Oh, like they matter.
The comments are a mass of rationalization and self justification. “lots of kids wishes their parents would divorce so they would stop fighting”, “The problem is when the parents aren’t open about the divorce. If they have good communication then the kids will be fine.”
Grrr. It’s not lack of communication that’s painful and damaging. It’s losing your damned father. It should be illegal. Or at least a cause of social stigma. This is one of the reasons I’m convinced that democracy is corrosive.
Professor Henry Higgins may see the connection from divorce to democracy, but I don’t.
Given that the American founders had deep misgivings about unlimited democracy, I think Agellius is in reasonably respectable intellectual company.
However, I don’t believe a government with significant democratic elements can withstand the putrefaction of the underlying culture, no matter how well structured.
For a Mormon, an unjustified divorce mean no temple recommend. This lacks the visibility of a scarlet “D”, but at least it’s something. The First Presidency seem to err on the side of mercy in granting divorce clearances, but I am disinclined to second guess them.
Is it democracy per se, or the old prosperity -> pride -> wickedness -> destruction cycle all over again?
But the mention of social stigma is interesting. It seems stigma of any kind, are seen as awful, in modern culture, unless you have violated one of the major taboos like being opposed to gay marriage. But just ask if shame is good, and people will be horrified at you.
“For a Mormon, an unjustified divorce mean no temple recommend.” – Really? I doubt that. I know a few people with clearly unjustified divorces that have temple recommends. Since none of the questions are “was your divorce justified” one can get through the interview just fine, if they don’t mind fudging the answers about behavior toward the family.
When I posted what I thought was a rather mild post at M* about divorce, some commentators basically said I was an abuser for thinking that divorce is too common and often unjustified.
My information may be out of date. My recollection is that whenever I’ve gone for a temple recommend interview with a priesthood leader who does not know me well, I get asked if I have ever been divorced. Since I have not, I don’t know what the followup questions are. I assumed they had something to do with a divorce clearance.
Well, since I am divorced, I can tell you what the follow up questions are. They are (this is not exact wording) “do you have any financial obligations to a former spouse or do you owe any child support?” Basically, do you owe or all you all caught up on child support and/or alimony. If you are, great. If you’re even 5 bucks behind on payments, no recommend for you.
“Given that the American founders had deep misgivings about unlimited democracy, I think Agellius is in reasonably respectable intellectual company.”
I think “unlimited democracy” was only known in theory in any case, sort of like “true” communism as opposed to the kind that has actually been practiced in our lifetimes.
My feeling is simply that when the majority rules, things get corrupted, even in an “indirect” democracy like ours. When politicians have to pander to people for their votes, they’ll say and do whatever they think the people want. And that’s how we got easy divorce: Most people wanted it and weren’t going to vote for any old fuddy-duddy who wouldn’t give it to them.