Reader Comments
Issue 110 - June 25, 2008

Editor: I was a bit disappointed in your editorial "Why Not Multiple Wives?" particularly its concluding rationale that the only reason polygamy can be considered wrong is because our tradition requires it. With all due respect for Martin Luther, the reason we know polygamy is wrong is because of what the Bible says. To the extent that the success of Western Civilization has been because of monogamy, credit should be given to the various Biblical admonitions on the subject. While I understand that there are lots of objections made from many quarters (you quoted a number of them in your article), this does not lessen the reasonably plain teaching of the Bible. "Plain teaching", you might object, "there seem to at least be some ambiguities on the subject, even in the Bible". Please allow me to present this in a reasonably plain way. A Christian should have no objection to beginning his review of this subject by starting with Jesus Christ (as opposed to Martin Luther). He clearly set forth that marriage is to consist of a man and a wife. He speaks plainly in the singular in Matt. 19:3-6. In doing so, he quotes Genesis. For the Federalist, this brings to mind "our Creator", who no less an authority than Jesus Christ reminds us that He created a man and a woman, not a man and a man. In fact, the familiar words of Genesis 2:24 are the words spoken in most marriages still today. Another Biblical point is the comparison of Christ to his church with marriage (Eph. 5:22-33), which only makes sense if marriage is monogamous. Another Biblical point is the 10th commandment, which speaks in the singular and presupposes monogamy. The fact that the Bible provides stories about those who were polygamous does not mean that God approves of it. In fact, the above references clearly show that God disapproves of polygamy. In fact the cited passage of Jesus Christ explains plainly and succinctly why He tolerated polygamy in the Old Testament: because of their hardness of heart. On the other hand, I do believe that it is an understatement to say that the success of Western Civilization was due simply in part to the widespread practice of monogamy. It would be more accurate to say that monogamy was a key cornerstone in Western Civilization. It is not too much to say that Western Civilization as we know it would not have occurred without monogamy. The modern liberal mostly agrees with this and thus modern liberals mostly oppose monogamy, favor homosexual marriage, etc. Sincerely, Ross Little, Jr.

Editor responds: Your argument is sound and the quotations make your point about the centrality of monogamy to Christianity and Western Civilization but (1) the editorial considers the Bible as part—arguably the most important part--of the Western and American tradition and (2) the editorial ended by saying that polygamy was wrong because “our tradition (and, contra Luther, its initiator) commanded it so.” Notice the “and” and who was its “initiator,” including initiator of the Bible?

Editor: I was reading in the Bible book of II Chronicles today just before I read your editorial "Why Not Multiple Wives?" on polygamy. I wondered as I read that such and such a king of Judah had umpteen wives and walked in all God's ways. There was no correlation to the goodness or badness of kings in Judah or Israel and the number of wives they had. In fact, none of them were monogamous, even David, a man after God's own heart. So how did they keep the peace if men had so many wives? What about the unattached men? I think I figured it out. War. They went to war and killed off the men regularly. So the women needed polygamy so they wouldn't be left without the protection of a husband, in whom all the wealth resided. Today we don't kill off our warriors nearly as much. Six-plus years of the War on Terror, and we haven't lost the population of small city yet. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the number of children born to soldiers while deployed exceeds the number of troops lost. The question I have is this: What will happen in China, where there are not nearly enough girls to go around, even one per man? War again? Art Douglas

Editor: Regarding your editorial "Why Not Multiple Wives?" monogamy is definitely what is at the core of Christianity. The issue before the Texas courts should be "child slavery and rape." Those children should never be returned to that environment. It is wrong to force a 13 or 14 year old into marriage with a cousin or anyone else. Those children should be protected from future harm by placing them in foster care and in-depth counseling. Judi Moore, Chesterfield, Missouri

Editor: Regarding your editorial "Why Not Multiple Wives?" courts these days will approve anything that feels good, including multiple wives, sex with animals, cannibalism, pornography, sex with children, turn prisoners out on society, whatever feels good--do it. Of course, California’s court recently imposed same sex marriage against the will of the people. This court has no standards, and it is an outgrowth of liberals and old communists from the San Francisco/Bay Area. Olin D. Poole, Duncanville, TX

Editor: "Why Not Multiple Wives?" Probably because you just can't get away with it! John A. Quayle

Editor: Kudos on a great article by Tom Coburn, “Republicans in Denial.” I agree with him completely about his appraisal of our party and how we got into our current mess. But I'm aghast at his closing paragraph about John McCain. McCain's record proves him, quite conclusively, to be more of a "liberal" than even Bush has been, recent campaign rhetoric aside. And McCain screaming at his colleagues for being "s***heads" and "idiots" who should "shut up" doesn't exactly strike me as a mark of humility. I can practically guarantee you that McCain will only lead our party further toward destruction. I wish that Coburn's foresight were even a tenth as good as his 20/20 hindsight in this otherwise-wonderful column. David Edward Garber

Editor: In his “Republicans in Denial.” Senator Tom Coburn rightly accuses many Republicans of being in denial—saying that their party is in chaos and without any coherent leadership. However, Sen. Coburn is engaging in his own denial. Sen. McCain couldn't lead someone to

the bathroom, much less the Republican Party though its current travails! Sen. McCain, like many with monumental egos, has nothing to back up the ego. He is a Mr. Bluster (of Howdy Doody fame). He is singularly lacking in leadership qualities; he is petty, vain, utterly without understanding of economics, computer illiterate and perhaps worst of all, a globalist! He is perfectly willing to accept most of the Democrat Party's premises on how to deal with immigration, global warming, energy self-sufficiency, etc. He is a passive campaigner when we need aggression; an apologist and all around Mr. Milquetoast! While he is a better choice than the Marxist Obama, he is hardly the Republican Party's "leader through the wilderness". Yes, McCain WAS an American hero. However, he went from Air Force pilot, to prisoner of war, to U.S. Senator. In reality, a thin resume. His senatorial years were marked by outbursts of ego, unwarranted arrogance and lack of cooperation with his own party! He is a perfect example of a last choice candidate. As the days go by and McCain, daily, opens his mouth to insert his foot, I'm not sure that holding my nose when voting for him will be sufficient. Perhaps the saddest thing of all is his apologists, like yourselves, who "for the good of the party" delude yourselves! The Republican Party desperately needs to lead—to lead McCain! Paul Cohen, Byron, GA

Editor: Senator Tom Coburn says Senator McCain will lead us through our wilderness???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. He is the GOP package that has big government liberal agenda inside. Every time I think that I have to vote for McCain (because I hear something new about Obama), McCain opens his big mouth and I realize to vote for him is the same as voting for Obama. Idiots, both of them. Sue Blum

Editor: Regarding “Republicans in Denial” by Senator Tom Coburn, don't give up compassionate conservatism. Just give up the wasteful spending. And, yes, establish priorities. Many Republicans are very good and caring people and it hurts our party if we are not perceived that way. We defend the truly needy. We are the party that stands up against euthanasia and denying care to the defenseless, preemie babies who need costly medical care, the handicapped, the weak and vulnerable! We must continue and be proud of this moral fight. We want to provide great care for our courageous veterans! We should not back away from this. It is not inconsistent to be compassionate and to be financially conservative! It is good both morally and politically to do both! Sincerely, Barbara Delo

Editor: I disagree with Mr. Coburn's assessment of McCain being able to lead us out of the mess Republicans have allowed us to get into against the voiced will of the American people. His stance on immigration and border security alone will go a long way towards bankrupting the nation and jeopardizing national security. Too much Kennedy and Lieberman in McCain to be the leader we need. In my opinion he is just one step above Obama and Clinton. We should be ashamed of allowing the media to pick our presidential candidate. Many of the candidates who ran for the nomination were much better leaders then the "Honorable McCain". Please do not mistake soft-headedness for "humility". I will not only hold my nose and vote for him, I will need to have my barf-bucket close by. James Hauser

Editor: Paul Weyrich’s “Coherent Assimilation Culture” article on immigration is right on target. I entered the U.S. in 1963 from Canada. At that time I required 2 American sponsors rated as financially affluent and of good character. This was not a problem for me as my sponsors were relatives with large congregations of Episcopalians in the State of Massachusetts. In 1963 you just didn't come into America and become a financial burden (or raise havoc or protest) as a proud American would have put you in your place. This was a Proud Nation; with American flags flying everywhere and on Sundays the families were in Church. American spirits were high. Then came the assassination of President Kennedy. Peoples’ attitudes changed and in my opinion have never returned to the happy, will take it in stride pace of yesteryear. The removal of prayers from schools signaled the beginning of God's removal from our children's heritage. Without the presence of God surrounding our schools they (the schools) became the scenes of massacres. The removal of the Ten Commandments was just another break away from Christianity. To sum it all up since my entry into the U.S. I have seen a great deal of destruction of the American Heritage, Christian Principles and the reasons I first wished to become an American. This country remains the greatest in the world and it is my hope we as a nation will maintain the strong foundations that many wise, incorruptible souls instilled in Our Constitution. Sincerely, Allan G. Miles

Editor: Good job with Dennis Avery’s “31,000 Climate Skeptics.” Isn't it amazing how a few people (Gore) can totally bum out a nation and make money doing it. GOD HELP US. Patty

Editor: I agree with Dennis Avery’s “31,000 Climate Skeptics” that global warming has been oversold--a mantra for Gore and his followers. Daniel M. Brown PhD, P.E., (Texas #39612)BS Baylor University, Physics & Math, 1956, PhD Catholic University 1971 in Theoretical Physics

Editor: Timothy Carney’s “Legal Farm Bribery” is a very powerful piece and I will be sending it to all the people in my address book. Another thing that makes me so mad is the people as a whole are very rude. They push their way in front of me and want me to get out of their way in the stores. That is not the way to endear themselves to me. Thanks Morris Lindsey

Editor: Regarding Spencer Warren’s list of westerns, I think some others deserve merit. For example, anything done by Leone (especially Once Upon a Time in the West, and Good, Bad, and the Ugly).... Rio Bravo...Silverado....Bend in the River.......Firecreek..... The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence....Unforgiven...Wyatt Earp (at least Costner can do westerns, Dances With Wolves is excellent, too). If you want something fun in westerns, try Cat Balou......Paint your Wagon...Rustlers Rhapsody....... Benjamin Szemere

Editor: “Jimmy Stewart: American” by Spencer Warren was superb. This is an opinion from an old old lady from New England who still lives by Jimmy's rules of morality, and who mourns the passing of truth and morals in Hollywood. Geraldine Nelson