Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

What law is the issue about in this case?Polygamy isn't legal.... Its that we can allow some religious minorities the family sovereignty and religious freedom to allow their child to die from natural causes as opposed to forcing them to take drugs, but that we shouldn't allow these groups to force these girls into a lifetime of misery so that these men can have thier fun. Not neccessarily.(isn't that only for minors anyways?) What admittedly little exposure I have to these groups suggested that the parents of the girls had little to no say in who or when their daughters got married.You right that I could stand to learn more about them. I have better things to do though. That's because two seperate issues have been conflated under this label of "religious abuse". It an invented inconsistancy. I treat them as two seperate issues and the justification for one doesn't neccessarily fit for the other.You seem to be arguing that if I can justify the negligent homicide, then I should be all for allowing the polygamy. But they are seperate and distinct cases and I'm not trying to make a case for all religious freedoms being allowed by the government. I do think they should allow some though.I've tried to explain why I support one and not the other, more questions are welcome. This isn't important to my point, but I'm under the impresson that the FLDS marriages are not legally valid.

The problem with learning more about them is that, aside from the 60 Minutes episode that molbiogirl mentioned earlier (I saw that, by the way), the FLDS are pretty secretive. They live in secluded communities and don't go out of their way to interact with other people, so we don't really have any good knowledge about what they do (although all sorts of commentaries and speculations abound). It seems, given the Warren Jeffs incident(s), that the leadership of the FLDS communities do have control over who marries whom, but this may only be one leader abusing his office as "prophet." We don't actually know that this is the norm for the FLDS, but it seems to be common. I think the general idea is that the parents (at least the father) are involved in the marriage arrangement, though this may have become lost in the improper useby the leaders of their authority over their church. I would like to know how to set a boundary between allowable and rejectable. Obviously, Aztec-style human sacrifices should not be allowed. Obviously, religious beliefs that include abuse of others should also not be allowed. But, should religions be allowed to promote negligence? How about arranged marriages? Or, should masochism be allowed under “freedom of religion”?Please don’t take this as insult or sarcasm: I would really like to know, or at least dicuss it. The problem would be that we’d have to change “religious freedom.” I know there are systems in place for official “recognition” of religions (for demographic purposes, mostly). Should we then set a standard that dictates the boundaries of “recognizable” religions? That seems like a violation of the state/religion separation thing, though.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

Wrong. The Persistence of Polygamy - The New York TimesYou really ought to take the time to do the research before offering an opinion. Utah state officials disagree. The Persistence of Polygamy - The New York TimesThose that support the RLPA disagree. Page not found - American AtheistsThe California Law Review disagrees. Jesse H. Choper, A Century of Religious Freedom, California Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 6, Symposium of the Law in the Twentieth Century (Dec., 2000), pp. 1709-1741The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on polygamy since 1878, tho. And they refused to hear a 2003 polygamy case. http://www.associatedcontent.com/...reme_court_declines.htmlThe polygamists continue to drag their beeswax into court -- and continue to argue that the Free Exercise Clause protects their "way of life".In for a dime, in for a dollar, CS.You either protect all religious practices or you protect none.Can't split this baby in half, Solomon.

FYI.The NYT has a great 1999 piece, The Persistence of Polygamy:http://www.associatedcontent.com/...reme_court_declines.htmlAnd GMA managed to get a reporter inside back in 2007.Former Polygamist Speaks Out - ABC NewsThere are also several websites:http://www.outofpolygamy.com/The Child Protection Project
Child Protection Project, assisting others to overcome life in polygamyA Shield and Refuge Ministry
Helping and assisting others to freedom from polygamyMagazine Articles:Today's Christian Woman
" I Grew Up in a Polygamist Family"
I Grew up in a Polygamist Family | Today's Christian WomanGlamour
"Escape From Polygamy"
Escape From Polygamy | GlamourNews & TV:Good Morning America
Former Polygamist Speaks Out - ABC NewsVideo GMA:
Former Polygamist Speaks Out - ABC NewsAnderson Cooper:
Woman describes childhood in polygamous household - CNN.comCNN Video:
Woman describes childhood in polygamous household - CNN.com"Lifting the Veil of Polygamy"
http://www.lhvm.org"Banking on Heaven"
HugeDomains.comUtah and Arizona Offices of the Attorneys General, “The Primer: Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities,” updated June 2006.Page not found - Utah Attorney GeneralBrian C. Hales is one of the finest experts on polygamist sectarian groups, their history and doctrine. His website has a lot of information, including electronic copies of a few books he helped author. His recent volume, Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto (Salt Lake City: Kofford Books, 2007), is the most up to date one volume treatment of the subject.Page not found – Modern Polygamy and Mormon FundamentalismAvailable on books.google:Martha Sonntag Bradley, professor at the University of Utah, wrote an important history of the first verse in the Federal removal of children from polygamist compounds, Kidnapped from that Land: The Government Raids on the Short Creek Polygamists (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1993).Irwin Altman and Joseph Ginat, Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996)Edited by molbiogirl, : more goodies

molbiogirl writes:

quote:

---

You either protect all religious practices or you protect none.

---

Um, what does religion have to do with the civil contract of marriage? There may be plenty of reasons to allow or disallow polygamy, but what does religion have to do with it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

If you haven't noticed, CS along with Holmes and Randman (and I'm sure a few others) have been arguing for the strict hands-off government policy regarding "religious freedom" regarding these matters. Heck, if they can sit there and watch a little girl die a slow and painful death that took a month to complete, what makes you think they actually care about the difference between civil and religious marriage?

Read your own thread, jackass. I remember explicitly writing that I don't advocate that policy. Your logic is pathetic.

Yeah right...Ummm, how about no. Especially on an anonomous internet forum. What the hell are you on? So a father and an uncle force a girl to marry. That's a little bit different from the supposed situation that I was replying too.Strike one. (nice try though) None of that impresses me really.All you effort is addressed towards polygamy, itself. But that is one small section on the side of my position.I really don't give a shit if these girls have some spiritual label of "married" applied to them.The problem is that these men are forcing them to live there and are raping them and physically abusing them. (strike two) What does that mean, mbg? I disagree and that will never be the case. It already is, dumbass. (strike three)

I see. Uninformed opinion only. Check. Nope.The FLDS parents are intimately involved in the arranged marriages, as is the "prophet".But how could I expect you to know that, given that you admitted upthread you know nothing of FLDS and you have no interest in doing the research? Nope.I am addressing the First Amendment issues involved. Nope.The men do no such thing. The parents and the "prophet" do. Your uninformed opinion again?Your "reasoning" looks like this:Stuff I like = "protected".
Stuff I don't like = "unprotected".And you wrap yourself into a pretzel trying to rationalize your preferences.You can't draw a hard and fast line re: First Amendment issues other than: "I know it when I see it."

I saw a made for TV movie about it called In God's Country... just sayin'. That movie I saw was specifically about the Warren Jeffs incident(s). <--- marriage. In this case, I don't really have a problem with the polygamy. If they want to have multiple 'spiritual' marriages then i don't care. Its illegal to have multiple legal marriages, so as long as theirs aren't legal, then they should be safe.But in this case, there is more to it than just the marriage. The marriage is against their will and these girls are raped and beaten. That's why the government needs to step in.I can't lay out an absolute demarcation of the line between what we should allow and what we shouldn't. But its obviously not an all or none thing, because we have some religious freedoms that are allowed and some that aren't.I've tried to explain why I would allow the criminal negligence in that case and not the 'polygamy' (which includes a lot) in this case, but I could go on if you have more questions.

TV movies?!Oh. CS."Warren Jeffs’ Trial . Wait Until You See What The Complainant Says Her Mother Said About The Marriage" http://gretawire.foxnews.com/...ther-said-about-the-marriage"Woman who fled polygamous sect tries for new life" Help Center - The Arizona Republic

Nope.Please see Message 65. So if a 13 y.o. happily agrees to a spiritual marriage, it's OK? Most of the convictions for polygamist child-rape are not a result of forcible rape, but statutory rape. The way the the First Amendment is enforced in this country has little to do with what the Constitution says. Either you side with the Warren Court or you don't.The state either has a compelling interest in limiting Free Exercise or it doesn't.If you think that the state does have a compelling state interest in limiting Free Exercise, then don't get your panties inna wad when the courts decide to prosecute wingnuts that murder their children.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

T4C,I think CS unfairly brushed off your argument.I'd like to see an honest answer to this, CS.PS -- Just FYI, T4C. The girls weren't legally married to their husbands. Even if the parents had wished to marry their underage daughters to these older men, it's not legal to pull that stunt in Texas.

Hello Taz, because my schedule was becoming so hectic and chaotic, I announced I was taking an extended break from EvC for a while. I just do not have time to engage in serious, detailed debate. In fact today I was just dropping by to note something funny I had seen in the news, that reminded me of certain posters at EvC.However, I saw my name in your thread title and decided to give it a look. As I said I simply do not have time for debate on this, but it is an interesting topic. I wish I could give it more time.With this in mind, I will give you a shortish answer to your question. I will not likely be able to read any responses... at least for some time. This is not a simple yes/no question for me. I absolutely agree that police should have investigated the claims made.We can leave aside issues of polygamy, statutory limits on the age of marriage, and arranged marriages. Marriage does not grant anyone the right to have sex with someone else. If she didn't want it, she didn't have to have it. If he didn't like it, he should have gotten divorced. Rape is rape.So yes, the police certainly should have investigated, including allegations that others might have been in the same situation.However, I disagreed with their methods. An anonymous source should be treated with some degree of skepticism, and not allow for the heavy handed approach the gov't took. Still more importantly, that the allegations were general, and not specified, did not give the right for the gov't to come in and take away all the children.That is called "collective punishment" and rightly condemned under international law. These people had their children taken away en masse, because of a general accusation toward the group from an unknown source? I think if placed outside of this nation most people would realize how incorrect that action is.For example, if Israel got a tip that many Palestinians were raising their children to be suicide bombers, it would not have the right to take all of the children away from Palestinians just in case, during their investigation.Heck, even within the US. If there was an allegation that there was widespread use of children as narcotics carriers by families within a slum area, we would rightly condemn the police rushing in and taking away every family's children within that area.The police in Texas had a right to initiate investigations, and once specified cases became clear, then children could be removed. Instead they acted on guilt by association. They are now the ones inflicting harm on some children, without question. I suppose some may argue that it is better safe than sorry, but that is a figleaf for "guilty until proven innocent", and "it is better that a few innocents should suffer such that no guilty person will escape". Those latter concepts are firmly against traditional concepts of US law.It might also be noted that removing children and then probing them for information has had notoriously bad results. They tend to be terrible witnesses, easily manipulated by sources seeking to punish someone. I've seen some commentary in the papers that this will help authorities... yeah, just like it did in the rash of "satanic" and "molestation" cases in the 80-90s which all turned out to be rubbish.Again, people have to stop getting all excited when the word "children" gets raised. They are not the key to unlocking long established freedoms or rules of law.So yes they should have been investigated, but the methodology has been terribly flawed. Sorry if this repeats what others have said. I only read the opening post and responded as per the title's request.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hi again Taz, I got a huge unexpected break this afternoon, so I decided to read the thread. It seems you were looking for something I may not have addressed with my first reply. There is a difference between civil contracts and religious institutions. Frankly, and I've discussed this many times before at EvC, I think the strict "hands-off" gov't policy toward religion means that there should be no marriages at all performed by the State. It is a patent religious institution serving no useful secular purpose... though we have created many laws to force it into many legal issues.Providing that we do have such laws, then they are decided on a state by state basis. It is up to a group that wants such marriage rights to argue for them. Polygamists use the same claims as gays for the "right" to be married, and so as you argue for one you do argue for the other. However my answer is to get rid of all of those laws.This may still miss the point of what you want to know, which focuses on arranged marriages of minors.There is a difference between voluntary activities for gain, and necessary activities for health. Hence there is a difference between forcing your children to get married, and deciding what to do with regard to health care when a problem arises.You can keep repeating the graphic nature of a person's death without modern scientific intervention, but that does not change a person's right to make decisions for their child's welfare as they understand it when a health emergency occurs. This is the same as explanations of how gruesomely people died on 9-11 does not in any way argue for the Patriot Act, nor repeal of habeus corpus.Parents have the right to make decisions regarding healthcare, decisions regarding voluntary (unnecessary) activities (which may adversely effect a child's health) are more open to question. I hope you see the difference.Some will mention the spiritual requirements for this particular group. Unless it says they must be polygamously married, against their will, by age 14, or they will not enter heaven... I'm not sure there is any comparison.For argument let's take a hypothetical community which does have such requirements. Then they will need to make their case to the public to get laws changed in their favour... just like anyone else.Would I support such efforts? Except for limits on "against their will", I'd say sure. It does not matter to me if some group of people believe in or practice arranged marriages of minors. My only limitations would be... and this is the same for any age... the person has to agree to the marriage, can get out of it when they wish, and are not bound to specific duties within the marriage if they do not want to do them.Arranged marriages have been a part of many cultures and have worked ok for them. There is nothing "wrong" with them. There is also no problem with minors getting married as they have in outside cultures and within the US since its inception. So there is nothing "wrong" with that either.For all of molbio's arguments of what people in the US want and are going to do to unpopular minority groups, that does not argue the bigoted majority is right, nor that their majority will always be the case.But the specific case we are discussing has differences from the broader picture I outlined. Clearly at least one girl was forced to do things against her will. As I said, rape is rape. If there is more of that going on, it should be investigated.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard