Speaking Truth to Power

Discussions of marriage and family, powers and controls, economics, authorities

People come and go, some persons being the methods of disseminating truths and messages that help others to know things that benefit them. Most of us would like to be part of this group, yes? See something, say something (for the good of all). Look out and help your neighbor. There are others that believe that they need to cover or suppress the truth. Many individuals and groups have reasons for doing that. Some of those reasons are more nefarious than others. Sometimes it is to take advantage or exploit others, to cheat and get unlawful gain. Others are simply embarrassed by reporting things that they consider very personal or private. Suppressing needed truths that should be known by all can have disastrously dire consequences.

 

Spread the wealth, sharing is caring, go forth and do good: a number of mantras could be applied to sharing truth and spreading the word of help and aid for the mutual benefit of all.

Some people see religions in general as established structures that purposely try to cover up and suppress the truth of things, and things are exacerbated negatively when used or exploited by pernicious governments or communities, resulting in that things grow worse. Lies are spread, in other words.

Where does power lie? In money, in economic organizations that have freedom to use their influence as they choose, but bottom line within the family unit.  Power and influence beyond the nuclear family and kin is controlled by companies, syndicates, governments, gangs, clans, institutions, organized religions, clubs, teams: the money and power run together to create their own systems and flows of influence.

In India the caste system was the thing for millennia that controlled their millions. It still has its aftermath today. In China there was a stratus of rule, and it exists today, probably more than ever under the Chinese Communist Party, to the dismay of many. In the United States and much of the West we have our own ways of letting some rule and others control, either being subjugated by powers or allowing people their freedoms. Every society has its own methods and modes of control and power. Money, finance, and economics is usually the bottom line.

The institution and practice of marriage has been a source of power, control, standard of living, stability, or basis of normalcy and norms in almost every society ever.

In the United States and elsewhere the legality of marriage has been challenged and changed more recently, but it has also battled against the long time principle or implementation of plural marriage. It allows intimate interactions between consenting adults, and cohabitation, with little or no interference, except when separation occurs and custody and property rights are involved when non-married parents decide to split up, regardless of the paper designating them as a couple (common law).

The Catholic Church based in Rome has had a large part in the tradition of marriage of its members, the maintenance of celibate priesthood, and non-married nuns for centuries. It has certainly had its effects on many other nations and world events as well since 330 A.D., adopted in central Europe by the Emperor Constantine. Much of the rest of the world has reacted to the policies and practices, doctrines and dictates, of this great power ever since. Whole nations and religions have come to being in wake of the rulings of Rome.

In the fall of 1991 or so, not long after her precipitous rise to fame, and after I had lived in a transforming but traditional Catholic country in South America, the Irish rocker Sinead O'Connor performed on Saturday Night Live, then infamously after her song pulled a picture out which showed the very popular Pope John Paul II; she shred the photo in half to an awkward, dead silence in front of the studio audience and the rest of the televised world.

What did it mean? Authority as the West and the majority of humanity was dead? Icons of power or traditional virtue were to be torn up and destroyed? Yes, all of that, I would aRock and roll and the newer generations since the avant guardists of the turn of the 20th century had been pushing and climbing for this moment: to tear down traditional authority and let "freedom" and whatever the hippies of the sixties wanted. Freedom of love, expression, freedom to alter their minds through drugs, freedom to resist the governments and their patriarchies and wars, and it was against the mores of religion, at least the Western ones.

In the current age most of the freedoms and traditions of the West have been established. Republics, taxes, democratic representatives, rules or law locally, nationally, internationally. Economics and trade, science and innovation.

Now marriage in many societies has been allowed to permit same sex unions, and for decades these societies have allowed many other definitions of non-traditional marriage and sexual practices, while many of those same lands prohibit plural marriage, polygamy which has usually been where one many has multiple wives. Seemingly antiquated and not fair to the women involved, or the poor men who cannot afford the lifestyle, which has its merits in the Western, advanced mind.

People should be free to act and live sexually as they choose, but not when it comes to polygamy. In many modern people's eyes one man or one woman could have hundreds of sexual partners, freely, but no social compact is expected. Anything formalized is strictly verboten.

Such confines would be uncivilized, too confining, too controlling. Monogamy is considered an okay institution but it is not the only rule of family or procreation.

Sex is an adult right to be done when wanted, or however it is deemed legal. The forbidden list includes, no sexual contact with minors, no coercion, in most cases not paid for services, but sexual actions are free to practice with multiple partners with no apparent ramifications. This is wrong, by the way.

So, what is the truth that we should speak to power when it comes to the modern day regarding marriage and its Western legal definitions? Is it a free act, limited by egregious acts, as mentioned, and any type of person may enact it as consenting adults?

What is the truth about marriage? Is it one of many options for procreation, for example? Legally yes, but morally and ethically, no. Children deserve to have multiple adults that raise them and support them. Society deserves this.

 

Back to the Catholic faith:

 

Is celibacy a requirement that is truthful to being a true steward to God and our fellow human kind?

Does it matter?

 

My answers:

 

Marriage is the fundamental basis of power and control in the world.

 

Men and women should come together and be married and procreate and raise children together.

 

Men and women of God should not be required to be celibate all their lives. That is anathema to God's power and will, in my opinion.

Should it be only one to one, monogamy of marriage? Sounds fair. Too much power given to one spouse with many others does not seem right. Patriarchal or matriarchal dominance is not good. There has to be balance and equality, a division of labors between the parents. No one partner can dominate the relationship, which is what polygamy seems to do. Too stilted. In the past (and today in some parts), the economic necessity or viability of polygamous relationships has had their effects. The Koran of Islam specifically defines a polygamous relationship as acceptable, depending on circumstances. However, in the modern world, we hold to one man, one woman, spouses as co-equals: that is the equitable way. 

Same gender and other legally married partnerships are accepted by the modern 21st century world. I think that they are not traditional marriages and should be called civil unions, but the couples should be granted the economic and civic rights and privileges of male/female marriages. This is semantics, but hopefully the distinction is noted and the power of same gender couples is still in effect.

Power and control is acquired by and maintained by those that create and raise children. (There are couples that never have children that still follow the basic family model, and they are still families). In the United States the government has a lot of this power, too much of it, because too many illegitimate children become wards of the state. Our taxes and programs raise them more than their parents, in many ways. And sadly, we fail them. The government monies fail our young kids when it becomes the primary source of control and power. This leads to bad results: a welfare state and criminal enterprises. This is not a racially slanted view, it is the sad state or reality of power and control for youngsters.

Parents, males and females, aunts and uncles, grandparents or whichever guardians have to maintain power, control, and good influence over their children. When too much power is given to the state in the sustenance and over-watch of children, things devolve too often. Babies, boys and girls, need more direct parenting and guidance than government subsidies and programs to raise them. Too often the government incentivizes people to do the wrong thing. Was it President Johnson who headed up the welfare initiative for single mothers? Huge backfire. Millions of children raised the wrong ways, with improper starts and many times finishes in life. Millions of dead beat dads, left off the hook by Big Government.

Race comes up a lot with disparities of income and even marriage. Different racial backgrounds and ethnic differences will always be pointed to as dividers and discriminators. Ideally, this would not be so. But in the former times this had to with power and control. Marriage and family was key to keeping the money and standards of living within the grasp of those involved.

There was a time when inter-racial and inter-religious marriages were frowned upon and discriminated against. This has mostly died away, but there are still reasons why the opposition to inter-mixing marriages exist. Socio-economic differences can still be contentious, too. Understandably so.

Money and stability, or the lack thereof, is a constant concern. Differences in lifestyle or income brings these issues to bear. I believe that the U.S. government has abdicated too much moral responsibility in creating and raising youths, while shelling out untold billions to help remedy the problems of these under-parented youths.

Under-parented youths. Like an under-governed country. Things have gone wrong.

Where is the power and control? Who is speaking truth to this power?

I am trying to do so.

The Catholic Church would do better for allowing their priests and nuns to be married.

However, my personal faith and dozens of others have been bucking their (Rome's) authorities for centuries. And now we have all the secular, non-religious, "nones" who do not care about those authorities anyway. Science and empiricism is the new authority of the day. Not to mention the plain old atheists.

Who needs Rome? Not Sinead O'Connor, who designated herself as a priest back in the day. Not sure now, some 25 years later. I know she has voiced some mental health concerns as of late, but that is nothing new for artistic or religious types.

Control, power, marriage, money, finances, hierarchy, law, patriarchy, race, ethnic background, taxes.

Parenting and raising kids.

Let us speak our truth to power. A lot of systems and practices can be well intended, like life-long celibacy or letting our government subsidize our youth's upbringings, but that does not make them right. Call what's wrong, wrong. Polygamy. Wrong? Okay, speak it. Gay marriage or civil union. Right? Speak it.

What do you know? What truth do you wish to speak to power?