« Heritage on Religious Freedom | Main | Shipment Today »
April 17, 2008
Texas LDS, Kids & Waco
One of our regulars writes:
Has any of the editors considered a post on MC regarding the current situation with the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” compound raid in Texas, with its resonances to the Waco compound (government raid) Elian Gonzalez (the government taking children away from parents into protective custody)? I have very divided feelings about the entire matter, and think a very lively discussion would be generated.
My own thoughts are not settled on this matter, and I do worry about more "religion is bad for people" fallout. Well, bad religion is bad for people..... I am happy to provide the opportunity for some discussion here. As usual, please stay on topic and be civil!
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 10:50 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/234392/28210830
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Texas LDS, Kids & Waco:
Comments
Questions have been raised about the existence of the alleged informant who can't be found.
Posted by: labrialumn | Apr 17, 2008 12:17:22 PM
Count me as another with "deeply divided" thoughts. Any group that uses coercion to marry young teenage girls to older men deserves the full penalty of the law. No question about that.
Was the FLDS really doing that? My gut says they were, but nobody should take someone's kids at gunpoint based on my gut feelings. The case against them (currently) consists of an anonymous complaint. The HSLDA records dozens of cases every year of homeschooling parents (like me) who are harassed because of anonymous tips of abuse, corporal punishment or educational neglect. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, but I do spank my kids on occasion and I'm teaching them how to shoot guns. Is my door the next one that gets kicked down?
Posted by: Respectabiggle | Apr 17, 2008 12:33:43 PM
Count me in as "conflicted", too, for once. Punishing "groups" scares me - and cultural suppression, though I'm hard-headed and -hearted enough to know it might sometimes be a necessity, is a terrible thing. If, say, an Indian tribe had been doing much the same thing, there'd be much more debate about moving in with guns and bureaucrats to fix everything.
I don't want to see our government get good at shattering disliked religious subcultures, or the public accepting it. I mean, I personally cling bitterly to my Bibles and guns, and some folks look down on THAT.
"First they came for polygamist heretic pedophiles, and I said nothing, because - I mean, what can you say, really?" But they'd better watch their step and not count on coming for anybody ELSE. Me and Respectabiggle won't stand for it.
Posted by: Joe Long | Apr 17, 2008 12:50:48 PM
"The HSLDA records dozens of cases every year of homeschooling parents (like me) who are harassed because of anonymous tips of abuse, corporal punishment or educational neglect."
And another thing. If I phone in an anonymous complaint about local public schools' patterns of educational neglect, who kicks THEIR doors down and takes the kids?
Posted by: Joe Long | Apr 17, 2008 1:01:13 PM
The facts of this case really deny comparison with anything we've seen before. What you have at the YFZ Ranch is not just a bunch of polygamists living in family units of one father, several mothers and scads of children. From what I understand, the 'husbands' are switched around frequently, 'wives' are reassigned, and children are not raised by their biological family units. So, basically, what you have is a large-scale baby-making factory, growing its own adherents at an alarming rate. Add to that the apparent inability or unwillingness of those in charge to wait until the young would-be brides turn 18, and all those discarded young men and boys, and you have a truly despicable situation. Too, there's the welfare fraud and the ability to underbid government contracts because they don't have to pay for labor.
Assuming the truth of all of this, what should "The People" do about it? How do you rectify the situation without irreparably damaging the children involved; or, is the prevention of harm to future generations worth whatever loss or harm befalls the existing women and children?
If you could immediately and permanently prevent the sexual assaults on minors; that is, if you could force the group to change practices so that the women were at least 18 years old before they were matched in marriage, would that ameliorate the harm sufficiently to justify allowing the group to exercise its religious freedoms?
There are numerous issues to address, and none will be easy to resolve.
Posted by: Kirk | Apr 17, 2008 1:23:08 PM
Leave it to Texas to take an isolated group popularly known for child rape, female slavery, abuse, and brainwashing and turn them into martyrs overnight.
Nice going Texas. You've done us all proud.
Posted by: Seth R. | Apr 17, 2008 3:29:35 PM
Seth,
I imagine the whole situation touches a nerve, so I'll try to go easy. I think it was handled fairly well in that the authorities did not immediately intervene and little in the way of force was used. This was not, thankfully, Waco. The People also have a valid concern in that they have determined that minors are deserving of special protection and this protection does not impede the eventual practice of the religion. It merely delays the practice.
Unfortunately, The People have ceded the cause of marriage and therefore charging the group with polygamy is laughable in the extreme. One has to wonder why gay bars aren't raided under the same principle.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 17, 2008 7:19:37 PM
A guest on CNN just said that Warren Jeffs (the head of the FLDS) would send the men off to "repent," or would excommunicate the fathers, and would reassign the wives and children to another man.
As disturbing as everyone finds this, I wonder how different such a system is to the legislatures and judges who have legalized no-fault divorce and have allowed husbands and wives to shirk their responsibilities, then "reassigning" the children to live with step-fathers and step-mothers in serial polygamy.
Is there really a difference?
And yet the former we condemn as child abuse and the latter we defend as a basic human right.
Posted by: Kirk | Apr 17, 2008 8:44:33 PM
Well, the lawyer in me feels that some Constitutional rights have been violated here (as others have already mentioned).
The Mormon in me feels a bit of resentment at seeing another religious minority being picked-on.
The common human being in me is glad to see the wretched place shut down and people whom I am pretty sure are guilty brought to justice.
How's that?
Posted by: Seth R. | Apr 17, 2008 9:25:01 PM
Imagine being raised in the belief that your only hope of eternal salvation is to bear as many children as possible to an FLDS man. (Barrenness is your fault. Not being the marrying kind is irrelevant. What do you think you are, an individual or something?) Imagine being told at 13 or 14, as you sit down to supper, that you're going to marry 49-year-old Whatsisname from two blocks over and you're going to do it this coming Sunday or else it's Hell for you. Imagine living life with the threat of blood atonement hanging over your head. This is the doctrine that some sins can only be expiated by the sinner submitting to having his or her throat cut. Exactly how badly you have to sin to merit blood atonement is, IIRC, up to the prophet. Imagine being shunned if you have a treatable mental illness, which naturally goes untreated because it's the result of your sin. Imagine being told that your little boy's cancer is a result of your failure to submit to your husband in all things and knowing that your husband wants him to die because that'll show you. Imagine being kicked out of the only home you've ever known while you are still legally a minor because if you stay in, you're going to need a wife or three someday and the elders don't want to share. Or imagine wanting desperately to get out and realizing that you cannot take all of your children with you. (Carolyn Jessop is the first woman who ever managed to do it.)
This cult needs to stop existing.
Posted by: Jenny Islander | Apr 17, 2008 10:32:08 PM
This situation emerged not because the government has a vested societal interest in the promotion and preservation of traditional monogamous marriage, but because the government has largely rejected that very notion, supported by a Supreme Court decision (Lawrence v. Kansas) that reduces marriage to a purely personal decision about domestic living arrangements. There were those of us who said, after Lawrence overturned sodomy laws, that laws against polygamy would be next. I hate it so much when I am right.
It is only the child abuse aspect of the case that prompts so much popular revulsion as to allow the government to intervene in the situation. But that, too, may be a passing fancy, since already within the halls of Academe there are ostensibly "serious" researchers making claims that "age of consent" is an "arbitrary social construct"--as are laws against statutory rape and incest. After all, each person should be free to pursue his own path to happiness.
The government also has a vested interest in ensuring that the "religious" practices of any one group do not violate either the civil law or the rights of other people. While the government is prohibited from impinging upon the free exercise of religion, that prohibition does not extend to religious practices which are detrimental to public health, safety and order. Given that polygamy in whatever guise is antithetical to the values of Western civilization, that the institution objectifies and denigrates women, and that the monopolization of women by the wealthy and powerful creates a large pool of young single men with few chances of finding a wife, the government has a vested societal interest in suppressing polygamy wherever it is found, whether it has a religious mandate or not.
Aside from which, what makes anyone think that Warren Jeff's cult constitutes a religio licita, in any case? Looks like your typical cult of personality to me, intended to glorify the founder and cater to his and his immediate henchmen's carnal desires. Christians should be able to distinguish between genuine religion and this tawdry impersonation of the same, and they should not allow their fear of persecution (which, of course, comes with the contract we signed at baptism) prevent us from identifying and denouncing such evil, and prompting the civil authorities to take the proper action in regard to it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 18, 2008 6:21:46 AM
Stuart,
It's Lawrence v. Texas. No isn't that ironic. Roe v. Wade also came out of Texas. And there are already members of my "esteemed profession" building the case for decriminalizing polygamy. Perhaps Texas can add its name to yet another Supreme Court case striking a blow against the family and against children.
Posted by: GL | Apr 18, 2008 6:29:26 AM
>>>It's Lawrence v. Texas.<<<
Mea culpa. I actually wrote "Texas", then thought, "That can't be right", then changed it to Kansas. Perhaps because of the Oz-like quality of the majority opinion.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 18, 2008 6:34:54 AM
>>>Given that polygamy in whatever guise is antithetical to the values of Western civilization, ... the government has a vested societal interest in suppressing polygamy wherever it is found, whether it has a religious mandate or not.<<<
That would be a potent argument if more people in government recognized that Western civilization has value.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Apr 18, 2008 6:54:14 AM
>>Mea culpa. I actually wrote "Texas", then thought, "That can't be right", then changed it to Kansas. Perhaps because of the Oz-like quality of the majority opinion.<<
Lawrence, Kansas DOES have a ring to it. That's what the folks who keep chanting "Rock Chalk, Jawhawk" say anyway.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Apr 18, 2008 7:01:22 AM
"Given that polygamy in whatever guise is antithetical to the values of Western civilization, that the institution objectifies and denigrates women, and that the monopolization of women by the wealthy and powerful creates a large pool of young single men with few chances of finding a wife, the government has a vested societal interest in suppressing polygamy wherever it is found, whether it has a religious mandate or not."
I'm not going to disagree with any of that. But I'd be interested in further clarification.
First, a few definitions.
Polygyny = One husband - multiple wives
Polyandry = one wife - multiple husbands
Polygamy = either or both of the above
Polyamory = general "free love" relationships
What most people popularly term "polygamy" is actually polygyny.
Now, with that in mind, it is easy to see the inequities between sexes in either polygyny or polyandry. But polygamy, per se, is less clear, since it encompasses more than just men getting more women. Perhaps you could further explain.
You also said it was antithetical to Western civilization. I presume you meant ANY of the above arrangements, correct?
If so, why?
I've already heard Mormons debate this issue quite a bit and argue from all sorts of different angles, but I was curious what your take was.
Posted by: Seth R. | Apr 18, 2008 9:20:09 AM
Especially now that it's "Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!!" :)
Posted by: Beth | Apr 18, 2008 9:22:19 AM
Bobby and Beth,
I don't even want to think about Kansas vs. Memphis. We blew it. I want you to know that my oldest daughter just about cried when she learned the next morning how close we were to winning and how it all slipped away.
Accept (or not) a begrudging congratulations from this Tiger fan. :-[
Posted by: GL | Apr 18, 2008 9:27:33 AM
Thank you! It was a close game and a great one. Either team would have deserved to win. But, yes, Mario is pretty popular in the Jayhawk kingdom these days! :)
Posted by: Beth | Apr 18, 2008 9:54:11 AM
Thank you, Stuart, for 6:21 post. After much comtemplation and navel-gazing, I've decided to get off the fence.
Texas law defines as Sexual Assualt as follows: "A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means." "'Child' means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor." "'Spouse' means a person who is legally married to another." Such offense is a felony of the second degree. Texas Penal Code section 22.011.
Now, with respect to the definition of "legally married," since bigamy is explicitly prohibited in Texas, if the "husband" is already married, whether by a ceremonial marriage or by common-law marriage (which is recognized in Texas), then there can be no marriage to the person younger than 17 (or to anyone else, for that matter).
So, irrespective of religious beliefs, what we have here is systematized criminal behavior--by men and women, husbands, parents, what have you. The law is unambiguous.
Even though I disagree with the tactics taken in the raid, and I am unnerved at the thought of the State swooping in to remove a mass of children from their parents, these actions are justified by the facts. Now, lets finish up in Texas and move on to enforcement in Utah, Arizona, and other regions.
Posted by: Kirk | Apr 18, 2008 11:34:47 AM
Post Constantine Western Civilization found its moral basis in Christianity. Christianity opposes polygamy. Christ repeated the command that husband and wife would become one flesh. Note, not wives or husbands. Christianity and Judaism have looked on the polygamy of the Patriarchs as exceptions to the rule that generally brought curses not blessings. We see this early on in the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar and what many would see as its fruits in modern conflict and how the true blessings fell always to the first wife. Judeo-Christian thought has been able to see such relationships as an aberration because it does not fit the perfect form given in the Garden. If greater blessings could be received via multiple marriages we can be sure that God would have allowed for it there.
This teaching, along with the teaching of monogenism has informed Christian thought about the equal dignity of humans. In all polygamous relationships one sex, at the least, is diminished. It does not meet on equal ground with the other and therefore losses its dignity. The scripture eludes me right now, but this idea was even expressed in the early polygamous relationships of the Patriarchs by forbidding two wives have intercourse with their husband at the same time.
This equal dignity of the sexes and of all people in general has informed our law. We recognize the God given rights of all men. By our recognition of the rights of all men (as seen in mongenism) we are able to extend these rights to all women (via monogamy).
Posted by: Nick | Apr 18, 2008 12:44:31 PM
Western civilization is not compatible with polygamy (polygyny OR polyandry, Seth!). That is not, however, the issue; we tolerate legally all manner of things which our civilization is incompatible with; we encourage and subsidize many of them.
I even suspect that a Christian in other-than-Western culture COULD be a polygamist in good conscience (and maybe a slaveowner too); it is a great blessing to have inherited Western culture, and a great responsibility to try to perpetuate it.
It's the involvement of children that crosses, pretty much, one of the only "lines" we have left as a society, and we positively can't cede that one. Not even when the ominous line "this cult needs to stop existing" is so easy to imagine in the mouths of future secular bureaucrats echoing Nero and Diocletian, about our own faith.
Posted by: Joe Long | Apr 18, 2008 1:46:55 PM
Last year there was a house fire in Brooklyn and it was discovered that living there was an African immigrant with two wives and two sets of children. The New York Times did an investigative article and found that there is a great deal of polygamy among immigrants from certain countries -- always Muslim immigrants -- and that it is tolerated among the social workers and other officials who come in contact with them.
I've learned since then that these immigrants come in with one wife and family, and the other wives come in as immigrants on their own. But they set up a household together. In other cases the man goes back home, picks up his next wife, and returns bringing her as a new immigrant.
I fear that social workers, many of whom are among the most radical people in our society, have been trained to be so tolerant that they cannot take any action that would be discriminatory against polygamists. In other words, they are so open-minded that their brains have fallen out and gotten lost.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Apr 18, 2008 2:52:16 PM
Joe,
I am unaware of any Christian tradition, short of Luther's temporary lapse of sanity, that would view a polygamist as a member in good standing. I would hope, that in general at least, the same is true of a slave owner.
Judy,
Agreed. But the social workers aren't at fault. We're all at fault for letting it get far enough that they're ok with the system as it exists.
Posted by: Nick | Apr 18, 2008 3:07:56 PM
It would seem to me that there is a straightforward Natural Law argument against polygamy, based on the general equality of numbers of men and women.
The question I always have in regard to any culture in which polygamy (as Seth notes, virtually always one man with multiple wives) is commonly practiced (whether Mormon or Islamic, or whatever) is - what becomes of the young men, if all the young women become second/third/etc. wives of wealthy old men? General equality of numbers means that, if some men have multiple wives, other men will end up having none. For a small group like the FLDS, they can afford to run them off, to disappear into the surrounding 'gentile' culture. But what happens when an entire national culture has large numbers of unattached and sexually-frustrated young men?
Posted by: CKG | Apr 18, 2008 3:38:31 PM
Judy,
I come into with child welfare workers on a professional basis at least weekly. You would be surprised how close-minded and idealistic they can be.
CKG,
I would expect polygyny (Seth!) to work best in cultures where many men were killed due to war or extreme working conditions.
Posted by: Kirk | Apr 18, 2008 3:55:14 PM
Stuart,
I for one am happy that age of consent is a social construct and is not determined by objective standards such as biology. I'm sure you are too.
I'm more torn about the idea that the government has blanket authority when it wants to promote things like "public health", especially when children are involved. Some church sects forgo medical care, even to children. In cases where a child's well-being is at stake I think it's fairly obvious that the government may forcibly mandate the child undergo medical treatment. But in the case of mandatory mass vaccinations -- which not only protect individual children, but arrest the spread of diseases and force the pathogen to evolve to be less virile -- I would like to think parents could, for religious reasons, prevent their children from being vaccinated.
And, because I'm sure you know, where do the Church Fathers talk specifically about polygamy? I know Augustine and Tertullian discuss it negatively, but I would be interested in what the wider consensus was.
Posted by: Thomas Cothran | Apr 18, 2008 4:11:19 PM
To all,
As I mentioned in my comment to Judy, I deal with child welfare cases on a professional basis. In many of the cases, the State seeks to terminate the parent-child relationship so that the child or children may be adopted by foster families. I have not been able to come to terms with the theological implications of termination of the parent-child relationship. To my knowledge, there are no Biblical examples of removing a child from one parent for reasons of abuse or neglect and placing the child with a substitute parent. I do find a strong theme of family identity, genealogy and such.
Many social workers and volunteers seem to have little regard for the biological familial relationship, and believe that a child can be uprooted from a biological family and transplanted into a substitute family without harm or repercussion. I would appreciate any insights that any of you may have.
Posted by: Kirk | Apr 18, 2008 4:16:43 PM
>>>But in the case of mandatory mass vaccinations -- which not only protect individual children, but arrest the spread of diseases and force the pathogen to evolve to be less virile -- I would like to think parents could, for religious reasons, prevent their children from being vaccinated.<<<
I'm a little biased on this one. When I was about a week and a half old, I came down with whooping cough, contracted from a neonatal nurse at Brooklyn Jewish Hospital. I was, of course, too young to have received the DPT vaccine, yet, while the nurse was too old to have received it in childhood--but not too old as to contract the disease when exposed to it. I nearly died, and the history of the world would have changed radically, I am sure.
>>>And, because I'm sure you know, where do the Church Fathers talk specifically about polygamy? I know Augustine and Tertullian discuss it negatively, but I would be interested in what the wider consensus was.<<<
Overall, it was not necessary to discuss it, as it had never been practiced in Greco-Roman civilization and had died out among the Jews (with the exception of the Jews living in Parthia/Persia. By the third century AD, rabbinical Judaism had rejected polygamy, and the Church had never supported it. When the Fathers discuss marriage, it is ALWAYS in the context of one man married to one woman, preferably for a lifetime and beyond. The marriage bond was indisolvable and perdured beyond death.
The reason we mandate vaccines for ALL children is to provide for the collective protection of the entire population--something that legitimately comes under the rubric of "promote the general welfare". When you let some opt out for religious or other reasons (e.g., crackpot theories that vaccines cause autism, or are a communist plot to control our minds, or whatever), you will inevitably reach a point where there is a sufficient number of vectors for the disease to propagate. Then it infects those who are too young to have received the vaccine or developed any sort of immunity, as well as those who have compromised immune systems (not just HIV victims, but cancer patients, transplant recipients, etc.). Here is a case where the common good requires the compromise of religious principles (especially as those principles are based on idiotic interpretations of Scripture, idle superstition, or suppositions about human biology that are not supported by facts).
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 18, 2008 5:22:56 PM
>>>Many social workers and volunteers seem to have little regard for the biological familial relationship, and believe that a child can be uprooted from a biological family and transplanted into a substitute family without harm or repercussion. <<<
In my early twenties I worked as a social worker for the City of Philadelphia, supervising foster homes and visiting with the already placed foster children and their natural parents. I had a bias toward reuniting families. The result was that I made what I saw later were some dreadful mistakes, giving children back to mothers who were not ready or able to care for them, and probably ruining some children's chance at a decent life. The circumstances in which the children had been removed were not trivial, and I think that most of the social workers who made the determination to remove them were aware of the seriousness of such a move. (Oddly, there was a big difference between white and black families. The black mothers had been severely neglectful, while the white parents had been abusive at the very least and done absolutely bizarre things to their children at worst.)
I concluded later that when a child is placed in foster care for good reason when young, the child usually bonds with the foster parents. The job of the social worker is to determine two things: who the psychological mother is to the child, and whether that mother can actually care for the child. When it is the foster mother, the child should stay in placement. The child has already been traumatized by the circumstances leading to foster care; it is a great disservice to traumatize him again in order to satisfy the notion that the biological parent is the "real" parent. It is like those horrifying cases in which a parent gives up a child for adoption and several years later goes to court to get the child back. These considerations are different for older children, of course.
I don't know if social workers are the same as they were when I was one, in the late 1960s. I can only say that the incredible mushiness of their thinking drove me to take a night class in calculus as an antidote.
A few years later I tried to get a job as a social worker in Vermont, simply because I wanted to move there and thought this would be a way to do it. I passed the knowledge part of the state exam with flying colors, but I flunked the personality part. (That's a boast.)
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Apr 18, 2008 5:50:14 PM
Living in and around DC, I've seen social services make too many fatal errors by dogmatically trying to "reunite families". I've become rather draconian in the matter: as a parent, you get one chance, and no do-overs. Screw up badly enough, lose your kid, no appeals, no second chances. In any case, a real family has nothing to do with paternity or maternity, and everything to do with mutual love, support and respect. Sharing alleles does not a family make.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 18, 2008 6:24:19 PM
Stuart,
Do you think that there are no exceptions in which a religious practice may be upheld even if public health suffered? Say the eucharist spread a disease or that certain aspects of religious thought are deleterious to mental health (I'm aware neither of these are likely). I'm not asking as a "gotcha" question, it's something I'm not sure how to answer myself.
Posted by: Thomas Cothran | Apr 18, 2008 9:28:52 PM
>>>Do you think that there are no exceptions in which a religious practice may be upheld even if public health suffered? Say the eucharist spread a disease or that certain aspects of religious thought are deleterious to mental health (I'm aware neither of these are likely). I'm not asking as a "gotcha" question, it's something I'm not sure how to answer myself.<<<
These are hypotheticals, of course, but I would say that the public health risk would have to be both obvious and overwhelming. Take, for example, the spreading of disease via the Eucharist. Aside from the fact that this risk is minimal as compared to other forms of communication (e.g., shaking hands, going to the bathroom), the Church itself has been quite forward in attempting to minimize the risk. During the last flu epidemic, for instance, many Roman Catholic churches changed the way they administered communion so that the priest did not actually hand it to the communicant (I have theological issues with that, but never mind). In any case, Latins seem germ phobic (ever watch how thoroughly they wipe the chalice, or the reliquary after someone's lips touch it?) as compared to us Byzantines. I've been in the communion line behind a family with three or four toddlers, all of whom had "yellow elevens", and I let the priest put the spoon in my mouth, with no ill effects.
Regarding mental health, you would have to prove a clear causal link, which is not easy. It would have to manifest behavior that was either overtly dangerous or deranged, in which case, by all means, pick 'em up.
Regarding the possibility of these standards being turned against mainline Christians, as I said, that comes with our contract. The world will hate us because it hated Christ, and we will, periodically, suffer persecution for our witness. The possibility of abuse does not excuse the state from its legitimate interests in suppressing dangerous sects.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 19, 2008 5:33:03 AM
Thanks Judy, Stuart.
Posted by: Kirk | Apr 21, 2008 8:15:22 AM
>>>Do you think that there are no exceptions in which a religious practice may be upheld even if public health suffered?>>>>
Why, yes, that's an easy one. The current cultural elite's default religion, "Nonjudgementalism", does not exactly require the practice of sexual promiscuity - but does aggressively assert the right to sex-without-consequence even when not practicing it. As a result, AIDS is only the most visible of various public health problems for which some obvious public-health remedies are taken "off the table" for religious (or at least for anti-religious...) reasons.
Abortion is another sacred rite whose effect on public health is considered an acceptable cost for the practice of several allied and prestigious modern faiths (the afforementioned Nonjudgementalism, as well as Feminism and the progressive low-church "Post-Hedonism").
Santeria, however, which goes so far as to kill chickens, is in more of a gray area and more likely to be suppressed on a public-health basis.
Posted by: Joe Long | Apr 21, 2008 12:22:55 PM
When a minority of Catholic priests abused young people (many of those teenage male victims were in the same basic age range as the teen FLDS brides) it was deemed a horrific scandal, and rightfully so.
I'm not sure why there is a debate about this. Either our laws protect minors (whether female or male) from lecherous old men, or they don't. I sympathize with the children who have been separated from the only caregivers/parents they have ever known, but this is child abuse, pure and simple, and should not be tolerated.
Posted by: CV | Apr 21, 2008 1:37:09 PM
>>In any case, Latins seem germ phobic (ever watch how thoroughly they wipe the chalice, or the reliquary after someone's lips touch it?)<<
Once when I was sharing Communion with a small group of Methodists, I was the first to recieve the chalice. After taking the fruit of the vine, they handed me a cloth napkin. For wiping the chalice rim, they intended. But before they could tell me, I had already wiped my lips really clean with it.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Apr 21, 2008 2:45:05 PM
"But before they could tell me, I had already wiped my lips really clean with it."
At least you didn't blow your nose, Cliff...
Posted by: Bill R | Apr 21, 2008 5:01:25 PM
Or drunk from the finger bowl.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Apr 21, 2008 5:10:06 PM
Here is an interview of a woman who left this polygamous sect some years ago. It's very informative. At the end she is asked about the current situation. She faults the men for hiding behind the women and not taking on their role as protector of their women and children. She says the women should be prosecuted as well as the men, for breaking the law knowingly.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Apr 26, 2008 7:55:37 AM
I am a California divorce attorney and in 1999 I represented a runaway polygamous wife who escaped from a group exactly like this one. When this latest case came up I googled "child abuse Mormon cults" and found the 2006 Utah and Arizona Attorney General's report called The. Primer. Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and. Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities. You and all the other reporters who are writing about the kids MUST look at this report.
http://www.attorneygeneral.utah.gov/polygamy/The_Primer.pdf
Your duty is to inform your audience about what is going on and NO ONE is talking about this fascinating report. We need to protect the kids which is not necessarily reunification. This report verified everything my client told me. She explained the fundamentalist justification for incest and the murder of runaway girls which this report talks about. PLEASE read this and share it with your readers. This is NOT a religious rights issue. This is a child safety issue and the kids are counting on socienty to protect them. If you don't want to wade through a 54 page report then let this 6 minute video wet your appetite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTuILyGtfzI
Posted by: Belinda | May 1, 2008 11:47:52 AM
Here are the facts....
Warren Jeffs was an person convicted of doing unpleasant things.
So at all of our expense the powers that be decide to kidnap imprison & torture the women and children of everyone who knows him that they can catch ?? { yes terrorizing children is torture }
This is America folks not 1970s Argentina/Latin America. We are in America people are supposed to have rights. Yes this this even includes innocent women and children whom over zealous people would happily put before a firing squad to get back at those "evil child raping polygamous deamons !!! ". Get a hold of yourselves people a suckling baby is not a criminal and neither is his mother.
If people wanted to be "rescued" it wouldn't need to be done gunpoint with tanks. Ive never seen a lifeguard at the beach armed with a gun so he can yell at a drowning victim "Let me rescue you or I'll blow out your brains !"
Also guess folks there are plenty of battered women who are killed everyday by their men in "secular society". At least Mormon men aren't drunks and being sober all the time does wonders for reducing violence. I doubt that a household with so many women wouldn't have them exerting influence over their husbands behind the scenes.
Yes arranged marriages seem harsh but statistics show that most people don't do too good of a job of picking who to marry.
If these people want to leave by all means let them leave. This whole thing stinks. People imprisoned and not allowed access to the media so they can say what they want. This violates freedom of the press bigtime. Why wont they let their prisoners SPEAK ?? If they have enough money for big fancy tanks why don't they have money for putting people in a decent hotel.
These women and kids have been treated like farm animals. Mothers separated from their children with no regards for the feelings of either party. Forcefully vaccinated with who knows what. This is how hogs whose future is pork chops are treated this is no way to treat human beings.
Another big culture clash is that these people seem to exult motherhood which is considered worthless in our secular society. Just why is being "nothing but a mother" a worthless occupation ?
Mothers are the most important people on this earth.
What is so great about secular society with its abortions, venereal diseases, prostitution, pornos, date rape and parents who care more about making money than spending time with their children ???
Secular society is the place where women get no respect. Women are just sex objects to be used and tossed aside by immature men who can't seem to grow up. Secular life is NO paradise.
Oh and one more thing ... even if these Mormons are guilty of "welfare fraud" I'm happier to support a family of beautiful pious people than paying to bomb the #$%# out of children in IRAQ. Ignorant people should stop picking on welfare recipients and Mexicans and research where most of their hard earned money REALLY goes.
Hint: straight into the pockets of rich white men who own many mansions and ride in corporate jets, and get lavish vacations and retirements. Read the book "perfectly legal" by David Cay Johnston for thorough explanation.
This whole fiasco is just a big distraction to divide and conquer us and if you all let this happen to these people you just might come to regret it in the future when it is your turn.
Posted by: Sally | May 1, 2008 9:18:02 PM
The above wins my prize for stupidest letter of the week, a finalist for stupidest post of the month (possibly the year) and definitely in the running for stupidest post of the century.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 2, 2008 5:17:49 AM
I, for one, never knew that our tanks are not only big but "fancy." Perhaps you defense analysts out there could explain why our tax money is being wasted on interior decorators for armored vehicles?
Posted by: DGP | May 2, 2008 6:26:58 AM
Hey, the tanks are fancy?! I knew I should have gone Armor. The Bradleys and M113's were misery-inducing (and misery-sustaining), although admittedly the Bradley turrent station approaches "fancy" in a way-cool-video-game way (at least in peacetime, on a range). Still, a "fancy" vehicle would, I think, be one you could ride all-terrain in WITHOUT a helmet to protect you from repeated head blows on the low steel roof. Also, the accumulated body odors of a tightly-packed crew in the Fort Irwin desert heat, maybe blinded me to the fanciness; I can only imagine what it's like over in Persia. I wish our guys every luxury they can manage.
My personal favorite part of the above post is, "Here are the facts...".
Posted by: Joe Long | May 2, 2008 8:21:00 AM
>>>I, for one, never knew that our tanks are not only big but "fancy." Perhaps you defense analysts out there could explain why our tax money is being wasted on interior decorators for armored vehicles?<<<
Well, the M1A2 actually has some padding in the driver's seat, a fan that vents all the noxious fumes from spent cartridges, and a fire suppression system that activates in a couple of hundred milliseconds to keep the crew from becoming crispy critters. In addition, the tanks are hot in the summer and cold in the winter. The do come with an on-board toilet, consisting of a spent stub-cartridge into which human waste materials can be deposited until such time as the tank stops and someone can get out and dump it.
As compared to, say the M4A3 Sherman tank, it is indeed the lap of luxury.
>>>The Bradleys and M113's were misery-inducing (and misery-sustaining), although admittedly the Bradley turrent station approaches "fancy" in a way-cool-video-game way (at least in peacetime, on a range). <<<
They really are. Once the ramp and the overhead hatch are closed, submarines seem spacious in comparison. Add to that really bad springs, hard seats, and rapid skid turns at high speed, and you'll be spewing into your helmet in no time. Looking out through the vision ports on the Bradley makes it worse.
But the most gut-wrenching thing I ever did was try to line up a target through a Stryker Overhead Weapons Station (OWS), a kind of remote-controlled machinegun turret, while the vehicle was in motion. You see, you sit facing forwards, and you turn the turret with a joystick-type device. You sight the target through a small video monitor. The OWS is supposed to be stabilized, but not much, so the picture keeps bouncing around. Moreover, while you are facing twelve o'clock, the target may be a three o'clock, so what your eyes see doesn't match what your ears feel, and the next thing you know, vertigo! Where'd that baggie go? Bleeeecchhhhh!!!!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 2, 2008 8:30:27 AM
>>My personal favorite part of the above post is, "Here are the facts...".
I dunno, I like "Mothers are the most important people on this earth" for its paradoxical quality. After all, mothers would be nothing special were it not for their children. :)
Posted by: DGP | May 2, 2008 8:48:49 AM
>>>My personal favorite part of the above post is, "Here are the facts...".<<<
Indeed. Here are the facts, Sally, a group of overbearing wacko perverted men were forcing girls in their early teens to "marry" them and then, of course, have sex with them. That is rape. The state of Texas was duty bound to stop it. Whether it has handled everything perfectly can be debated (almost certainly it hasn't), but it must be recognized that the state has a difficult situation on its hands and is likely doing the best it knows how under the circumstances.
The admittedly demeaning treatment of women and girls in the secular world does in no way exonerate the rape of young girls by a group of dirty old men playing at religion. You'll find no one here who supports either situation.
Posted by: GL | May 2, 2008 8:50:29 AM
I love you guys.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | May 2, 2008 11:23:51 AM
As I said, this was bound to happen once Lawrence v. Texas opened the doors. "O, Sweet mystery of life", indeed!
The fact is polygamy is not compatible with a free Western society, and therefore the state has an obligation to suppress it whenever it pops up. The Mormon Wars of the 1850s were not just about social revulsion at Mormon sexual practices, but also about the need to democratize Utah, which was a territory run like a cult by Brigham Young.
There are certain forms of religious expression that are just outside the pale. This is one of them (one wonders what would happen if a cult sprung up that practiced the ancient Mayan or Aztec religion--I had trouble convincing a bunch of grad students once that "cultural sensitivity" can never make human sacrifice acceptable).
Polygamy is nothing less that the monopolization of young women by a small group of powerful men. These accrue multiple wives, leaving large numbers of less powerful men without any hope of finding a permanent mate. You can see the implications of that, I am sure.
On the other side of the coin, polygamy by its nature dehumanizes and objectifies women, reducing them to status symbols for powerful men--unless a woman is not attractive enough for such men, in which case not too many options are open to her. Since polygamy devalues women, in polygamous societies women do not enjoy political, social, or economic rights on par with men--they are second class citizens. And for that reason, female children are generally seen as a burden, and are either aborted or killed at birth.
Unless, of course, you live in a closed cult, wherein all women are parceled out to the cult leaders, and the bulk of young men are driven out of the cult in order to preserve the monopoly on women.
And for those who think the Jeffites are somehow different from the 19th century Mormons, look again.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 2, 2008 11:49:40 AM
The feeling is mutual, Judy.
Posted by: GL | May 2, 2008 12:02:55 PM
"I had trouble convincing a bunch of grad students once that "cultural sensitivity" can never make human sacrifice acceptable." - Stuart Koehl
Try telling them the cult believes in starting with grad students.
I'm afraid the most alarming thing about Sally's post is that it represents the way a lot of folks "think" these days. Of course, as we lawyers say, that assumes facts not in evidence.
Posted by: Bill R | May 2, 2008 12:18:52 PM
>>>As I said, this was bound to happen once Lawrence v. Texas opened the doors. "O, Sweet mystery of life", indeed!<<<
Santorum was right. Mark my words, within a decade you will see the issue of polygamy being argued before the Supreme Court and/or at least one state will have sanctioned it. It is already being argued by legal scholars. That is always the first step. Let us pray that a President McCain will be able to replace Stevens and Ginsburg before that happens and that he will do so with justices with common sense.
(Judy, I plan on sharing those WSJ pieces you sent on McCain as widely as I can. He is giant among pygmies in this race when it comes to character.)
Posted by: GL | May 2, 2008 12:19:45 PM
>>>Polygamy is nothing less that the monopolization of young women by a small group of powerful men. These accrue multiple wives, leaving large numbers of less powerful men without any hope of finding a permanent mate. You can see the implications of that, I am sure.<<<
Kind of like the situation in China in its effect. A large number of men of marriage age cannot find wives, not because older men have monopolized the women but because the women killed, before or after they were born. Now if only video games can become widespread enough in China that the excess young men will be content to sit in their basements and play instead of looking for wives.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | May 2, 2008 12:44:51 PM
Judy,
That never happens. Even the boys in the basement want female attention. And even the boys in the basement, as has been proven time and again, are capable of pulling a trigger.
Posted by: Nick | May 2, 2008 2:44:24 PM
>>>These women and kids have been treated like farm animals.<<< -- Sally
Funny, farm animals are what came to mind when I read how they lived in their polygamous cult. Some of the children didn't know which woman was their mother. The women are breeding stock, and they're honored for their motherhood in the same way that a dairy cow is valued for her ability to produce heifers. In this case the product desired is not milk, but young girls for sex.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | May 2, 2008 3:20:05 PM
I've got to start being more diligent about reading threads like this one. Even if my mind is already quite thoroughly made up on the matter, eventually someone like Sally shows up and makes the whole thing worthwhile.
Posted by: Ethan C. | May 2, 2008 3:42:30 PM
Sally,
As others here have pointed out, this is not an issue of divide and conquer. There is a real issue about whether the children, and this includes the under-age mothers, were in real danger. A complaint had been filed. At that point the state had the responsibility to act.
I've also heard that, although heavy weapons were available, that none were used. This was not Waco. It is also good to remember that the leadership of the group were felons.
Posted by: Nick | May 2, 2008 5:50:09 PM
They could have investigated the call before storming in there which they would have discovered was a fraud.
If Statutory rape is such a BIG problem why not round up every pregnant teen mother in the country and imprison them too and DNA test all aborted fetuses of < 18 year old girls and toss the fathers in jail ? Selective prosecution ? Lazines ?
Doesn't every child deserve not to be RAPED ??
Posted by: Sally | May 3, 2008 10:05:48 PM
What's a lazine?
Posted by: Ethan C. | May 3, 2008 11:32:29 PM
Sally comes in with a good candidate for second stupidest post of the century. is she working for a trifecta? I particularly like her breathless style, so popular among Victorian hacks and pubescent girls: "Doesn't every child deserve not to be RAPED ??" Which is a non-sequitur in the context of her argument, but hey, high dudgeon is a great way to end a [non]argument.
Sally does not seem to understand the nature of the FLDS, or that it is nothing less than a systematized means of procuring young girls as sexual partners for older men. In order to accomplish that goal, the cult has employed brainwashing techniques similar to those employed in North Korea, mental and physical coercion, and, push comes to shove, violence against dissenters. Their track record, from Utah to Arizona to Texas is consistent over the course of half a century or more. The amazing thing is this was allowed to go on for so long, but, apparently, Americans even in the late 1950s had such a laissez faire attitude towards "religious" practices that attempts by the state government in Utah to crack down turned into a public relations disaster. From that time, until the last few years, the FLDS operated underground with minimal interference.
Recently, both Utah and Arizona began a program of outreach to individuals within the cult that allowed them to crack down on the most egregious abuses, but only at the cost of agreeing not to prosecute polygamy among consenting adults (which is a mistake: polygamy is and should remain illegal and should be prosecuted under all circumstances, for the reasons I outlined in earlier posts). Last year, however, both Utah and Arizona let the FLDS know that it would no longer tolerate its other abuses as well (including the welfare fraud which is the foundation of the community's economy), at which point they began buying up land in Texas.
Columnist Jacob Sullum complained that the government was using a "collective guilt" strategy in dealing with the FLDS. He cites the state's affidavit, which says "a pervasive pattern and practice of indoctrinating and grooming minor female children to accept spiritual marriages to adult members of the YFZ Ranch, resulting in them being abused. . . [the boys] after they become adults are spiritually married to minor female children and engage in sexual relationships with them. . ."
Sullum then characterizes the state's argument this way: "In short, the whole FLDS culure is sick and corrupt, so that anyone raised in that environment is ipso facto a victim of abuse".
I think that sums up the facts very nicely, indeed I do. Sullum makes no effort to refute the argument, he merely says that such an argument is legally invalid. As a good libertarian, he believes in unfettered freedom of association, and sees familial arrangements as being primarily a private contractual matter among individuals.
Not living in cloud cuckooland, I know that familial relationships are an overriding societal interest, and that society, in the form of the state, has an obligation to promote familal arrangements that (a) protect the health and safety of minor children; and (b) promote the general welfare of society as a whole. Several millennia of Western Civilization have demonstrated that stable monogamous marriages serve both the interests of children and of society better than any other alternative, including polygamy, cohabitation, homosexual unions, and polyamorous gropings. It is a sad fact that the state has been neglecting its obligation to protect marriage and the family from "alternative lifestyle arrangements", but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I am glad Texas chose to draw the line here.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 4, 2008 7:18:39 AM
>>>Doesn't every child deserve not to be RAPED ??<<<
That was my point of view. What is yours?
Posted by: GL | May 4, 2008 7:38:32 AM
Sally overlooks attempts by several states to prosecute Planned Parenthood for not reporting pregnancies by underage girls to social services agencies on the basis that all such pregnancies are the results of statutory rape. Planned parenthood sued on the basis of patient confidentiality ("right to privacy" and all that crap), and the states seem to have backed down--for now. But the fact remains that when a thirteen year old girl is presented to an abortion clinic by an adult who is not her biological father, there is a really good reason to suspect that this adult male is the father of her child--and a child abuser himself. Since child abuse--whether against male or female children--seems to proliferate down through generations, there is a clear and abiding societal interest in preventing it and intervening to help the child as quickly as possible, lest the child grow up to abuse children in his--or her--turn.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 4, 2008 7:54:02 AM
It sounds like someone has a religious vendetta. Am I hearing this right.
Secular Statutory rape = look the other way it is ok
Did you know that it was recently legal for 14 year olds to marry in Texas ???
You hate these people so much that you think it is ok to kidnap, torture and possibly kill their children ? Because you hate their parents and religion ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VEhdOOOzZg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8h4SOwWXdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISFPJL66p4c
I think the high abortion rate is a symptom of what is wrong with society. Unwanted pregnancies should not happen to begin with. To put it bluntly it really doesn't matter what society a girl lives in, once she reaches puberty men will be chasing after her wanting to impregnate her.
Posted by: Sally | May 4, 2008 10:32:44 AM
Trifecta it is!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 4, 2008 11:18:49 AM
"It sounds like someone [believes that since statutory rape often goes unprosecuted in 'the secular world' that justifies the dirty old men in the FLDS "marrying" and raping girls in their early teens]. Am I hearing this right"?
Do "you [love] these people so much that you think it is ok [for these pervert men] to [rape] their children?"
I'm truly sorry if Sally is a victim of these cultists, but, if so, her posts here simply provide further evidence as to why they must be stopped.
Posted by: GL | May 4, 2008 4:59:37 PM
A Texas appeals court has agreed with Sally in so far as she has argued that the children should not be removed. Obviously, that opinion could be appealed. I thought it appropriate to acknowledge here, however, that in so far as Sally's conclusion (if not her reasoning) was concerned, a court has agreed with her. *If* that is the final determination, then I will readily acknowledge that as to her conclusion, she has the support of the Texas court system.
I must note, however, that this is exactly how our system is designed to work, so I find no sinister conspiracy at work here on the part of law enforcement, who had to act in response to the situation with which they were confronted. They acted and now the courts will determine whether they acted appropriately. Sally should rest assured that the American system of justice is working, in this case, exactly as our Founders designed it to work.
Posted by: GL | May 22, 2008 4:28:44 PM
"Janet Reno … 'orchestrated some horrendously unjust convictions' [during her tenure, notably using] questionable rumors of child abuse to launch a violent assault against American citizens in Waco, Texas, resulting in the deaths of twenty-four children whom she was ostensibly protecting" writes Stephen Baskerville in "Taken Into Custody" (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family) — a book which will send chills down the spine of any liberty-loving person.
Excerpts here:
Witch Hunts in Contemporary America:
Is the United States Turning Into a Fascist Country?
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
Posted by: Erik S | Jun 12, 2008 4:31:05 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004