Government Policy and Religion

[Gauracandra 1]

There has always been a lot of talk about the role government has with relation to religion. I have a fairly controversial view that the growth of secular government is inversely related to Church attendance. Certainly, from a Judeo-Christian angle, you can list off which countries are the most socialist to least socialist, and you will see a direct link to church attendance. For instance, Scandinavian countries are very socialist, next say France, then Germany, then England, then Canada, then the U.S.A. I think this is a fair ranking. I have seen statistics in the past that show the church attendance in various countries, and inevitably I see that the greater the role of government the smaller the role of the church.

 

Why might this be? It seems to me fairly obvious. A church is in some respects a tool for the formation and maintenance of a community. Thus beyond spiritual matters it also handles many material matters as well (food, clothing, housing, job training, networking etc....). As government taxes its citizens and collects the money, we see two things occur. First, we see that now congregation members have less money to contribute to the church (eg. if taxes are 70% like in some countries, vs. 30% in others that difference can determine how much you can support a local institution vs. a federal government). Second, the government now uses this tax money to engage in many of the same activities of the local community church thus making the role of the church weaker. The federal government pays for food, clothing, shelter.

 

There are two problems with this. First, I believe almost always government is less efficient than private organizations (especially when you get to large countries like the U.S.; Sweden and smaller countries are more like our states). Second, because government is secular we see that people are not held accountable for their actions. If one is irresponsible, taking drugs, or having children out of wedlock, a church organization will engage in sermonizing that will create a naturally more conservative culture. A larger government will naturally create a culture of irresponsibility because it requires nothing of its citizens by way of moral behavior.

 

Charles Murray wrote a very controversial piece in the Wall Street Journal a few years back. His major thesis was that welfare by its very nature encourages illegitimacy. Not that someone has more children because of the money, but rather that the money acts as an "enabler" to irresponsible behavior. Because now a person could support, even in a meager way, a child without a husband, this leads to the irresponsible in society to take to this path.

 

If tomorrow you were to eliminate all government support for children you would see something dramatic and stunning. Immediately all those who engage in irresponsible behavior would be seen publicly. No more could people claim that "all values are equal". Immediately the activities of some values would be seen as detrimental to society. Government policy masks the true harm caused to the culture and thus leads to a more permissive culture. If the irresponsible had to bear the burden of their mistakes in plain view of society, I assure you that the culture would take a sharp turn to the right. Right and wrong, good and bad would once again become clear to one and all.

 

I fundamentally believe that culture tends to be stable. However, when government manipulates trillions of dollars in social engineering, it destabilizes a fundamentally sound system. Government policy affects culture and religion. The best way to strengthen the role of communities and religious institutions would be to eliminate government down to a very minor role in our lives and culture.

 

Gauracandra

 

[JRdd 0]

I like your way of thinking, Gaurachandra. I knew this was going to be an interesting article. I once wrote an essay on universality versus localised government, maybe I can dig it out and refer to it before this discussion is over.

 

Recently my ex said a stunning thing; he actually complained to me that for years he has ben having to go to the trouble of hiding his income for years so they couldn't get him for child support. Didn't occur to him once, to help us out when I was practically begging on the street (selling stuff) to get enough money for food for my ("his") daughter? His parents had been under the impression that he was payng child support so once, years ago, I finally wrote and told them the truth, adding that in this country such nonsupporters are termed deadbeat dads and are pursued by the legal authorities, thinkng the stigma of that might spread over to him from them (guess it didn't though!)(what can you do? You can't get angry; that is simply defeating. It's the other guy's problem on a deeper level than the problem of poverty is for the sufferer). Well it makes sense that it would be more apparent to everyone that the parent isn't paying if all single parents were seen to be struggling so. No one seemed to notice my struggles though. I did have welfare, but it did not even cover the rent. anyway, this touches on just part of one angle of your presentation, but I just wanted to contribute a vivid example of your point.

 

ys, Jayaradhe

[Gauracandra 1]

Let me run down a list of a few things that I believe with regards to culture:

 

First, I reject the notion that all values are equal. Every path does not lead to the same destination, and every value will not create an equally strong and healthy society. Everything else being equal, those societies that promote saving, discipline, hard work, the ability to forgo instant gratification, and the focused effort of individuals will create a prosperous and successful civilization.

 

Second, I believe that government economic policy affects culture (not just the economy). The movement of trillions of dollars over many decades will create various incentives that will shift the culture from its natural balance. Economic policy can create a culture that is lazy or industrious, sexually permissive or sexually constrained, rude or well mannered. While there are many factors that will influence culture, we cannot ignore the effects that the almighty dollar plays in our lives. Money gives us the ability to do things or not do things as the case may be.

 

Third, I believe men and women are fundamentally different, each bringing to society characteristics that work to promote a healthy civilization. To me, women are the foundation of civilization and men the engine that drives civilization forward. There is a constant debate on who is more intelligent – men or women. The politically correct like to say that men and women have no differences, that we are equally intelligent. This is only partially true. I believe that I.Q. tests do reveal the truth about the intelligence levels of men and women. Based on the studies I have read, men tend to be slightly more intelligent than women (but not by much). What is significant is not the I.Q. scores themselves, but rather their distributions. The bell curve for women tends to be tight around the mean suggesting that the deviation from one woman to the next is fairly low. The I.Q. distributions for men are much lower and spread out. Thus among men there is a much wider disparity between one man and the next (there are more geniuses and more idiots among men). Women, as a group, provide a certain intellectual balance to society. Men on the other hand create most of the social disturbances in society and most of the social innovations. Men have by far a higher suicide rate, are more likely to commit violent crime (rape, murder), are more likely to take drugs, more likely to be homeless, and are more likely to suffer from mental illness (virtually all serial killers are men). While men bring so many problems to society, they are also the ones who tend to create most of the innovations. For every Madame Currie, you can find 10 Einsteins or Stephen Hawkings.

 

Fourth, I believe that as part of bringing social balance, it is women who have created the rules of culture that control how men behave. When a woman says “Jump” it is the men who say “How high?”. Feminists have tried to convince us that the manners and culture that men have historically exhibited toward women was a form of male control. Nonsense – it was women who were controlling the men. Women have a reason to hold men to high standards because it is they who have to handle the consequences of pregnancy. Men want sex, and women want a good mate (from a purely biological perspective). Thus women made men jump through hoops to get to them. When women lower their standards, the men have no problem taking advantage of the situation. It was women who made men dress nicely, open doors, get up from the table when they left, say “Yes maam” and such. It was a way for women, through the culture, to control the impulses of men.

 

Fifth, to a large degree we know what is right and wrong based on viewing the consequences of behavior. Most people view smoking as bad. However, if tomorrow we found a cure for lung cancer, there is no doubt that there would be a fundamental cultural shift in our perceptions of smoking. Now all of a sudden smoking is just something to do. You can’t die from it, there is no expensive medical costs etc….

 

Finally, I believe that a weak culture is the driving force behind most of our social problems, be it education, crime, drug use, teenage pregnancy etc….

 

Now lets combine these various points. I believe a strong culture is one that encourages putting off instant gratification for long term success. As part of this, a strong culture discourages illicit sexual activity because of the consequences of such permissiveness. The number one predictor on how well a child will do in terms of schooling, poverty, health and such is whether or not that child was born out of wedlock to a single mother. Now we have historically viewed single motherhood as something that should be discouraged. Certainly not every situation is preventable, and in no way do I wish to seem harsh in this analysis. But a single mother, without the assistance of a father, will have a very difficult time.

 

The main consequence of single motherhood is poverty. As a community we see a single mother with a child struggling to make ends meet, and as a culture we tell ourselves and others “We must prevent this from happening on a large scale, this is not good for the mother nor the child”. There is no moral ambiguity – this is right and that is wrong. The consequences dictate our perception of the morality of an act (just like dying from smoking). Now suppose we “cured” the problems of single motherhood – namely poverty. When a young girl gets pregnant, rather than having to bear the burden of the act of sexual permissiveness, there comes an outside force (the benevolent hand of government) to resolve the problem. All of a sudden the poverty that is associated with single motherhood disappears. It doesn’t really disappear, rather the consequences are simply masked by the money provided by the government.

 

Now all of a sudden single motherhood is no longer bad – in fact it is a lifestyle that can be “enabled” by the government. And again, this government doesn’t preach or sermonize. It doesn’t say that you have done wrong. It simply gives out money. What does this do to women? Well, since the consequence of getting pregnant is eliminated (or at least lessened to some degree), there is a degree to which women slacken their requirements of men. No longer are men held accountable for their actions, certainly not to the degree they once were. So women, and the culture, begin to expect less of men. Women no longer require men to jump through all of the hoops. Men no longer have to dress particularly nicely (have you seen kids these days? Practically most teenagers look like homeless kids), behave politely, open doors, or address women in a pleasing manner. Music, movies, art and such now treat women in a very poor manner. And why not? If women wanted to, tomorrow there could be a revolution, if they held men to high standards. Demanded something of them, rather than acquiescing to slovenly behavior.

 

Women are the foundations of civilization. They bring balance to society. When they lower their standards, men will be perfectly willing to follow along. It has been government policy I believe that has led to a large degree to the decline of manners in society. They have made the male earning husband extinct in many areas by paying women.

 

The problem now is this: how do we reverse the cultural course we have gone down for the last 40 years. In 1960 or so, the illegitimacy rate was about 5% - today it is around 35-40%. Today, one out of every 3 pregnancies ends in abortion (another way of solving the pregnancy problem, and thus lowering the expectations of men), and of those that continue forward another one-third are outside of marriage. If tomorrow you were to eliminate all government support for women and children, you would unmask and make apparent the deteriorating culture in a very factual and real way. Children would be fatherless, women would be homeless. Poverty would reign across the land in some areas. No one would be able to stand such a situation. But that is only because today 35-40% of all births are out of wedlock. If it was 5%, like 40 years ago, private institutions could handle such situations. Churches and community groups can easily handle 5% but there is no way they could handle 40%. Should we cut off the oxygen of money that enables socially destructive behavior? Could we bear to watch the suffering that would take place as the culture began to repair itself from the ravages of well-meaning liberals? If we were to follow such a path we would see the elimination of illegitimacy but also the skyrocketing of abortion. Over a period of 30-50 years, the social fabric will again mend itself from the damages of “liberal economic policy”. Society will start to heal and the culture will become healthy. The culture will turn conservative, demand responsibility and accountability, there will be a clear understanding of right and wrong. Are we willing to undergo 30-50 years of pain, if it means success for the next hundreds of years to come? It’s a difficult question to answer, but I see no alternative.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

 

[JRdd 0]

Interesting Gaurachandra prabhu. But I’m not sure anymore if I like your line of thinking.

 

Your assessments about the effect of economic policy on culture overlooks a lot, and your belief that it is women who make the rules that control men slides right off the page of credibility in my book. Finally, your proposal of cutting off government help to the most needy as a solution to societal ails is like saying that if we destroy all cars we will solve the problem of pollution. I will tie all three of these points together in arguing against this solution, which seeks to blame everyone except those who are blameworthy.

 

First, we are too far down the road to entertain the idea of forcing abrupt change; it will only cause chaos and rebellion and even more suffering than is already being felt. You have not gone deep enough or thoroughly enough in exploring the causes of our problems today, and by your statements, of proposing from your easy chair the infliction of increased suffering across a wide band of the population, by removing the already meager government aid to families in need, you yourself exemplify so well the need for localised government--for centralised governing causes detachment from the needs, feelings and requirements of its people.

 

Your solutions are weak because your premises are weak. While reading your descriptions of men jumping through women’s hoops my suspicions that you were speaking of a particular generation were confirmed near the end of your second post, where you referred to people of about forty years ago. However, in previous times, even in the earlier part of the 1900's, men in general were of a nobler ilk; they behaved dutifully (and lovingly) out of their higher standards of morality, integrity, religiosity, sensitivity, and general all round goodness. (My grandparents were among the last of this line. Srila Prabhupada was of this era also.)

 

Expectations women have of men have nothing to do with the way men act. This is proven vividly if we look at the many many instances where Vaisnavis married in all sincerity, innocence, and devotion, husbands they EXPECTED would be exemplary as per the Vedic conception of the husband as guru, and who would treat them affectionately as normally exists between spouses. The fact that so many young women were shocked by their husband’s behavior, and left bereft, to raise the children alone (often without even financial support) proves this. For who in their right mind would marry if they expected such devastating and tragic results? (I myself desired to have at least three children but because moral and financial support was lacking, what to speak of kindness, I had to stop at one child. Later, I had to remove that child from the cruel environment. That was not my idea or choice when I married. I had entered that marriage idealisticially, considering it to be marriage for life.)

 

Not only do you profess to blame women for men’s behaviour, you also blame government help as the cause of the problem of abandoned mothers and children. NO. Government aid merely attempts to address a problem which was already there.

 

I think you need to look more at men’s role in the breakdown of society. Please start by looking at the following quotes, a selection of verses from Laksmi Tantra chapter 43, on the subject of women and their status in the Pancaratra tradition.

 

na samret kamini nindam karmana manasa gira yatraham tatra tattvani tatraham tatra devatah - (62) A yogin should never abuse a woman, either in deed, speech or thought. Where ever I (Lakshmi) am, the realities are. where ever I am the gods too are.

 

yo bhinindati tam narim laksmima bhinindati yo bhinindati tam laksmi trailokyama bhinindati (64) He who abuses women abuses Laksmi herself He who abuses Laksmi abuses the entire three worlds.

jyotsnam iva striyam drstva yasya cittam prasidati napadhyayati yatkincit sa me priyatmano matah

(66) He whose heart is gladdened by the sight of women - like moonlight and who never entertains evil thoughts about them, he is most dear to me

 

aruna hyapaga yadvattatha simantini vara yadasmi janani nama trayanam jagatamaham

(69) As also the Aruna river, so too are all women revered as being sinless. ...

 

mattanurvanita saksad yogi kasmanna pujayet na kuryad vrjinam naryah kuvrttam na smaret striyah

(71) Knowing women as my direct manifestation, how can a yogi refrain from revering them ? Women should always be worshipped and treated with affection.

 

The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, Section XLVI

“Bhishma said: Respect, kind treatment and everything else that is agreeable, should all be given unto the maiden whose hand is taken in marriage. Her sire and brothers and father-in law and husband's brothers should show her every respect and adorn her with ornaments. If they be desirous of reaping benefits, for such conduct on their part always leads to considerable happiness and advantage. Women should always be worshipped and treated with affection. There where women are treated with respect, the very deities are said to be filled with joy. There where women are not worshipped, all acts become fruitless. If the women of a family, in consequence of the treatment they receive, grieve and shed tears, that family soon becomes extinct. Those houses that are cursed by women meet with destruction and ruin as if scorched by some Atharvan rite. Such houses lose their splendour. Their growth and prosperity cease. Women are disposed to accept the love that is offered to them, and devoted to truth. Women deserve to be honoured. Do ye men show them honour. The righteousness of men depends upon women. All pleasures and enjoyments also completely depend upon them. Do ye serve them and worship them. Do ye bend your wills before them. The begetting of offspring, the nursing of children already born, and the accomplishment of all acts necessary for the needs of society, behold, all these have women for their cause. By honouring women, ye are sure to attain to the fruition of all objects. Deities of prosperity are women. The persons that desire prosperity should honour them. By cherishing women, one cherishes the goddess of prosperity herself, and by afflicting her, one is said to afflict the goddess of prosperity.”

 

The well-meaning devotee who gathered these wonderful quotes ruined it by his own purport, in which he proposed that all chaste women be honored and respected. What is wrong with that statement, some may wonder. Just one word, that’s all. Nowhere in the above quotes has it been stated that “chaste” women are to be treated respectfully. This gives excuses to the men to mistreat those they don’t deem worthy of their respect. The truth is, however, that one should treat ALL women with honor, respect, and protection, and they WILL be chaste.

 

Go back to Bhagavad-gita, young man, where we have read countless times about the cause of societal breakdown. Then we can start talking about the role of RELIGION in society, which you failed to address in all of your above points.

 

Kindly respond to my points if you will, prabhu. I look forward to it.

 

Thanks, Jayaradhe dasi

[Gauracandra 1]

I'm a little short on time right now, but I'll write up a more detailed explanation of my reasonings with in the next few days. The purpose of my posting was not to blame women, nor was it to provide an exhaustive list of the causes of the breakdown of society. Rather I wanted to give a philosophical basis for why government economic policy creates certain problems. I stayed on it philosophically, in my next report I'll pull together specific facts and statistics to prove my point. I stand by my assertion that today's government support enables social disfunction to exist. The word is enables. It creates an environment in which bad and irresponsible behavior can exist. I believe fundamentally that "self-destructive behavior naturally self-destructs" - that is unless it is supported in some fashion. I believe government enables irresponsible people to act irresponsibly. I would kindly point out that in your rebutal you did not disprove any points that I made. Rather you simply didn't like the points I made. I realize that my argument is controversial, but the correlation between the breakdown of the family and the rise of the welfare state is UNDENIABLE. I would be interested in hearing any theories you or others may have to explain the rapid (last 35-40 years) decline of the family (which just so happened to coincide with the "Great Society" programs of Kennedy-Johnson). We have literally spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the last 40 years on the War on Poverty, and during this time we have seen illigitimacy rise from 5% to close to 40%. Coincidence? I think not.

 

Gauracandra

[Gauracandra 1]

I did a quick search on the internet and came across a PBS roundtable on this topic. It was quite long so I've edited it down a lot.

 

Gauracandra

 

Does welfarecause illegitimate births?

 

MR. MURRAY: If you mean is it the single, solitary cause, of course not. But look, think of a woman having a baby out of wedlock as two major clumps of forces. Some of them are economic. Can she or can she not afford to take care of the child? Some of them are social; social stigma. What the welfare system did was make it possible to take care of a baby without having a husband.

 

There was a dramatic change in that from the early 1960s into the1970s, and the changes in the system since then haven't changed that basic reality. You can have a baby without a husband and take care of it. And that's crucial.

 

[Edited]

 

MR. LOURY: Well, I mean, I think there's a sense in which, almost by definition, Charles is right. If you don't have a way of living when you go down a certain path, fewer people will pursue that path. And therefore, the fact that welfare, greater welfare, not just AFDC-- food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance and so forth – is available makes viable a way of life that would not be viable otherwise. We've got a dilemma. And the dilemma is, if we help people do something -- let's say they move into a flood plain and the river overflows its banks. Now they're flooded, right? Let's say they move to a hillside and the mud slides. Now there's a mudslide and mud's in their homes. If we help them, we're going to make it easier for them to pursue a course of conduct of which we might not approve. On the other hand --

 

MR. WATTENBERG: They could move back onto the flood plain.

 

MR. LOURY: That's right. We make it viable. We supply the oxygen. Someone has taken on a course of action where they're now suffocating. We give them oxygen. That means we've made it possible for them to pursue that course of action. On the other hand, if we don't help them, we watch them suffer. Now, that's a dilemma.

 

MR. WATTENBERG: Well, if the dilemma is we're providing oxygen, isn't a -- let me play Murray for a minute -- isn't the solution to cut off the oxygen?

 

MR. LOURY: If you're prepared to watch what happens when people are suffocating in front of you and do nothing about it. The fact of the matter is we are not prepared to do that as a society. We simply aren't.

 

 

[Edited]

 

MR. MURRAY: But I think Sheldon and I sort of do represent, I think, a fundamental disagreement on this. Sheldon thinks that you can have carrots to restore the black family or the white family. And I guess I'd put it more starkly. I'd say that with adolescents and sex and babies, there has been one overriding thing which has preserved family life in created families, and that is negative effects -- penalties for engaging –

 

MR. WATTENBERG: Sticks, not carrots.

 

MR. MURRAY: Sticks, not carrots -- for engaging in certain kinds of behavior. And I don't see how we're going to get from here to there without restoring primarily sticks.

 

[Edited]

 

MR. MURRAY: The Loury dilemma is you don't want to encourage the behavior. You don't want to see those kids starving in the streets. And so what are you going to do? Anything that works in the sense of restoring the family is going to cause some suffering. And if you don't -- if you aren't willing to say that and accept that, you're not going to get anywhere.

 

[JRdd 0]

The correlation between the breakdown of the family and the rise of the welfare state is of course undeniable, and I never claimed it wasn't. What is argueable though is your reasons for such. I also do not deny the government's role in enabling, but I think you give too much credence to or place too much emphasis on that role, to the neglect of the deeper causes of cultural breakdown. Why do you ignore the Bhagavad-gita's words on this?

 

I do understand that you were making broad statements, which I expected you would soon elaborate on, but those broad statements contain elements which need to be addressed. You say I was not able to disprove anything you said, which could mean that you missed my points. You speculate when you state that my reasons for attempting to refute some of what you said what based simply on my disliking them. I could say the same about your refusal to accept my points. But I won't, for unlike you, brother, I can not read minds. If this was based on taste, and NOT on what has been stated in the scriptures, then I would also have mentioned your points about intelligence, which I did not like--and not for the reasons some may think, for I do agree that the male and female intelligence differs vastly, but because you discussed IQ only, as if that covers all aspects and types of intelligence, I did not give full regard to a lot of what you said in that paragraph. That you should dismiss my words as being based on some personal dislike is typical of someone who has decided he is right and does not want to hear another, and could also possibly be based on the fact that I am a "less intelligent" woman; this latter possibility I cannot claim or prove, but it is worth considering. Believe me, not being taken seriously is not a new experience for me nor for a lot of other women I know. I disagree with your claim that your presentation was philosophical. While mine, according to you, was emotional. I think a lot of what you say is interesting, but it is by no means conclusive, and why should we not be able to discuss it without you trying to shut me up by saying that I just don't like what you say? Jumping to such conclusions is not conducive to good communication, and no matter how little the value of my inputs may be I do deserve at least the fairness of not being told how I feel. I hope that when you return to this discussion you will take a more mature and just view, so that we may talk about this. Or did you want everyone to be quiet until you have finished talking?

 

Anyway, as I said I look forward to hearing more from you, as I am sure others are; there are no hard feelings in any of this as the printed word may mistakenly convey, it being impossible to show my friendly tone except by explaining its presence to you. True I am a bit peeved by what you said to me, but it's no big deal. Just one of those things that is bound to happen between souls affected by the four defects.

 

regards,

Jayaradhe

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

I apologize if I have offended you with my statements. I do not dismiss your points because I think you less intelligent, nor am I trying to "shut you up". I simply fail to see how your "points" address what I was saying.

 

I can not write on every possibility in a single posting. The purpose of my posting was to provide a philosophical basis for understanding why government economic policy can lead to a weakening culture. You seem to have accepted that atleast in part I am correct in this view. Still I'd be curious to hear from you specifics on why our culture has deteriorated so much in the last 35-40 years with relation to government policy. Perhaps when I hear this I will be able to agree with you in part as well.

 

Gauracandra

[animesh 0]

Gauracandra ji,

You have mentioned some differences between men and women. I do not have access to statistical data to verify these. But, assuming that these differences exist, can we claim that these differences are inherent in men and women. Can't it be because of society? A few years back, I read a report which showed, based on statistical survey done in India, that small girls are more interested in dolls than small boys.

Does it really show any fundamental difference between boys and girls? Can't it be that the reason for this difference in interests is that, in India, parents give dolls to their daughters and other kinds of toys like toy guns, toy cars to their sons to play?

[Gauracandra 1]

We can never create a "culturally free" test sample. But I think that the fact that girls in India like dolls is not due to cultural conditioning because girls are given dolls. You give a doll to a boy and he'll probably find some way to turn it into a gun I think that the wiring of boys and girls is just different fundamentally and this provides a balance to society.

 

It should also be noted that society is based on the interactions of people. Thus the reason society gives dolls to girls would suggest that based on these interactions we found that girls tended to like dolls and so a cultural pattern was born. Its not that out of the blue it was decided that girls like dolls. I think its as simple as "Girls tend to like dolls" and as a society we have noticed this over hundreds of years and so now when Christmas time comes we buy dolls for girls.

 

Gauracandra

 

[Animesh, looks like we are on at the same time. I was editing by posting when I got kicked off, now I see you have posted again ]

 

[This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 07-19-2001).]

[animesh 0]

purpose of my posting was not to blame women...

 

I don't know about others, but I fully agree with you because you have written positive and negative points about both men and women.

[atma 0]

For what I understand, during the 2 big wars, women were forced to come out of the house and started working (is not like that were not working at home). This reminds me of what Arjuna said in the B.Gita Chapter 1, texts 37 to 43:

 

Translation:

 

O Janardana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one's family or quarrelling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?

 

With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.

 

When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrishni, comes unwanted progeny.

 

An increase of unwanted population certainly causes hellish life both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition. The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.

 

By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children, all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated.

 

O Krsna, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succesion that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell.

End of translation.

 

The main difference between men and women is testosterone. That's why men are more agressive and we have different kinds of behaviour. We also have that in the past men used to married the women if she got pregnant before marriage. Now they don't. Moral and religious values are in decline because churches are in decline.

Irresponsible behaviour from both sides creates so much confusion. The women are not protected by anyone and because we are more emotional, easily get attached to anyone that seems a little kind and give the body to that man. The man is irresponsible and there we have unwanted progeny. From there you go for abortion, give the baby in adoption or have the kid and suffer stigma and poverty.

The goverment aid is not the best solution but without moral values is the lesser of the devils. Do not think that the goverment gives a lot, they don't. People in welfare still are poor.

The solution is to be Krsna consciousness, but that is so far away. Look at our own society. So many divorces, single mothers and fathers. Unwanted children all over the place.

Control of the senses is the way but how many can do it? Kali Yuga is reigning and we don't have a Maharaja Parikshit as a king and brahmanas as advisors. It is a big mess.

Just rumbling a little bit.

 

 

 

[JRdd 0]

HI, hari bol, I too would like to write more, as soon as I get time, maybe later today. Thanks for your reply, GC. I guess I should have used the debate type ploy of including more of what I agree with you, so as not to alienate you by my bluntness. I will try to proceed with more caution.

For now, a little aside: yes, I agree with you and animesh, yes, men and women are different, and nothing wrong with that, who would want to criticise the art of the Supreme Creator? All this yin yang stuff is complementary at it's best. I certainly learn a lot (of good stuff), myself, observing male dynamics here. Anyway, more later, hari bol,

Jayaradhe

[JRdd 0]

Hari bol, Atma, we posted at the same time, looks like the men are in sync and we are in sync LOL. Glad to see your input here, and great summation of the problems. This is the reality, as you have described it.

More later (in email too),

Jayaradhe

[atma 0]

Originally posted by animesh:

Gauracandra ji,

You have mentioned some differences between men and women. I do not have access to statistical data to verify these. But, assuming that these differences exist, can we claim that these differences are inherent in men and women. Can't it be because of society? A few years back, I read a report which showed, based on statistical survey done in India, that small girls are more interested in dolls than small boys.

Does it really show any fundamental difference between boys and girls? Can't it be that the reason for this difference in interests is that, in India, parents give dolls to their daughters and other kinds of toys like toy guns, toy cars to their sons to play?

Animesh ji:

 

From my own experience, I can say that in most of the cases the differences are inherent. I grew up with 3 elder brothers, surrounded by guns, cars,marbles,and all kind of toys for boys and never had any interest in playing with them. Sometimes I did it to please one boring brother but for me it was all the way dolls, dresses, little kitchens, etc. And boy, how I was protected by my brothers. I wasn't allowed to go to any party unless one of them was there with me. No question of doing anything wrong. For my elder sister was the same. If my elder brother saw her just talking to a boy he didn't mind to bring her home pulling her hair (my brother was a little bit barbaric).

 

With my own daughters the same with toys. I bought them cars and other boyish toys but they spent hours playing with dolls and creating all kind of stories with them. Hundreds of hair styles, different dresses and make up. No interest at all in another kind of toys. And they don't like violent action games either.

 

I read an article how testosterone make the big physical and psichological difference between the sexes. I'll try to find it and post it.

 

[Gauracandra 1]

The following is an article from Religion & Ethics (a PBS program) I found on the net. I've edited it alot, but you can read the full article at:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week446/cover.html

 

According to some surveys, approximately 40 percent of Americans say they attend church regularly, but in Europe, the original home of many Christian denominations, the numbers are dramatically different.

 

[Edited]

 

Sunday mass at the Church of Notre Dame in the Auteuil district of Paris -- there are only about 70 worshippers. Fewer than 10 percent of French Catholics go to church regularly.

 

It's a similar story in England, where many churches such as these along the Canterbury pilgrims route now hold services only once or twice a month. Only 7 percent of Church of England members attend church that often.

 

[edited]

 

While attendance in England and France is low by American standards, in some other European countries it is even lower -- the estimate for the Lutheran Church in Sweden, which until recently was the state religion, is one and a half percent.

 

[edited]

 

 

The decline in churchgoing in Europe, at a time when Christianity is expanding rapidly in other parts of the world, strikes some as particularly significant -- since Europe is the original home of so many Christian denominations.

 

But Europe is also the home of secularism, where people put their trust in reason, science, and the power of the individual rather than religion. Sociologists say that led to a diminished role for religious institutions.

 

Government took over many church functions, although the Church of England still provides social services in poorer neighborhoods such as the Southwark district of London.

 

In France, the subsidized medical system and an extensive social safety net were created, with services from birth to death.

 

Gauracandra

 

 

 

[talasiga 0]

mera gaudiya

 

when I was a little boy

I was given a dolly

my cousin sisters stole it

and told me a dog ate it

And then I was given a gun

but being a boy

I would not shoot them

over just a dolly

 

[animesh 0]

Atma ji,

You have written that women are more emotional and, therefore, they easily trust anyone. I agree with this. But, sometimes the result of this is very unfortunate.

 

I have personally witnessed an incident in which a lady kept on believing those who were trying to take their advantage and went against those who were really concerned about her. The situattion became extremely bad. But once, she was in deep trouble, then only she came to realize that she was wrong.

[JRdd 0]

This is mainly what is meant by women being less intelligent. They give their hearts in trust quite easily. In the right situation, with a righteous mate, this quality is most conducive for a harmonious marriage. Otherwise, women find themselves in the position of having to learn what is not exactly second nature to them, and that is to be wisely discerning and also wary. I hope I have not offended any other women out there, and of course you are free to refute these statements. But that is how I understand it.

ys, Jayaradhe

[Ananga 0]

There was a PBS series entitled “The Day the Universe Changed”. The narrator, author James Burke, in one episode projected that we as a race are headed for a sort of global controlled anarchy, which is going to be made possible by our communications technologies. If we ponder this idea for a moment, we can envision the possibilities:

 

Law and order, yet minimal interference by government.

 

Optimized freedoms and civil liberties.

 

Elimination of religious tyranny and persecution and increased inter-faith dialogue and tolerance.

 

Elimination of poverty and starvation and a workable channel for medical services and treatments.

 

Think up some more and post them here.

 

To purhase the book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316117048/002-0810571-8843212

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 07-20-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 07-20-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 07-21-2001).]

[Gauracandra 1]

I think the internet will bring about many changes with regard to freedom and information. I’m not sure about the whole elimination of poverty though. Certainly the free flow of information will bring about greater social equity (especially in places like China where freedom of the press does not exist). I believe I read a few days ago that China is trying to close down thousands of Internet Cafes because they can’t control the flow of ideas from them. The Internet will also make the world economies more tightly interwoven – and this will result in greater peace in the world (I believe). When societies are so closely tied economically no one wants to attack the other because it will be a net economic loss. Also education will become more readily available to the poor around the world. I was watching a news program a few days back and they showed a small African village getting computers and hooking up to the internet for the first time. All of a sudden whole libraries of information are at your fingertips. Already the University of Phoenix has created degrees that can be earned entirely through its Virtual University program. You can be someone in North Dakota, and earn a college degree at the University of Phoenix.

 

So there will be some major changes in the years to come. Already we see it here in these forums. So many different people from places all over the world, connecting and exchanging ideas. It should be interesting over the next few decades.

 

Gauracandra