On the subject of conversion, this newspiece makes me wonder how such a decision is made.  At what point does one decide that one’s current set of proclaimed beliefs does not do enough justice to one’s true beliefs? In most cases of conversion, is it truly a spiritual revelation (i.e. where someone is spontaneously inspired by some religious idea, or, alternatively, has found something compelling after searching for a system of beliefs)? I would assume that conversion does not generally arise from a real decision of religion; instead, conversion is an issue of practicality: “I am marrying a Jew, so I must convert to Judaism.  I am being religiously persecuted, so I will join the religion of the majority.” etc. etc.

Indeed, in the case of Mr. Mohan, it certainly seems to be a question of practicality.  In order to do the honorable thing, Mr. Mohan had to have more than one wife, and this necessitated his adopting Islamic law.  Still, there remains the contradiction of nominally buying into the “whole religion deal” while acting so cavalierly about the beliefs upon which a religion is based.  To what extent has modern religion come to be defined by these sorts of practical issues of family and community practices? Does being religious (or does being of a certain religion) necessarily have a spiritual or philosophical aspect? Is the question of conversion about what one believes?

My second point of discussion is the notion of polygamy.  Mr. Mohan and his new wife claim that they were acting responsibly, choosing not to have a clandestine relationship.  I can understand this situation; my paternal grandfather too was married, for a period of a few years, to two women, one whom he had married at the age of 11, the other with whom he had eloped as a grown, educated man.  Of course, as soon as a secular marriage laws were put into place after Indian Independence, my grandfather and his first wife did divorce (and they would have done so sooner had Hindu law included such a possibility).  The real question is, though, why do we, as Hindus and as world citizens, condemn polygamy? What is inherently wrong with wanting to care for two spouses — and perhaps here we must raise the issue of gender equality (is allowing polygamy an inevitable path to patriarchal society).  And how does the question of divorce fit into this?

I bring up divorce here because, although most every non-Catholic that grows up in a liberal society like ours claims (and correct me if I’m wrong) that divorce is obviously legitimate (that no one should be forced to remain in a relationship of which they don’t want to be a part), I feel like there must be a reason why so many cultures chose to accept polygamy over divorce.  In today’s world, divorce becomes an issue of much more importance because of a complicated legal and financial system.  But I wonder — can polygamy be a more practical solution at times (given the difficulties of single parenting or alimony)?  And if polygamy were accepted, would it be necessary to favor all spouses equally/in the same way?

I’m not by any means endorsing polygamy as a common practice, but it seems to me as though it works in certain situations (probably not this one, though).  If that is indeed the case, then our society’s decision to reject polygamy comes from an induced sense that polygamy can often lead to trouble, but not that polygamy is inherently wrong.  Am I — are you — okay with this idea?

Anyways, a thought-provoking story for me.

Related posts:

1. Polygamy, continued Last year I wrote a post that referenced the question...
2. Question of the Week: Challenges to Faith at Harvard Next week, I’m going to be a panelist at an...
3. Marriage: The Union of Two Worlds I’m sure that many of us have noticed the constant...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.