Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
I don't think that's a very fair description. First of all monotheistic religions are not the only ones with fidelity rules. I would even guess that most religions have something to say about this matter.
Historically speaking, marriage (and equivalents) have mostly been arrangements of some combination of the following:
a) child-bearing
b) child-caring
c) commitment to work together
d) unions between families (as opposed to individuals)
e) a pact where one side provides for the other.
f) "love" (what ever that has meant)
The need to uphold, register and control these relationships was not born out of jealousy or control (well not purely), it was because if one side in these relations let the other down, the other (usually the woman) could suffer terrible poverty, hunger and possibly die. Her childred most certainly were going to be in big trouble.
Pretty much every kind of pressure from economical extortion to social pressure to the threat of vendetta have been used to keep (usually) the male home and providing for his wife (possibly wives) and more importantly his children. (Who are not only his children, but part of someone elses extended family.)
Religions have mostly simply been formalizing what have already been considered moral virtues by the society in question.
Of course when you start setting rules in stone, you always tend to drag behind the times, which inevitably change.
Looking at that list pretty much all of them are to some extent obsolete issues. (Couples rarely work together anyway, unions between families have pretty much lost their meaning, women don't need men to provide for them, children are not necessarily doomed to poverty after a divorce, common care for children can be provided even after the divorce...)
In the modern society, especially in the middle-classes and up, everything can be arranged. This has already fundamentally changed the way we think of marriages, and as a result the way we think of fidelity.
Fidelity is now almost exclusively an emotional and a private issue, where as once it could be considered a direct threat to the surrounding society through the family connections of all involved.
Although mostly sexual fidelity was not such a big deal, as long as the persons involved were seen to take care of their other duties and no children were born.
Also, even in technically very strict religious cultures rich men having children out of wedlock has often been be accepted. As long as the man provided for all his children and all mothers involved, he did not truly break against the true rules of the society.
|
I can't really argue how those rules and religions start because you are correct. Like the no pork example with Jews, it's was probably just a good common sense rule at the time. Now with modern agriculture it's not needed, but since it's been a religious rule for so long, the devout don't argue it. But yes, a lot of these rules and movements come out of needs of the society at a time.
However, it is pretty apparent that when religion becomes more organized those at the top of the power structure start making rules and religious laws that have less to do with common sense, safety, and the well being of the culture, and more to do with keeping their power, or making the world the way they wish to see it. Like much of Islam today and their rules against women. Especially the rules forbidding education. There are no deep societal or common sense cultural ideas or rules that forbid that (unless you are talking about the political ones that have been in the guise of religion for a very long time). These rules can be so old, we can't even see how they happened or why, and so just take them on their religious grounds, which were never religious in the first place.
I threw monotheistic in my argument, because that seems to be a common point where religions do become far more organized. I agree it's not completely correct, there have been oppressive polytheistic empires, but I believe it fits for most examples, and the strongest offenders.
Of course everything is an evolution. A more organized culture or religion does bring up other changes and benefits, or changes to human society that could be argued as vital. I was simply answering a question earlier to where a lot of these attitudes probably came from and how oppressive rules get put into play without much opposition.