Marriage in Game Of Thrones

Game of Thrones is a very popular TV series, set in a medieval world, during a violent conflict.  It has been criticized for violence, sexuality, and all sorts of other course things.  It is true that it depicts all sorts of terrible things on screen, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing as long as it doesn't glorify those things.  It usually graphically portrays all of the horrors and outcomes of those things that are very real in our own world, even if we usually sanitize any sign of them from our own daily lives.  But there is one thing that is portrayed in a very different light than modern society is accustomed to: marriage.

Marriage is clearly in the process of being redefined in our culture, from the unconstitutional "a union between a man and a woman," to the more open ended and acceptable: "a loving bond."  Notice that the word love is not even in the first "traditional" definition.  Modern society thinks that love is the only thing that matters, and that this recent change is a case where love wins.  But what happens when that "love" is no longer actively being felt.  If that was the basis for the bond, then the marriage is over, and it is time for divorce.  And then we see that on its own, love does not win.  But what if the marriage was based on something else besides love, namely commitment?  And if it wasn't about seeking happiness of the individual so much as developing a lasting relationship between different families through creating children they both valued?  What if divorce was not even an option?  That is the scenario we see played out in Game of Thrones.

The first relationship where we see this become clear, is the king and his wife.  They hate each other, and both cheat on each other, so their marriage is by no means the Christian ideal.  But it is clearly stated that their marriage, tying together two powerful families that are otherwise at odds with one another, is what preserves peace in the kingdom for 17 years.  Once one of them dies, the marriage is over, and all hell breaks loose in the power struggle that follows.  The closest thing we see to divorce is the young prince breaking off his betrothal to the daughter of a man he sees as a traitor, and this is still considered a serious decision that requires the approval of the gods.  And he doesn't live long enough to benefit from his replacement wife.  That daughter's brother spurns an engagement he agreed to for political reasons to marry for love, in a move that was criticized by all his advisors, and led to his death.  By contrast, another political marriage is forced upon a couple, and they develop a level of care for one another where there had been none before, even without the benefit of sex.  So clearly the commitment aspect of marriage is strongly reinforced throughout the show, in  a way that is probably more historically accurate than the passionate romances that we see in most historical movies.  But marriage is also presented as a tool for social stability and family advancement.  When motivated by greed, that is a bad thing, but when motivated by love, that stability provides a solid foundation for raising up the next generation.

Marrying for money is frowned upon in our culture even by those who actually do it.  And marrying for looks is ridiculed, but only because marriage has been decoupled from sex.  Having sex with someone based on their appearance is celebrated, but marrying them for that reason is not.  Society thinks that marriage is supposed to be based a strong passionate emotional connection, which is why many high profile marriages are so short, because strong emotions rarely last long or are consistent.  And that is why commitment is so important, as is the recognition that it is about more than the individual emotions.  Now I am not saying that marriages should be exactly like they are in Game of Thrones, I am just saying that those marriages do have a level of commitment that our current marriage culture appears to be completely lacking.

The Government as (a) God

In practical daily life, most liberal atheists still look to a higher power for help, to solve problems that are beyond their control.  But instead of looking to God for those answers and solutions, they look to the government.  Maybe this was obvious to everyone else before now, but I was blind to the idea until it was revealed to me a few weeks ago.  But now I can't go a day without seeing another clear manifestation of this principle.

The clearest example to see, is the concept of climate change.  The climate is changing, and pretty much everyone agrees on that.  The disagreement comes when trying to determine how we as people should respond to that obvious fact.  For thousands of years, people in cultures around the world have prayed to God or gods for rain for their crops, for less severe cold and snow, for less severe heat.  Christians continue to do that today, but there is a new trend.  Those who don't believe in God find themselves turning elsewhere for a solution to control the changes in weather and climate.  The only other higher power that they can see is the government.  Now from an objective human standpoint, the idea that the government has any control over the climate of the region they rule is laughably arrogant, but now widely accepted.  Now from the government's perspective, it's citizens are coming to them with a request that they have no true power to respond to, since they can't legislate the weather.  They can see that human activity has at least some effect on the weather, if not the climate.  So they respond that if we want them to deal with the climate issue, they need to have control over all human activity.  It's a win-win for those who want control, because if things they have no real influence over (read-weather) improve, they can take credit for that, and if they don't improve, they can claim they weren't given enough control over the situation, and demand more.

Another example is the war on poverty, as if that was something that the government could solve.  Instead of seeing those less fortunate and doing something for them themselves, they think: "the government should do something about that."  So they present the problem of poverty to the government, which responds with, "let's set a minimum wage, so that everyone has enough money."  But since certain jobs are of less financial value than others, those jobs under the minimum wage disappear.  That leaves many people with no one willing to pay them the legal minimum to work, so they are now unemployed.  So the government responds by creating unemployment benefits.  As each solution fails to solve the poverty problem, this is followed by social security, medicare, welfare, food stamps, and a myriad of other government programs to make poverty more comfortable.  Now poverty is not something that the government should even be trying to solve.   They are responsible for providing justice, freedom and defense, but not economic prosperity or happiness.   But this overreach is favorable to those receiving the benefits of it, as well as those whose consciences are eased by it, freeing them from any personal obligations to those around them in need.

So instead of believing in a God powerful enough to solve problems, they want a government powerful enough to solve all the problems they see, and they are willing to trade away their liberty and freedom to get it.  And those who are willing to trade away freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.  God on the other hand goes to great lengths to give us freedom, when he has the authority and power to solve any problem by forcing us to do things his way.  Instead, he put the tree in the garden, making it our choice to solve problems or create new ones.  We are supposed to look to him for guidance and support, not a man-made government, which in that case becomes in idol.