16? No. Boys do not mature until much later. Boys are not mature enough, psycologically or emotionally. A recent study was undertaken by a major automotive insurance company to unearth scientific understanding of why there young male drivers were so high risk. Young male drivers account for a high degree of serious accidents. What their studies ultimately led them to find was that there were very real and very definable differences in the development of the brain of young men that affected their ability to make level-headed long-term decisions. What they found was that men do not really fully mature until around 25 years of age. Prior to this young men can make very whimsical and irresponsible impulse decisions, such that when it comes to driving, can lead to very needless serious accidents. Not surprisingly Vedic scripture encourages a man to wait until 24 or so before entering married life. Not until that age do the Vedic scriptures consider that a man is more mature and ready to take on full responsibilty of providing and caring for a wife and children. Modern science has confirmed the Vedic science in this understanding.
Yet, the same Vedas teach that girls must be protected, via marriage, at young age, by 13-16. Thus Srila Prabhupad has said that the boy must be no less than 5 years older, minimum, and ideally would be 8-10 years older. But, that there was no maximum age limit. Even older man can marry a younger girl. So, ideally then, according to Srila Prabhupad, and according to the Vedic scripture, the best ages for marriage are for the boy to be at least 24 and the girl to be 13-16. 24 and 14-16 are actually very ideal ages. This way the girl's soft-hearted feminine character can be protected, her chastity can be protected, her innocence protected, and yet she is not handed over to someone too immature who would not be able to provide sufficient protection.
I have written about all this in detail in my other dharma webpages, due to time constraints, that is all i can say for now. But, that is the basic understanding that boys should be no less then 5 years older, ideally 8-10 years older. (Even, if needed, an older man can marry younger girl, but that is not as common, but if there is need, no one else is qualified to protect the girl, yet she needs urgent protection, then such arrangements are allowable, they simply are not that common).
Again, this idea is rejected by modern society. Yet modern society has come to reject this not based on any scientific logic or intellectual reasoning, but simply out of sentiment and out of modern neccessity, today they reject. But, in the past such marriags were acceptable even in the West. Even in the 1960's many girls were married when they were 17. In the 50's even 16 many girls were married in America. What drew society away from accepting this was not that society came to a higher moral understanding, but simply out of neccessity due to wanting to see that girls complete at least high school education first, more and more marriage was put off until at least the girl complete HS, at least 18. As more and more this became the standard, then society drifted to accept that this is also morally right, and somehow, younger age of 16 even, today seems immoral. Yet, 16 had been commonly accepted as perfectly normal not that many decades age.
Even more pronounced is the Hindu culture of India. Today in India the law is that a girl cannot marry until she is 18 (yet a large number of villagers still get their daughters married younger). In the cities now many current generations very much frown on child-bride marriages. Many concider it very immoral and wrong for a girl to be married less than 18, yet many of these same people, their own grandmothers were married at very young ages, and the same society and same families had accepted that as very moral.
These ideas of what is moral or right or wrong are not really based on any scientific assessment of what is moral. In these instances the idea of what is moral or not is not dictated by religious scripture or impartial scientific study, but by what society has become conditioned to accept.
An impartial scientific study of the psycological and long-term social benefits to society will prove that protecting the soft-heart and pure innocense of girls in their youth, by not allowing their first-love to be wasted, by not allowing their hearts to break and harden, is a very priceless social asset to human society, and that that only way to preserve this is to religiously and properly marry them at young age. When society re-discovers this lost science and higher understanding, only then will society learn to accept this again as being the highest moral choice.
But, today, modern society rejects the idea of lawful religious marriage at such young age. Yet, at that very same time many in today's society argue that you cannot stop the natural attraction between boys and young girls, and thus they push to allow condoms and birth control pills to be given to girls as young as 12 in the public schools.
I joined ISKCON in 1973 at the age of 22. I grew up in the hippie days of America, where so-called freelove was born. Open promiscuity was promoted by my generation. Yet, I still clung to the idea that sex was something sacred and should only be between religious married man and wife. That was not a popular idea amoung many of my peers in those days. After joining ISKCON I had not watched TV much for many years, but I had noticed the standards of what was acceptable or not had come way down from what it was in the 1960's. There were no sexually explicit shows on prime-time TV when I was young. Openly talking of sex remained a taboo in public. So, it was a shock one day about 10 years ago when I saw a TV ad that was made by one of the European governments and was ran during primetime during shows that the teenagers watched. The TV ad showed a girl, she looked no more than maybe 16-17, at a party with other teenagers, she was in a doorway and she held up a condom and was waving it in the face of a boy whom she was inviting into her bedroom. The TV ad was intended to encourage teenagers to always use a condom so as to encourage them to practice "safe" sex. Obviously, society has come some distance from when i was a teenager. When i was a teenager simply the mention of sex was a forbidden taboo. Some argue that society has 'advanced' or 'progressed' as it has now accepted an open view toward teenage sex. Others see this not as 'advancement or progresss', but rather a major degradation and deteriation of moralilty and social values.
Obviously those who promote that teenagers be encouraged to engage in 'safe' sex have not an inkling of the priceless value of chastity. They have not a clue of the social value of protecting the heart and chastity of girls. Even though they see contraceptives as means to make men and women equal, both can freely engage in sex when ever they want, with whom ever they want and with contraceptives the girls don't have to worry about getting pregnant. Still what it really boils down to is really nothing less then the raw and degrading wholesale sexual exploitation of young girls for the sensual pleasure of unscrupulous and Godless men.
Last year, locally, I heard of reports of high school kids being arrested for engaging in sex on school property. Even in one case a 14 year old girl performed oral sex on a 17 year old boy while he sat in class with other kids looking on and the teacher present in the class. Only as he climaxed and it caused a big stir did the teacher come to find out what was going on. Then, two separate incidents with different couples in less than a week apart, in different schools, the kids were 13-15, were caught having sexual intercoures in the school hallways. Both had done so because another of their friends had dared them to do it at school. Those kids were arrested and the boys charged with serious crimes. The kids could not see what the big fuss was. The TV shows glorify sex as the greatest thing. Every girl wants to look sexy. Evey guy wants to enjoy a sexy girl. And, at school they are taught that IF they are going to have sex, then use condoms, take pills and make sure you do it 'safely', and yet, when they do it, they are arrested for having illegal sex. The kids were acually surprised that they would be actually arrested for this and complained of society's double standards.
You have a number of parents arguing, hey, teenaged boys and girls are going to engage in sex anyway, that is simply a fact of life, it is the powerful call of nature, you can't stop them, so teach them to do it 'safely'.
Yet, these same people are apalled at the idea of Child-Brides. Why? That baffles me. Why the same people who ask that the schools allow their daughters to have free access to birth control pills and condoms and who say, hey, you can't stop the kids from being kids, boys will be boys and girls will be girls, you can't stop kids from sneaking around and having sex, so educate them to have it safely, and yet they work to prohibit religious people from protecting their daughters by getting their daughters religiously married at a young age. And what baffles me more is that the rest of the society tolerates those parents who push for pills and condoms, but have absolutely no tolerence for parents who want to protect the heart of their daughters by arranging for their religious marriages at young age. Today, society is in dark ignorance as to what is really and truly right and wrong. No understanding of these things, and no tolerance of the religious path. It is a Godless civilization. One that is ignorant of dharma.
While many organizations and parents argue, you can't stop young kids from having sex, and if they do so in the privacy of their homes that seems fine with some of them. I have even heard of mothers helping to arrange for their daughter to have sex with they boy friends in the safety of their home, as they feel it is better they do it there then in the back seat of a car where they could get caught. But, when the kids do it in school, they get arrested. The kids are obviously confused. And, society is actually mixed. You still have many parents that do not want their children doing this or even thinking it is okay.
Modern society offers no real good alternative because other then religiously getting the girls married at young age - there is no other good alternative.Teachng abstinence just isn't very effective, especially in a society where TV and movies and music entice one with sex. As long as society rejects the idea of protecting girls from sexual exploitation by arranging for their religious marriage at young age, then society will never find a solution and the problem will never go away.
Also, society tolerates the fact that if the girl is 18 she can take her clothes off in a bar full of drunken men and dance naked in front of them, and she can earn good money doing this (a local We Bare All restaurant that caters to truck drivers advertises in the paper for good looking young women and promises pay of 1,500-2,000 a week. $2,000 a week is really good pay. All she must do is agree to walk around totally naked in front of a bunch of bear drinkng lusty old men. Society allows the restaruant or a bar owner to advertise to 18 year old girls and entice them with large sums of money to come and degrade yourself, let older men exploit you, and lust over you, here is good money, come and dance naked. Society tolerates this. The laws allow this. But, if a religous man of good character and good income were to put an ad stating that he is looking to find an 18 year old girl who is seeking a good husband, that he will offer that he will take full charge of her, and provide for her and their children, and he wants to take her as a second wife - to this society can not tolerate at all. The laws forbid this. This, is somehow seen as more socially degrading then allowing the same girls to dance naked before lusty, drunken older men. Modern society somehow feels it is more degrading to the girl to be offered the protection of becoming a cared for religious wife of a man who has more than one wife, then it is for the girl to be enticed with large sums of money to dance naked before lusty, drunken older men???? Just see.
And what about 'escort' services? This is a big business in America. Especially amoung our politicians and upper income business travelers. For those not familiar with what an escort service is, it is a 'legally' acceptable form of prostitution. A traveling politician or business man will higher a young girl from an escort company, paying a good sum so that the young attractive girl can accompany him to a particular event. He is only paying for her to be his paid escort to the event. After the event, if the girl consents to having sex, that is a private matter between two consenting adults. The man is not paying the escort service to provide sex, nor is he paying the women to have sex, he is technically only paying for her to accompany him somewhere. Yet, everyone knows it is only a front. It is all set up to make such prostitution legal in the eyes of the law. The escort company knows what is expected of the girls it hires. The men who use these services know what they are paying for, and the girls know what is expected of them after the event. It is simply a covered prostitution service. And, it is a big business. Especially in the political circles. During the major democratic and republican conventions there is alway a large flood of paid escorts in the area, and their services are well made use of. The politicians and their upper level staff will each hire a number of different girls during an event. The law, the law makers, the society, they 'tolerate' this. The escort agency can run ads seeking young attractive women, 18-20, to come work as highly paid escorts for upper income clientel. A man who runs an escort company can go to your 17 year old daughter and tell her, look, as soon as you turn 18 I will give you x $ if you agree to be an escort for a 55 year old man, such and such. As soon as you turn 18 accept our money and offer. A man who owns an escort service can make this offer to a 17 year old legally. But, if a man who is already married were to go to the same girl and offer that when you turn 18, please accept my offer to become my religiously wedded second wife and i will agree to protect you and take care of you and our children for your entire life. No, that is simply not right, that is totally wrong and cannot be tolerated. But, propositioning the same girl to have sex with an older man in exchange for money, that is tolerable.
And, lets make this point clear. The majority of the men who come to watch 18 year old girls dance naked, and most of the polished wealthy business men or politicians who pay well for ravishingly cute and cultured 18 year old escort, most all of these men are older men. The majority are in their 40's-50's and many are in their 60's. These are your genunie lusty, dirty minded older men. Such men go to a strip bar to watch 18 year old girls (who have no one else to take care of them and are enticed by the money) dance naked. These are lusty diry minded older men, business men and politicians, who hire professional 18 year old escorts then ask the girl to consent to spend private time with them. These men are driven only by lust. They have no desire to be held responsible for their actions. They simply want and pay for raw sex or sexual exploitation of girls who are just legally permited to do so. These men have no desire to be responsible for any children that may come from their exploitation of these girls. Yet, society tolerates their lusty exploitation of such young women. And it disdains a man of high moral character who desires to take on the responsibility of maintaining more than one wife. Who desires to take on the responsibility of fathering additional children. Who offers protection and to care for another wife. That is repugnent to the point of wanting to sse such a man thown into jail and his family broken apart. If that man is older and offers such protection to a young lady, that man is labeled a dirty old man, and accussed of being driven by lust. While the dirty minded old truck drivers and ditry minded old businessmen and politician can have their irresponsble, irreligious, immoral jollies with young girls in exchange for money. That is at least legal by the unjust modern laws, and so society tolerates it. Even if the men who desire to take another wife and be socially and religiously responsible for that woman and their children, even IF that man is driven by lusty desire, he is far more of a moral and decent man then those who only want to exploit young girls for their sense enjoyment, but who avoid taking on any social or religious responsibility for their actions. But, i must say that most men who desire to take additional wives, while lusty desire is always present in all men toward women, that is not really their motive. Most are motivated by the desire to simply want to protect and care for and be responsible for more women and a larger family. They are generally the more responsible and moral men of society.
In America a father can pay his own daughter to dance naked on TV, to dance naked before a bunch of drunken lusty old truck drivers, or to become the paid escort of an older lusty dirty minded poltician, as long as the girl is 18, but if a father were to arrange for her religious marriage before she is 18, that father is bad. And if the father were to arrange her marraige to a man who already had one wife, who has proven that he responsible and caring, loving and is proven to make his first wife happy, is proven to be a good husband and a good father, a father who were to give his 16 year old daughter to such a man, that father can be sent off to prison for endangerment of his daughter. Charging him with the same offense as allowing his daughter to be molested. What sort of laws are these? Where is the fairness? The man who agrees to take the young lady as his religious second wife, he can also be sent to prison for molesting an underaged girl, rather then seeing him as man who has a high degree of responsible character. His family is then shattered and broken while he pays a very high price for his responsible actions. While a politician who pays good money for a 16 year old prostitute in a country where that age is legal, his moral judgement may be questioned, but as long as what he did was 'legal', society tolerates it. Where is blind justice, rather there is strong pre-judice against the more moral and responsible men who do not go around paying young women for irresponsible, irreligious sex in 'legal' ways, but who agree to be life-long responsible and caring.
Why Polygamy?
Because, when we understand the need for protecting the soft-heart of the girl, to protect her first love, to protect her chastity, and we realize the only way to achieve this is to have the girl married in youth, then the need arises to find a 'qualified' husband.
Qualified means a man who will be responsible to care for her. To provide for her and not abuse her. But not all men are so qualified. The fact is, most girls are, by nature, soft-hearted. As long as they are protected and their soft-feminine hearts are protected, they can make very wonderful wives and mothers. But, not all men make good husbands or fathers. Yes, more can if they are trained well enough. But, in society more men go astray then women. The jails and prisons are propulated with far more men then women. This shows that in even modern society, by modern standards, more men go astray. There are more men who visit prostitutes then there are women willing to take up that profession. Conversely, there are fewer men who are motivated to become very good, loving, caring and life-long responsible husbands then there are women who are in need and want of such good men.
By not allowing that some of the better men can take more than one wife, you are denying the opportunity of many young women of ever being able to have such a good man as husband. There are, simply, not enough good men to go around.
In a nutshell, that is the biggest reason for allowing polygamy.
We do not support the Fundamentalist Mormon idea that men MUST have at least 3 wives in order for them to acheive their religious perfection. We do not espouse any idea at all that men MUST take more than one wife. The acceptance of this is for the need to provide enough good men in order to fully protect all the girls that need good husbands. That is the moral, religious reasons for allowing this.
As Srila Prabhupad has said, if the woman must be protected in youth, then where to find so many qualified husbands? Therefore it is best idea if some men take more than one wife.
Thus, the Vedas teach the religious and social importance of protecting the chastity and heart of a young girl, and teach us that arranging the marriage of a girl in her young age is the only religious and morally acceptable way to assure that a girl's heart and chastity are properly protected. And, to facilitate that all girls who need such protection can be assured of the best husband, polygamy must be accepted by society.
Say that a man earns $200,000 a year, is married, but can afford to take another wife. Say that there is a girl who has no real other future, who is thinking that she might as well become an escort or dance naked as a way to earn an income, and this man offers to take her as a religious wife and gives his word and full commitement to provide for her for her life. Which is better for the woman, her future children and the society? Keep in mind that many women who found easy money as a prositute (or escort or dancer) when they were young and more attractive, often find getting work as they get older harder and harder. Many wind up in increasinly dangerous and more and more degraded situatons just to keep the money coming in.
There are those who wlll argue that the life of a prostittute is better. They do so out of enviousness. The laws need to be changed, and peoples views need to change.
There is no denying that Srila Prabhupad taught that these things are to become accepted by society. My interest lies in trying to promote a positive, moral, shastricand intellectual understanding of these aspects of dharma.
I started to write this article in reference to the FLDS Church and the arrest of Mr Jeffs, but it turned into another article promoting dharma.
It is already much longer then i have tme for right now, so let me wrap it up as quickly as i can (I already wrote most below, but don't have time to shorten or edit it).
While I want to see the laws changed and support what Srila Prabhupad has taught, and understand the need for acceptance of polygamy and child-bride marriages, I must also point out that we do not support the following practices that the FLDS church is accused of:
Forcing a young girl to marry, or to marry someone she does not like, or to marry as additional wife if she does not want to. Forcing a girl against her will is not acceptable behavior. Parents can try to convince by power of knowledge and good advice. In a society that accepts these things normally young girls want a husband as soon as they can, so there is no need to force that aspect. But, if they do not like the person, if it is due to some minor reason, the parents can try ot convince the girl by good advice and knowledge. But, never force against her will. If she cannot come to accept via good instruction and advice, then she is too young to be getting married, or the match is not an acceptable one to her. If she cannot understand or accept the advice given by her father, how will she get along with a husband? Thus, we absolutely do not support the idea of girls being forced into situations they do not agree with.
We do not hold any idea that men must take more than one wife for their religious or spiritual advancement. (The FLDS Church teaches that a man needs at least 3 wives to assure his religious perfection). We do not support any idea that a man 'must' take more than one wife. The idea of accepting or taking additional wife is if there is need in the society to assure that all girls have good husbands. If that need is met, then there is no need for men taking additional wives.
It is completely unacceptable and we see as a most irreligious and immoral act to marry close family members, such as step-brother and step-sisters, step-daughters and step-fathers, 1st cousins, etc. The exception to this is that we accept that a man who takes more than one wife, that it is acceptable to marry sisters of the wife, or her cousins. There is no genetic dificiency in such marriages, while paternal inter-family member marriages do cause genetic defficiency and are forbidden by most scriptures of the world.
Another aspect we find appalling is the way wives and children are treated, like cattle. It has been reported that at times some men where found guilty of something that is forbidden by the FLDS Church and so the church then nullifies their marriages, takes away their wives and their children and hands them over to another man, who then takes those women as his wives. This is repulsive to us. We teach that amoung the higher classes of men, there is no such thing as divorce. And, we do not encourage remarriage. It is simply unacceptable to take away a man's wives and children and then 'assign' them to another man. That is simply outrageous and totaly unacceptable.
No wonder the fundamental Mormons are so much disdained by the rest of society. They not only allow polygamy, but teach that each man must have at least 3 wives. The numbers don't add up, so they force some young men out of their community. They allow close family members to marry, they mis-treat women and children like cattle. These people give polygamy and child-bride marriages a very bad name.
-----
note: I have totally re-written this article from its first draft. I am run out of time, rather then re-write, if even to shorten, the following I have chosen to let it remain, even though the rest does make the whole article quit long. You can always break here and read the rest at another time if you wish. The above at least present the main points i wanted to make.
-----
Mr Jeffs' father died at the age of 98, he was the previous leader of the FLDS church. When he died Warren Jeffs took over as leader of that church. While the official Mormon Church was forced to remove its support and promotion of Polygamy in order for Utah to be allowed to become a State of the United States, some Mormons never agreed with this principle and thus broke from the main church. FLDS is considered by many to be the first such church. There are others (it is estimated there are over 100,000 polygamist marriages in Utah). When Warren Jeffs took charge of the church he more aggressively promoted the marrage of young girls, and quite often as additional wives of older men. Some of the girls were as young as 13, being given in marriage to men who were older and already married. Jeffs personally arranged such marriages and thus the FBI became involved as this is illegal by modern social laws. In most states of the US a minor 'can' legally marry an older man if the parents give their permission. What makes these marriages illegal is the law against polygamy. Even if the parents gave permission for their minor aged daughter to marry a man, if he already has a legal wife, then the marriage of the minor is no longer recognized (legally). At that stage, then, all parties involved become implicated in what can be very serious illegal sexual acts against a minor.
Even though the man who accepts the girl as his 'religious' wife does so in accordance with their religious laws, under modern State law if the man already has a legal wife, then the State does not recognize the other marriages as legal (by State law, ir-regardless if they are legal by God's law). Thus, the girl would not be seen to be a wife. If and when the man consummates his religious marriage, the state sees this as a man engaging in illicit sex with a minor child. Thus, they can pursue to charge the man with child-molestation, with lewd and sexual acts with a minor. However, in many states if the man had no other wife and the parents give permission, the same girl and man would be seen by the State as lawfully married man and wife. Thus, it s the law against polygamy that makes this arrangement illegal, not neccessarily the ages of the man or girl. If a man could legally marry more than one wife, then this arrangement would be legal in most states.
The parties involved see the marriage as lawful according to the laws of their religion. We hear that in America we have freedom of religion, but in actuality that freedom ends when the laws of the State outlaw a particular religious law or practice. Thus, the slogan that we have religious freedom in America is a hollow one. We only have freedom as long as the religous laws do not conflict with the State's laws. When there is conflict, rather then God's laws taking precedence, the State laws take precedence. Some, more devout, religious followers do not accept this. They see this an unfair religious suppression. For those whose allegiance is first to the State, then God (if God at all)
, they see no problem in prosecuting those who break the social laws of the State, even if that person has not broken their religious laws. But, for those whose allegiance is first to God via their religion, then to the State, they are left in a very difficult position when the State laws forbid an activity which their scripture and religion teach is morally right and may even teach that such practice is wanted and needed in society. For these people they are not able to freely practice their religious beliefs or follow their religious scripture. Thus, for fthem the idea that America enjoys religious freedom is hollow and empty.
Normally, we promote that one should be an honest, upstanding law-abiding citizen. However, ISKCON members have, in the past, broken State laws, deliberately defying them, in order to promote a higher principle. For example when the USSR ruled over Russia and it's federation of socialist states, there were laws forbidding the practice of Krsna conscious religious activities, public or private. Even possessing our scripture was illegal. To smuggle such forbidden scripture into their countries was also a serious violation of their laws. Many Krsna devotees gave up their lives, were tortured and imprisoned, their families destroied, due to deliberately violating these State laws. Depending on the circumstances, there can be justification for such deliberate violation of morally wrong and irreligious state laws.
We must note here that the dharma-shastra, Manu Samhita, recognizes polygamist marriage as religously legal even if the man is older and the girl is young.
Mr Jeffs is accussed of making arraangements for at least two girls who were of minor age to men who already had wife. Thus, he becomes implicated. Since the existing State laws do recognize those marriages as legal, by State law, even though they are legal by their religious laws, what the state see is a priest who has arranged for the sexual molestation and exploitation of a minor aged girl. This is actually the complete opposite of what these people see their own actions. From their religious perspective they see that they have religiously protected the heart and chastity of a young girl, in full accordance with the laws of God as they have been given them. On one side you have the state viewing this as a most serious crime against the young girls, on the other side you have a religious people who see their actions as being moral and noble and religous. For which they will stand up for at the risk of severe persecution and inhumane punishment to try and uphold.
The specific situations with the FLDS church is not easy to either support or condemn, as least from the perspective of one who upholds the Vedic viewpoint.
Obviously, I support the moral and religious foundations of polygamous marriages and of girls marriages being arranged at young ages by the fathers. This is promoted and upheld by our scripture and religon.
However, i am also apalled by the accounts of inter-marriage of close family members. Or of those who would otherwise be seen as one's own daughter or mother or first-cousins. Or forcing young girls to marry someone they do not want to. That practice is not supported by Srila Prabhupad at all.
But, the problem is that in as much as the law is attacking arranged marriages of young girls and polygamy then i must openly condemn such attacks and support the legality of such religious practices. Yet, by support of these Mormon's actions is narrowly confined to those aspects alone, not to all of their practices.
Lets view this from another more broad and historical perspective, at least in relation to the laws forbidding polygamy. (When i use the word polygamy, i am almost always referring to what is technically called polygyny, or the marriage of one man with multiple women) and more fully explore the statement i gave above where i said that some of their (these Mormon's) practices we concider immoral, "at least according to our scripture". There is another very fundamental issue at stake here in this case. One that must be addressed. One of religious intolerence and religous persecution. Or Religious Freedom.
Most American social laws are based on Anglo-Saxon (Germanic or Euro-Latin) - Christian (and Judaic) values as we inherited from the ancestors who established this country, who were almost entirely of European descent. For centuries in Europe polygamy has been illegal and the Catholic Church has always condemned it as being 'irreligious'. However, on doing a more in depth study one finds that there really is no Christian scriptural support for the condemnation of polygamy. When one studies the history one finds that polygamous marriages are mentioned, in a non-negative way, in the Old-Testament. Old Jewish Law actually allows for the legal religious acceptance of polygamous marriages. King Solomon took many wives, as too did King David. A number of leading figures in the old Testament took more than one wife. This practice was still prevalent at the time of Jesus. Yet, Jesus never directly spoke out about it, either in favor or against the practice. It was a fact of life at the time, and appears to have been an non-issue for Jesus. At the time, under Roman rule, Jews were allowed to take more than one wife in accordance with their Hebrew Laws. While the practice was forbidden for Roman men. Roman law forbid polygamy. Exactly when this law was passed and by whom and why I do not recall, however, i do recall reading in some books many years ago that there was once a queen of an emperor who did not like the idea of sharing the status of queen with other co-wives and used her influence over her husband to make the practice illegal.
Still, despite Roman law forbidding men to legally keep more than one wife, Roman law allowed those who could afford to do so, to BUY as many young women (often times young girls) as slaves. A Roman man could keep as many young female slaves as he could afford, he just wasnt' allowed to legally or religiously marry more than one. Such a law then, forbidding polygamy was not really in the best interest of women or the society. Roman law while giving some rights to the children born of such slaves, it more limited their rights. Still, to beget children from a young girl that you bought in the slave market was considered legal and acceptable by the same people who wrote the laws forbidding men to legally marry more than one wife. Not only was a man able to buy as many young girls as he could afford, it was not illegal for him to sell the girl when she became a little older so that he could buy a new younger girl, if the man could afford to do so. Such things were concidered legal and acceptable by those who orginally passed the laws forbidding men to legally marry more than one wife.
When the Catholic Church as formed it adopted most of the social laws already on the books in Rome. The laws prohibiting polygamy were thus adopted by the Church and over time became part of the Church's own laws. However, the foundation for this does not lie in the Bible, nor the teachings of Christ, who never spoke out against the practice, but rather is rooted in old Roman civil laws. Eventually the Church took issue with slavery, and this practice eventually became condemned, but the laws and attitude opposing polygamy remained and over time became accepted as a religiously founded opposition. Over the centuries the idea of polygamy was considered immoral and irreligious - despite the fact that there is no scriptural support for such a view. For centuries the religious aspect was simply never questioned by the majority.
As far as Jews, it is allowed by ancient Jewish law, but Jews had not had a nation of their own for thousands of years prior to the formation of Israel in the end of the 1940's. At that time Jewish leaders met and decided on what Jewish laws would be adopted by the state of Israel and which would not. Polygamy was not popular in the West, either in Europe or America. The Jews depended on the popular support of the people of Europe and America to lend their new fledging country the support they needed to make Israel a nation. So, polygamy was not made legal in the modern state, the decision was, in the 1940's, was that polygamy was legal by Jewish law, and Israel should someday make it legal in the country officially, but n order to win the needed support they would be forced to formally make it illegal in morder Israel.
Islam, however, openly supports it. Mohammed himself took 4 wives at one time, and he taught that one man should not take more than 4 at a time.
But, Europe opposed the acceptance of either ancient Jewish law or Islamic law, as the social laws of Europe were strongly influenced by the old Roman civil laws, including the banning of polygamy. Thus, America also followed this standard when setting up it's social laws. Polygamy was always 'assumed' to be irreligious. Ask most modern Christians, especially the Catholics, and most all will think that polygamy is simply immoral and irreligious. Yet, amazingly there is no support in their very own scripture that supports the idea that the practice was ever at any time forbidden by God or any of the accepted prophets, including Jesus. Rather, a study shows that many religious figures have practiced polygamy itself. Mohammed, for example, took more than one wife and taught that a man can take up to 4 wives, King Solomon and King David of Jewish heritage both took many wives. In Vedic culture (and what many call Hindu religion) Lord Krishna took 16,108 wives (as Srila Prabhupad had commented on His taking so many wives, Krishna is God, He is able to take 16 milliion, He can marry every woman, He is God, so it is not so amazing He took 16,000 wives). Lord Nityananda took two wives. So many examples in Vedic scripture of religous men taking more than one wife.
However, going back to our point is that modern civil laws are based on the Catholic's assumption and idea taught for ages that polygamy is assumed to be 'irreligious and immoral'. So, modern social civil laws have long time forbid the legal practice of polygamy.
Here is the problem. We say that in America we enjoy freedom of religion. But, when it comes to polygamy and marriage laws there is no such freedom. Islamic law upholds that a man can marry more than one wife. Vedic scripture uphold that it is religious. Jewsih law upholds it is religious, Jesus never taught against it. Over all, the Scriptures uphold it, and the founding leaders of the main religons never spoke out against it. Thus, the modern laws are in direct opposition to the relgious tenants. The modern laws forbidding polygamy work to uphold the modern misuinderstanding of what the modern day Christians think or accept as being religious. The laws agaisnt polygamy have stood and have been upheld for centuries because of the mis-conception that the practice if irreligious. Thus, the modern laws only support the religious beliefs of the modern Christians, and have a total disregard for all other religions and their scripture and teachers.
This is not religious freedom.
The case against the Foundamentalist Mormons, then, is not just about their chosen life style, it is a case against or for religious freedom.
In a previous Mormon polygamy case that was brought before the Supreme court, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case citing that (to the effect), that marriage is a 'social' issue and thus falls under the civil laws of the state, and is not a 'religious' issue. This decision by the then court justices was completely wrong. Marriage is founded on religious principles. It has always been founded on religious princples and religious laws. Only recently has the State issued marriage licenses (in the past 100 years or so) Prior to this all marriages were enacted by a priest in a church and were recorded in family Bibles. Marriage had alwas been a religious rite, not a function of the State. Religious laws, more so then civil laws, are the foundation and basis of social conventions, relations and interactions. Civil laws should, therefore, reflect support of religious laws, not oppose them.
The question is one of religious freedom or suppression, not about polygamy. Today's modern laws would make a common crimminal out of King Solomon, King David, Mohammed, Lord Krishna and many great saints and saintly kings of Vedic culture, as well a that of Lord Nityananda Prabhu, whose two wives were also probably no more then 13-15 years of age. Mohammeds later 4 wives were also very young and yet he was in his 50's when he married his last wife, who was not even a teenager. Modern law would imprisson Mohammed for life for child molestation for both cosumating such a relationship and for sanctioning the practice of countless other of his followers.
Modern media, however, looks toward these practices with disdain and try to present them in the worse possible light.
I cautiously, however, support their cause. I do not support all their practices or views, and while i am personally apalled by some of their practices, i must uphold their right to freely adhere to follow their religious scripture and beliefs/
I am run out time for now. Other points were the that many of the women, including the young girls, in these arranged marriages are happy with their situation. Even that, many see as a 'problem' that has to changed. Their view is that these girls simply don't know better and that the best thing is to prosecute the men and break up their communities and make their religious practices illegal so as to 'save' those who just don't know better. This is not at all acceptable. By whose standards are they judging? When Jewish law allows polygamy, Islamic law allows polygamy, Vedic scripture allows polygamy, and the religious founders of Mormonism support polygamy as religious, then the modern law is FORCING their view of religion their view of right and wrong, of morality on others.
Just as we do not want that Islam force us to accept their religious scripture, we do not want the Mormons to force their religious views of morality on us, we do not want the Vedantists to force the Vedas on us, we do not want the modern Christians to force their limited view of religious moralty unfairly upon other religious minorities.
The modern legal view is that this is civil law and they are protecting the best civil interest of the members and the children. But, they do not understand or accept the fact that the members are following their religious teachings in giving of protection to the heart and chastity of the young women.
The issue is that of religious freedom. Thus, we support the freedom of all various religions to practice their chosen faith and religion. |
