Religious Persecution
April 28th, 2008 by jack
The situation of the polygamist Mormons in Texas in disgusting. This is religious persecution, pure and simple. The Washington Compost reports that the anonymous call that precipitated the raid was a hoax. It is for precisely this reason that an anonymous call is not sufficient justification for a search and seizure. Having found no evidence of abuse, the state “will say that the culture of the church, which encouraged girls to marry and bear children in their early teens, was a danger to any child immersed in it.”
Such a theory is ridiculous. It seems to me that encouraging people to delay marriage, contrary to the God-given sex drive which comes in one’s early teens, and teaching the “safe sex” lie rather than celibacy outside of marriage, which is the standard liberal line, is far more of a danger to children. Despite condoms and other means of protection, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are still a threat to teenagers who have sex. (Abortion is not risk-free to the mother — to the child, of course, it is fatal. Having a baby out of wedlock is a ticket to poverty for mother and child.) But if women only have sex with their husbands, and husbands only have sex with their wives, there are no such dangers.
Young marriages, and arranged marriages, have been the norm around the world for a very long time. Only now, in our Western culture, is it considered bad. There’s that cultural arrogance that the liberals are so fond of point out. Where is the vaunted liberal tolerance when it comes to religious conservatives? Oh, yes, that is reserved for those religious conservatives who hate America and are not White.
Oddly enough, even Texas Law allows young teens to get married. If it is allowed by state law, how can the state argue that it is a danger? The worst possible prosecution for an actual crime might be that they did not get a marriage licenses — which is only a misdemeanor.
But here is the crux of the state’s dilemma: it must argue that minors’ getting married is harmful enough that it must be controlled by the state, but minors’ having sex outside of marriage is not.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am and is filed under Culture, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Jack, agree with you 100% on this one. Texas is beginning to realize they have stepped into it big time on this one.
I also believe that they will be unable to prove any of the allegations that we have read about in the press. Just another screw up like Waco.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
The whole thing reeks to high heaven. Texas should charge all the adults with polygamy. But that charge I do not believe gives Texas the right to put all the kids in foster care.
This whole thing is a mess. Furthermore now that Texas went after this bunch I m waiting to see it go after the hippies who live in communes, that practice ‘free love’. Fathers day must be a confusing time in those places I am sure.
These people where targeted for their beliefs more so than their practices. This was not necessary, their practices are illegal in all 50 states.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Ah, I believe the problem here is that the 13 year old girls were married to and made pregnant by adult men in their 40’s and older and in many cases multiple girls were “married” to the same man. We’re not talking about two 16 year olds getting married as a result of puppylove.
Most Americans, even us liberal secular folks, see this situation as child abuse by pedephiles, not some test of religious rights.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Terry,
from what I read though the rumor was that 13 y.o.’s where getting married and then out ‘in a family way’ there have not been two many 13 y.o. pregnant girls found.
The original phone call has been determined to be a hoax. I am in agreement with you IF and WHEN some such situation is uncovered in the media. So far it looks like a which hunt.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
How can Texas charge them with polygamy? Who’s going to be a witness? Any potential witnesses will simply claim a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Furthermore, how can the state prosecute polygamy when it does not prosecute adultery or extra-marital sex? Since the “marriages” are not state-sanctioned, they are not marriages at all, in the state’s eyes, so they can only be charged with having sex outside of marriage. Charging them with not getting a marriage license to be involved in a marriage ceremony for which the state would refuse such license is a clear violation of the polygamists’ 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion.
Looks like Texas may not only get their sodomy law overturned, but their bigamy law, too.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Terry,
as for secular and liberal, I do not think that item is in play here except for the whole if marriage is unhealthy at a young age, then why ios sex not unhealthy. No one is advocating the 40 y.o. husband and 16 y.o. bride deal; in my opinion that is nuts.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
BTW, w.r.t. the marriage license, the argument is exactly the same as the SCOTUS ruling that one cannot charge felons for not getting a handgun permit.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“Ah, I believe the problem here is that the 13 year old girls were married to and made pregnant by adult men in their 40’s ”
So we have been told.. Where’s the beef ?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
fyi Texas statutes :
§ 25.01. BIGAMY[0]. (a) An individual commits an offense
if:
(1) he is legally married and he:
etc…
If the ‘he’ is not legally married in the first place, how can ‘he’ be guilty of bigamy ?
Art. 38.10. EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPOUSAL ADVERSE TESTIMONY
PRIVILEGE. The privilege of a person’s spouse not to be called as a
witness for the state does not apply in any proceeding in which the
person is charged with:
(1) a crime committed against the person’s spouse, a
minor child, or a member of the household of either spouse; or
(2) an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code
(Bigamy[0]).
Polygamy is not found in a search of Texas statute.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Which, Dan, is legal in Texas with the approval of the parents, and of a judge. Now, we are back to the issue of Freedom of Religion. Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental one. Mosaic law requires a man to marry his brother’s widow if he died without children. If the Jews in this country followed that law, could our laws, under the First Amendment, stop it?
April 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“No one is advocating the 40 y.o. husband and 16 y.o. bride deal; in my opinion that is nuts.”
Exactly — it is your opinion.
But let us look at it from another standpoint — raising children. (That IS, biblically, the point of marriage, is it not?) First, from the female’s perspective, a 40-yr old man is established. There is little guessing as to what his earning capacity will be, and thus his capacity to provide for his family. From the man’s perspective, he has a wife who will be of an age to bear children as long as he can sire them.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I see the same simple arguments that supported homosexual marriage.
I wrote about opening Pandora’s box when SCOTUS creatively found a right to commit sodomy in the current Constitution.
The state has a compelling need to legislate the rules of marriage in a heterogeneous, pluralistic society. If we were tribes instead of a Republic it would be different. The former consensus Judeo-Christian culture (with 18th, 19, 20th, and 21st century time stamps) appropriately offers the best model - and rules for marriage for the children, the parents and the state.
If you disagree, fight it appropriately and make the changes in the state legislatures. You will lose to the overwhelming majority.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“The state has a compelling need to legislate the rules of marriage in a heterogeneous, pluralistic society.”
What need is that, James? It must be quite compelling indeed to justify the violation of one’s freedom of religion.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I wonder if there is a “seperation of church and state” clause in the state constitution? Sorry but this is too much of a slippery slope.
“I m waiting to see it go after the hippies who live in communes,”
If they do, can my wife and I stay at your place, Jacob?
April 28th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
James,
Long time. Good to hear from you.
Jack,
By the time of Christ most jews where already settling into a monogamous society. The local pagan kings where another matter. The Romans also practiced monogamy, but not fidelity.
Our society can trace its monogamy back 2000 years, the Anglo Saxons where practicing monogamy over a 1000 years ago. This marriage practice is part of our cultural, political and economic heritage.
We have both written about this heritage being something worth defending. For if it is gone, bringing it back is not an easy thing. Here you are proposing we turn over the card table in the name of someones rights. Care for any other ventures into social engineering?
The Mormons where not allowed into the Union until they abandoned polygamy. Are you going to now argue we violated the rights of non citizens? If so, then your stance on illegal immigration is inconsistent with this. The FLDS is illegal for the LDS agreed to change its ways, the FLDS is a breaking of the agreement.
Marriage is a religious service. How many wives your garner has societal impact. All our laws regarding inheritance, property rights, marriage rights of privacy are based upon a monogamous society, regardless of the religion.
PS what happened to my earlier ‘its nuts’ comment
April 28th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Jack,
“How can Texas charge them with polygamy? Who’s going to be a witness?”
Several women have claimed to be ’spiritual’ brides. This is marriage san’s the marriage license, which you have argued is of less importance then the marriage ritual OR the married life that follows it. Therefore they have violated the ploygamy statutes, or bigamy statutes.
Also as the FLDS espouses polygamy in contradiction to most state statutes, and bigamy in contradiction to the rest. All the men can get thrown in the pokey for bigamy. DNA testing can be used to establish this. Certainly conspiracy to commit bigamy can be filed as well.
Furthmore since the charge in Texas is Bigamy then
“Any potential witnesses will simply claim a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. ”
is false the women can be compelled to testify. The marriage privilege does not apply to the spiritual brides.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Jack,
FYI.. I posted this earlier today but it did not take for some reason..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States
Be mindful also, the last line of the ceremony “and by the power vested in me, by the state of..” is pretty universal here in the US.. Rather odd for something that is only a religious institution don’t you think ?
April 28th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Jack,
“Furthermore, how can the state prosecute polygamy when it does not prosecute adultery or extra-marital sex? ”
It should prosecute Adultery. I would file it in civil court as a “breach of contract”. Extramarital sex is more problematic. How would this impact states with common marriage laws. Come to think of it does Texas have a common marriage law?
April 29th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Couple of things … first, I tend to agree that this is religious persecution — not only against the FLDS (which could be called a conservative remnant of the LDS movement that changed its religion to fit a government requirement — but against Islam, which allows up to four wives. One of the most interesting people I’d met in years was a woman from Africa (sorry, I don’t remember the country) who was married to a man who had yet another wife. The man and his second wife were “back home” while the woman was here as a visiting foreign teacher at Loudoun County High School. She thought the arrangement was wonderful — the other wife was taking care of her children and husband while she worked here in completely her educational training.
Do I think the government has a crucial vested interest in regulating this? No. All the laws based on inheritance, community property, etc. are done for the convenience of the government, not because the world will end if we don’t have such things. There would need to be some regulatory changes, but regulatory changes because of violation of fundamental rights are the reason we have fundamental rights.
Personally, I come from a conservative Christian background, and as such, I believe the Bible teaches that bigamy (two wives, which from a practical standpoint, has to be crossed before entering into any other form of polygamy) is just plain wrong. Both deacons and elders are to be “the husband of buy one wife” and the entire list of “qualifications” for both offices are based on character. The character of an officer in the church must be that he controls his sexuality — he is not controlled by sex. While some might argue that is only for officers, it is also true that all men should aspire to the qualifications of officers, so that if they are called to that office, they will be qualified.
So then, as a conclusion … the state has no business regulating this aspect of life that has had many variations in different societies (even today), and though I might argue for a person’s right to engage (pun intended) in such activities, I personally think it wrong.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
A lot has been said above in defense of upholding our societal position (not morays) of monogomy, but there is a paradox or two that simply should be considered here:
Our societal morays seem to support fornication before marriage, and to ignore adultery afterward. I agree with prosecution of adultery, and believe that the FLDS also agree with that. However, the cultural clash between mainstream society and FLDS includes the following: Mainstream policy rewards the murder of unborn children via abortion. It’s solution to unwed teenage pregnancy, when abortion is not chosen, is to either place the unwed mother on welfare or to get her to give up her own child. That said, consider the FLDS approach of respect for the unborn as well as the future of the pregnant teenager and her child, with strongly held beliefs that if she is pregnant then she should keep and raise her child as a married woman. This seems to usually or often result in spiritual marriage to an older man who is financially capable of supporting a second (or third or 4th) family. Please remember that the 14 year old that Warren Jeffs “forced” into marriage with her cousin, had become pregnant by that same 18 year old cousin. For heaven sake, she was pregnant with his child. It was their child, not just hers. The child had a right to be raised by both of it’s parents.
Okay, now we can start debate over what ever this brings up. Just please do not loose sight of the cultural differences. Abuse occurs in both systems. Does anyone believe that the FLDS culture is evil? I don’t. But I believe that there is evil and abuse in both systems.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:17 am
>>”By the time of Christ most Jews where already settling into a monogamous society.”
At the time of Christ the law of the land was ROMAN.
>>”Our society can trace its monogamy back 2000 years, the Anglo Saxons where practicing monogamy over a 1000 years ago. This marriage practice is part of our cultural, political and economic heritage. We have both written about this heritage being something worth defending. For if it is gone, bringing it back is not an easy thing. Here you are proposing we turn over the card table in the name of someone’s rights. Care for any other ventures into social engineering?”
A simple requirement that ALL spouses consent to the marriage is a pretty solid guarantee that polygamy will not be a large part of our society. Our 2000+ years of monogamous culture will see to that. Would YOUR wife consent to your marrying some hot young thing? Mine either.
>>”The Mormons where not allowed into the Union until they abandoned polygamy. Are you going to now argue we violated the rights of non citizens? If so, then your stance on illegal immigration is inconsistent with this.”
Utah was a Territory, and the citizens of that territory have the same rights as citizens of States. Even illegal immigrants have rights — the right of due process for one.
>>”The FLDS is illegal for the LDS agreed to change its ways; the FLDS is a breaking of the agreement.”
An “illegal” religion? Sounds like religious persecution to me. Did the members of FLDS agree to this arrangement? Is a breakaway religion bound by agreements of it parent religion?
>>”Marriage is a religious service. How many wives you garner has societal impact.”
Indeed. Look at the quote from the representative of the Utah Territory that Dan posted: “Our crime has been: We married women instead of seducing them; we reared children instead of destroying them; we desired to exclude from the land prostitution, bastardy and infanticide.” Our societal requirement of technical monogamy essentially forces poor women to marry poor men, or to not marry at all. Do you really think the children are better off being the child of a poor man, or a bastard, rather than being the child of a well-off man with several wives and many children? You and I both know of well-off men with many children, even more than you or I have. Per capita, they have less money than a poor family with one child. But the culture of success in which those children are reared will put them in a much better position when they are grown.
>>”All our laws regarding inheritance, property rights, marriage rights of privacy are based upon a monogamous society, regardless of the religion.”
As Brian pointed out, those laws are for the convenience of the government. The convenience of the government should not override the right of the people. Having a will goes a long way to dealing with all of that.
>> “Several women have claimed to be ’spiritual’ brides. This is marriage san’s the marriage license, which you have argued is of less importance then the marriage ritual OR the married life that follows it. Therefore they have violated the polygamy statutes, or bigamy statutes.”
As Dan pointed out, the bigamy charge requires a LEGAL marriage first. Unless Texas is willing to go after everyone with an “open marriage,” swingers, and philanderers, they can hardly go after men who have “spiritual brides.” You can’t have it both ways — if the law does not recognize the woman as a wife for the purpose of her testimony, it cannot them claim she is a wife for the purpose of prosecuting for bigamy the man against whom she is testifying. Anyway, we have found that that protection is not afforded for purposes of prosecuting the bigamy law, so it does not matter.
>>”Also as the FLDS espouses polygamy in contradiction to most state statutes, and bigamy in contradiction to the rest.”
Are you claiming it is illegal for a religion to espouse actions contrary to law? Most interesting.
>>”All the men can get thrown in the pokey for bigamy.”
All of them? I doubt that. The result of a polygamous society is that many men remain unmarried. This was the motivation behind polygamy — many men died in war in the old days, so polygamy kept the tribe alive.
>>”DNA testing can be used to establish this.”
It can be used to establish parenthood, but not marriage. Shall Texas prosecute all unwed fathers? You’re really going to see a spike in the abortion rate.
>>”Certainly conspiracy to commit bigamy can be filed as well.”
Bigamy is only a misdemeanor anyway. Conspiracy to commit a victimless misdemeanor? “Guilty!! Bailiff, please scold the miscreant harshly.”
>>It should prosecute Adultery. I would file it in civil court as a “breach of contract”.
The state does not bring cases to civil court, but to criminal court. Civil court cases require a plaintiff. If the women do not complain….
>>Extramarital sex is more problematic. How would this impact states with common marriage laws? Come to think of it does Texas have a common marriage law?
Texas is a common-law state. Fornication is illegal in Virginia, but no-one has been prosecuted since the ’60s.
In all of this, you have not presented a clear, compelling, and overriding interest for the State to regulate marriage to the point of prohibiting polygamy as an exercise of religion.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Brian, I think your logic is flawed. The Old Testament not only allowed bigamy, as evidenced by the statute against marrying your wife’s sister, but REQUIRED it when one’s brother died without children. Jesus Himself gave us the parable of the Bridegroom and the Ten Virgins.
Paul said it is better that we not marry at all (1Cor.7). If we all aspire to that, Christianity will be very short-lived.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Jack,
“At the time of Christ the law of the land was ROMAN.”
the religious Jews never paid ANY mind to the customs of the ‘pagan scum’.
“A simple requirement that ALL spouses consent to the marriage is a pretty solid guarantee that polygamy will not be a large part of our society. Our 2000+ years of monogamous culture will see to that. Would YOUR wife consent to your marrying some hot young thing? Mine either.”
Now you sound like one of those “if it feels good lets do it types”. Never realized you wuz a lib.
“All of them? I doubt that. The result of a polygamous society is that many men remain unmarried. This was the motivation behind polygamy — many men died in war in the old days, so polygamy kept the tribe alive.”
Go read some, the grown men where married, these guys would run off the 17 y.o. men so as to remove the competition. There way of simulating the die off of battle is to throw their sons out. Sick.
“[DNA] can be used to establish parenthood, but not marriage. Shall Texas prosecute all unwed fathers? You’re really going to see a spike in the abortion rate.”
I am taking about this case. We have a group that keeps its young women in a compound. We have a group in which sex outside of marriage is not allowed. Marriage licenses are rightly seen as not needed for marriage is a religious rite. Therefore under these circumstances sex DOES indicate marriage. As for the heathens running around elsewhere you are correct, all sex indicates is an itch that needs scratching.
“The state does not bring cases to civil court, but to criminal court. Civil court cases require a plaintiff. If the women do not complain….”
I am talking about Adultery in general. Treat the marriage compact as a contract. Nail the adulterer to the wall in civil court. The rules of evidence etc make it easier to get a ruling against the miscreant. Also, in some states actually the state can file for the plaintiff.
“In all of this, you have not presented a clear, compelling, and overriding interest for the State to regulate marriage to the point of prohibiting polygamy as an exercise of religion”
Thanks for your _opinion_. That and two bits will buy you some coffee. The deal our country made with the Mormons to allow Utah in as a state makes all the legal precedent I need. That the FLDS reneged on the deal is key here, and something that I brought up earlier and I note, you ignored. An inconvenient truth perhaps?
April 29th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Jack,
“An “illegal” religion? Sounds like religious persecution to me. Did the members of FLDS agree to this arrangement? Is a breakaway religion bound by agreements of it parent religion?”
No other religion went through this proceedure. So in effect we do have an exception here. So yes, the FLDS is illegal.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Jacob, the Jews may not have paid any attention to the Roman customs, but they sure paid attention to the Roman LAWS. The question of whether to do so was even brought to Jesus.
“Now you sound like one of those ‘if it feels good lets do it types.’ Never realized you wuz a lib.”
Nonsense. The ‘if it feels good let’s do it types’ generally do not consider marriage a life-long committment, nor would they consider marrying those with whom they are “doing it.”
“[These] guys would run off the 17 y.o. men… to remove the competition. [Their] way of simulating the die off of battle is to throw their sons out. Sick.”
Did they throw them out, or did they leave because they realized they would not get married (laid) until they were 40, and perhaps not even then, if they were not good enough?
Are you now saying that polygamy is NOT a victimless crime, but the true victims are the men who are not good enough to find a woman if the exceptional men can have more than one? So a man who is a good husband and father should not be allowed more than one wife, so that someone who will be a bad hasband and father can have one? I did not realize you were such a socialist.
Seriously, though, if the boys are not of legal age, then prosecute the parents for child abandonment. If they are of legal age, the parents can kick them out for any reason or none at all.
“Treat the marriage compact as a contract. Nail the adulterer to the wall in civil court.”
That’s fine, but Criminal Court or Civil, you know good and well that Texas is not going to do that.
“The deal our country made with the Mormons to allow Utah in as a state makes all the legal precedent I need. That the FLDS reneged on the deal is key here….”
The FLDS is a separate church, and the leaders that may that agreement are dead and gone.
“…and something that I brought up earlier and I note, you ignored.”
I did not ignore it, I addressed it in my post of April 29th, 2008, 7:17 AM.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:04 am
One thing that troubles me though, is the same media who feel that a teenage girl should be able to get an abortion without parental consent, are now telling us that teenage marriage with parental consent is a crime.
Seems rather like a double standard to me.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Jack,
“Did they throw them out, or did they leave because they realized they would not get married (laid) until they were 40, and perhaps not even then, if they were not good enough?”
They got th boot, big time. You think a 16 y.o. want to marry a 17 y.o. or a 50 y.o.? If you think the latter, think again. 16 y.o.’s are interested in handsome with prospects, not rich but mildewy.
“Are you now saying that polygamy is NOT a victimless crime, but the true victims are the men who are not good enough to find a woman if the exceptional men can have more than one? So a man who is a good husband and father should not be allowed more than one wife, so that someone who will be a bad hasband and father can have one? I did not realize you were such a socialist”
So, since when did women become a commodity? To equate an egalitarian point of view in this matter requires taking the women and reducing them to objects to be bought and sold. The winner gets the most toys.
Furthermore in polygamous societies, historically, the women often are of reduced status. While in our society the equality is a matter of law, in these situations the defacto equality level is always compromised.
Furthermore, if it feel good do it, does not depend upon length of commitment per se. So it appears deep down you really are a hippie fruit loop.
as for “Seriously, though, if the boys are not of legal age, then prosecute the parents for child abandonment. If they are of legal age, the parents can kick them out for any reason or none at all.”
just one more thing that could have been done aside from stealing the kids from Mom. But Texas authorities have not done this, have they?
April 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“Seems rather like a double standard to me.”
It is, so long as the marriage is not forced.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“So, since when did women become a commodity? To equate an egalitarian point of view in this matter requires taking the women and reducing them to objects to be bought and sold. The winner gets the most toys.”
Money cannot buy love, but it sure improves your bargaining position! -Opus
No, Jacob, not “bought and sold,” although the dowry system was essentially that, and still exists in many parts of the world. But you cannot say that, in general, women’s choice of a spouse is not influenced by his money.
“Furthermore in polygamous societies, historically, the women often are of reduced status. While in our society the equality is a matter of law, in these situations the defacto equality level is always compromised.”
Actually, your own example of the young men’s being exiled disproves this point. It seems that the women are quite highly valued in this group.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
liberal Jack and socialist Jacob,
Please do remember that it is HEALTHY to have difference of opinion. We conservatives make our point without name-calling. Play nice!
April 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
ACT,
He can call me socialist all day long. If you can’t make fun of your friends, then who can you make fun of? Your enemies will beat you up.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Jack,
“Actually, your own example of the young men’s being exiled disproves this point. It seems that the women are quite highly valued in this group.”
Valued as what? When the larger grizzly bear chases of the younger/smaller bear so it can have the berries all to itself , does it consider the berries a social equal? Does it ask them if they are interested in becoming dinner?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jacob,
“No other religion went through this proceedure. ”
How about the Anglicans and their current events ? Do you not view this as similar ?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Jack,
“No, Jacob, not “bought and sold,” although the dowry system was essentially that, and still exists in many parts of the world.”
Please note the social position of women in these societies. Please also note the tendency toward authoritarian governance. Part of our democratic heritage is linked to our cultural heritage which is monogamous.
“But you cannot say that, in general, women’s choice of a spouse is not influenced by his money.”
When it is her choice as well, yes it most certainly is an aphrodisiac. however, when the man’s money translates into raw power and he picks her and she is powerless to say no, his money is not the issue, nor is it usually attractive. Its her freedom and how the given society values the individual, the rights of the individual, that are the issue. Not religious freedom. This sir does extend to property rights of the weak v. the strong. You are advocating a walk down a dark road.
As someone else here said, your argument is structured similarly to the one used by the gay marriage crowd. Rethink this.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Dan,
Actually no, the Anglicans where not told to modify their practices in order to join the country. Fair enough?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hello ACTivist,
As a true conservative, do you agree with me that sexual activity should not happen until marriage, and marriage should not happen until at least age 18?
So, when these two premises are broken, what SHOULD we do? Consider the old fashioned, Conservative, “Shot Gun wedding”: The brats went out and created a pregnancy, so they will have to be “forced” to get married, and take care of their responsibility to the soon to be born child. Abortion is NOT an option. Giving the child up for adoption is NOT an option. Children raising children is NOT a liberal concern, because these brats had better grow up fast, and take responsibility. If that means hard times, so be it. A couple together is still better than a single mother on welfare. Young couples struggle through college and other hardships all the time. Facing Hardships and not running away from them builds character.
The FLDS have liberalized this standard by letting the irresponsible boys continue to sow their wild oats, while requiring “forced, shot gun style” girls to get married to older, financially established, men, who SHOULD be mature enough to NOT be the ones who got the teenage girls pregnant in the first place.
Personally, I would have no problem with responsible, Conservative, polygamy, as long as adults left children alone sexually, and there was no artificial barrier between an 18 year old and a 16 year old, if the “shot gun” approach was needed.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Jacob, fair enough.. But is there a substantial difference between the pressures upon LDS, and the social pressures splitting the Anglicans ?
April 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Fundamentally the Anglicans are throwing out entire v. and even Books of the Bible.
The LDS/FLDS split is as much about culture as it is about what is written in the Bible. In the New Testament monogamy is preferred. In the old the evils associated with polygamy are lamented but institution itself is not attacked. The biggest rift is along cultural, not scriptural lines.
The Anglicans are doing something else entirely. Here scripture is twisted beyond recognition. The logic used is frankly scatter shot.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
jacob, throwing out or interpreting differently by the Anglicans ?
Not sure if I agree with you about the New Testament wrt LDS. The key is what does the Book of Mormon say about monogamy v bigamy isn’t it ?
April 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Anglicans: I was in the pews when the clown in the pulpit said the first 5 books are no longer relevant. Which was first said by the Archbishop of the Washington Diocese.
Mormons: They claim to be Christians. Personally I am dubious, for a number of reasons. But given the claim, I felt the New Testament and Old are relevant. If the Mormons found reason for why monogamy is the correct arrangement in the Book of Mormon then fine. It is clear that the Book of Mormon is not against monogamous arrangement being the preferred social norm. Obviously the FLDS is not wiggy with all that.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
BTW I saw this in the morning. 1/2 the 13 to 17 y.o.’s have been pregnant. I would like to see a breakdown by age. If it is anything close to a uniform distribution, this bunch of people is sick.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“Part of our democratic heritage is linked to our cultural heritage which is monogamous.”
First, you are confusing correlation with causation. Second, there is no correlation, either.
India has had a strict caste system for ages, but polygamy is illegal under Hindu law.
Similarly, China waas a polygamous society until the PRC took over. “The first law enacted by the PRC government was the Marriage Law of 1950.” Red China is not exactly my idea of a democratic society.
The lack of a polygamous, democratic society can be attributed to chance. Democratic societies are essentially limited to Europe and North America, and they were all monogamous long before they were democratic.
“when the man’s money translates into raw power and he picks her and she is powerless to say no, his money is not the issue, nor is it usually attractive. Its her freedom and how the given society values the individual, the rights of the individual, that are the issue. Not religious freedom.”
Now you are changing the subject from polygamy to forced marriages. Have you been taking debate lessons from Puffalump?
“As someone else here said, your argument is structured similarly to the one used by the gay marriage crowd. Rethink this.”
NO, it is not. The difference is that the gay marriage crowd want to require the state to recognize their marriages. I do not care whether the state recognizes these polygamous marriages or not. As I have pointed out before, I would rather the state not be involved in regulating or recognizing marriages whatsoever. Only government interference in our lives (taxation, regulation, etc.) neccessitates the government’s knowledge of our spouses and children. The only possible state interest would be to keep close kin from marrying, because of the increased risk of genetic disorders.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“As a true conservative, do you agree with me that sexual activity should not happen until marriage, and marriage should not happen until at least age 18?”
Why 18? Why not 16, or 21? Marriage before 18 was not uncommon here until the last century, and is still not uncommon in many parts of the world.
Part of our problem stems from the change in our culture itself. The economic progress that has occurred in the West in the last century has had two consequences. The young no longer need to work to feed the family, so they stay emotionally immature longer, but they are well-fed so they are physically mature sooner.
This has created teenagers who are physically ready for sex and childbearing long before they are emotionally ready.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Jack,
You might have also pointed out that chronological age in and of itself is not a necessarily good indicator of sufficient maturity to raise a child. I think this is particularly true of my generation, which many, thanks to the 60s, grew up, but never quite reached adulthood.
I know an 18 yr old with a two year old daughter, who has always been a much better mother than many I know twice her age.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Jack,
#43 hits the nail on the head. Most children today have no idea what it is to be responsible at 13. Bar/bat mitzvah in the Jewish community is still the norm, and it used to be the age at which a young man/woman was considered an adult. The truth of the matter is that Mary mother of Jesus was more likely 14 than 20. A woman would have been considered an old maid if she hit 25 without being married — today we look at “kids” getting married at 21 as being rather young.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
The Book of Mormon is what the LDS (prior to Utah becoming a state) sited in saying that it was appropriate for men to have multiple wives. The present day LDS are more like a liberal Christian church today that rejects what the Bible says in order to get ahead in today’s world, while the FLDS are the ones who stayed the course. Do you invest the religion to those that are in authority, or do you invest the religion in the “scriptures” of that religion?
The question is the essence of the split between the Protestant and Papal Christian churches. The Protestant churches say the Bible is what defines the church and overthrows those that claim to be in authority. The Papal Christian churches claim the church defines what the scripture is and has authority over the documents it contains. The FLDS are akin to Protestants, the LDS is akin to Papists.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am
“The Book of Mormon is what the LDS (prior to Utah becoming a state) sited in saying that it was appropriate for men to have multiple wives.”
Wow, that proves your ignorance to a degree that puts your whole argument to question. The Book of Mormon mentions polygamy only once - and in the negative. It basically blasts the behavior of men who use the actions of David and Solomon as excuses for their sexual sins. There is one scripture that can be interpreted as saying polygamy is allowed only when G-d commands it and that under exceptional cases.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Jettboy,
I do not have a copy of the book of Mormon, I know they were polygamists until statehood. What changed? Was it the book o Mormon or some other document?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
It was the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of revelations to Joseph Smith Jr. and a few other LDS prophets. The Book of Mormon was printed in 1830. Too many people who have no understanding of Mormonism conflate the two and often say that the Book of Mormon teaches something that it usually never even mentions.
The revelation that outlined polygamy as a commandment was put down on paper in 1834, although the informal revelation was said to have been around 1831-32. The document that discontinued polygamy as an acceptable earthly practice was in 1890. There was another document about the discontinuance around 1810. The religious contraversy between mainstream Mormons and break-offs is if the discontinuance document was a legal earthly document or a revelatory commandment.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
For your education, or amusement, I offer you the Book of Mormon scripture quotations in relation to polygamy:
“22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of polygamy coming from the foundational text of Mormonism. In fact, it actually condemns the FLDS practices if taken seriously.
The doctrine of polygamy comes from D&C 132, and reads as much like a legal document as a revelation. You can find it at “http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132″ if you want to read more. You can find the statement about ending the practice at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1 if you want to see that.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Jettboy,
Thank you for the link.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
R. W. Jones,
“As a true conservative, do you agree with me that sexual activity should not happen until marriage, and marriage should not happen until at least age 18?”
I will agree with you that sexual activity should not happen until marraige. Although hormonres and society seem to think it is okay to try the goods (like buying a car) before you commit, I believe it ruins a special gift and bond that belongs to your soul mate and lifelong partner. This is the sanctity of marraige that GOD created.
As far as what age this should all happen; that has been up to the states as they declare when someone is of legal age for adulthood. We can show in different cultures were it is commonplace to have young betroval (as early as 5). Children are brought up with this understanding and it is accepted. They may not have the maturity to know why it is done like this but they accept it. Kids in our culture don’t have the responsibilities at an early age where they can gain a sense of maturity. Most kids leave the house for college or the working world so immature that they tend to fail quickly and start on stray paths (crime, drugs, homeless wandering-gypsy if you will and even suicide).
When the state/gov’t decided to get into the marraige business it got all screwed up. It IS a religious occasion and ceremony and should be regulated by your religion. That being said, when do we determine that children are adults? After all, the burden of responsibility in marraige is a tremendous task and never to be taken lightly. If you can be married at 10 are you an adult with all priviledges? We join the military and vote at 18. In many states it is also considered the legal age of adulthood and independence. Why can’t they buy and own a handgun? Why can’t they buy or drink liquore legally? Why do we have so many arbitrary rules on certain functions at certain ages? Because the gov’t has interfered. This garbage of seperation of church and state has caused a false fault. Uniformity can be achieved if it is understood that religion and gov’t go hand in hand. If kids can be mature enough to raise a family at 12 thru work and understanding, they can also drive cars, carry guns, vote and drink alcohol. Maturity gains and strengthens with time. The question is when does it start and take hold?
May 1st, 2008 at 3:16 am
I stand corrected — and yes, I do conflate the two, as both claim to be revelation–and “new” revelation by the Judeo-Christian standard–which from the perspective of someone that wants to speak of all those revelations that Mormons claim to have followed the Christain Bible, not having a single moniker for the same (which holds distinguishes them from those scriptures received and accepted by the church in the 4th century) it makes it difficult to “single word” that description.
What I find interesting is the way the “revelation” that stopped the plural marriage practice is so out of character with what the Bible has in terms of revelation — for example, the book of Daniel in the OT is replete with instances of the faithful servants of God refusing to obey the laws of the land that are contrary to principle and the result is God saving them from the hand of the secular king. One of the most interesting is that of Nebuchadnezzar and the golden statue, and the requirement to bow and worship it. Daniel’s three friends are told either to bow and worship, or they will be thrown into a “fiery furnace”.
“Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. So these men were brought before the king, and Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up? Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?” Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.””– Daniel 3:13-18 NIV
The idea presented is that God’s people do not submit to doing what is contrary to God’s revelation, but would submit to punishment rather than disregard God’s direction. There are several cases of this within this small book, and all of them would lead me to question the position change as being from God. It is out of character with the God of the Bible. In fact, the last act of the Babylonian kings is such a story, and in it, the Babylonian king is told that he would die that very night. The historicity of the account used to be questioned greatly, as the city of Babylon had a very defensible position — the walls of the city were high, and the wall was wide enough upon which a chariot could be driven. The city was particularly difficult to lay siege against, as the wall encompassed fields for food, and a river flowed under one portion of the wall to provide water. With a near inexhaustible supply of food and water, the city was thought to be very secure. But the Persians knew that the only way to conquer the city would be to circumvent what would otherwise be an impenetrable wall. Recent (in the last 100 years) it was discovered that the Persians diverted the river that ran under the wall–essentially giving them an open door to the city through which the marched and conquered Babylon in a single day. God overthrew the government in a day. It would seem that if the Mormons were acting according to God’s revelation, God would act in a similar way in this country–it would have been a small thing to overthrow the United States for the God of all creation.
I would imagine those that left the LDS at that time would have thought the same way. God honors those that follow his word in the face of persecution, not those that turn away from his word because the local “king” declares they should not do what God commands. I’d also call the SCOTUS decision in the matter wrong — it clearly is religious persecution in the sense of going against that religion’s teaching when there is no way to justify the governments action. A “strict scrutiny” bar ought to be used, and should not be based on societal norms. The courts eliminated segregation on that basis (i.e., before segregation should be allowed, it should pass strict scrutiny) and even though there were huge implications to the structure of society, if that bar is not crossed by intrinsic rights of the state, the structure of society is not a barrier to overturning state and/or local code.
While I find the practice wrong — despite Jack’s arguments, I believe my logic not flawed — I also believe it is something based on religion, and that no religion should be given preference in this area over another.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
” It would seem that if the Mormons were acting according to God’s revelation, God would act in a similar way in this country–it would have been a small thing to overthrow the United States for the God of all creation.”
I have wondered this myself at times. However, once again this conclusion sounds good if you didn’t understand other related Mormon beliefs. To overthrow the U.S. would go against two other teachings that are of strict, if not more strict, LDS beliefs than polygamy. The first is free agency. Unless there is compelling reasons to do so, G-d will never force anyone to do anything. We are free to choose so that our faith can be as real as we decide. Those who chose to persecute the Mormons and force G-d’s hand will be punished in the next life.
Second, the reason G-d could not destroy the United States government and Constitution was because it was itself created by G-d. To destroy the U.S. would ultimately be “contrary to God’s revelation.” The only way the U.S. can be destroyed is if the people within it destroy it on their own.
Yes, I know that you don’t believe any of this. However, I am just trying get people to stop thinking they “know” what Mormons believe when nine times out of ten they don’t.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Jettboy,
“Second, the reason G-d could not destroy the United States government and Constitution was because it was itself created by G-d. To destroy the U.S. would ultimately be “contrary to God’s revelation.” The only way the U.S. can be destroyed is if the people within it destroy it on their own.”
I’m a little confused here which is easy for me. With the above mentioned statement you contridict yourself. Man created the Constitution and government. I will grant you that it was inspired with GOD’s help. That being said, if the people of the U.S. destroyed it, it would hold with the same premiss that it was inspired by GOD to have been done that way. GOD works it both ways or not at all. Which way do you want it?
Curious why you spell GOD as G-d? Have seen that before but don’t understand why you can’t spell it complete. Is this some kind of sin or blasphemy?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:29 am
I am not going to argue the “logistics” of Mormon teachings. That is not why I am writing all of this. The reason I am saying anything is that the collective ignorance of Mormonism (logical as you may or may not find it) has serious social and political ramifications. For two almost completely unrelated examples, think Mitt Romney and the recent American Idol. Despite what some reports seem to give the illusion of, Mormons are not stuck in the 19th Century unless you think all Conservatives live in that time period.
To answer you question about why I don’t add the “O” it is because of Jews I have known who I highly respect. They don’t like to spell it out completely because of religious considerations not to take the Holy Name in vain.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Jack,
Going back a ways …
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled polygamy unconstitutional in the 1878 case, Reynolds v. United States: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”
It appears the court has spoken on the matter. Polygamy is illegal AND fattening.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
And the Supremes are always right? Have they never overturned a previous decision? Do you not yourself advocate the overturn of Roe v. Wade?
The Reynolds decision is based on one thing: “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an ofence against society….”
No evidence is presented that polygamy is harmful to the Asiatic and African societies that practiced it.
The court has spoken on many matters — not always correctly.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
That is an interesting case. So if the “government” of society deems it offensive or detrimental to the people as a whole, the governments beliefs override any religious rites? Is that how I am understanding this?
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
This statement tells me that it is NOT the interfearence of religion in the State but that of the State to religion that seperation is built. If that being understood, the State is in VIOLATION when interfearing with religious beliefs. There are still societies that practice cannibalism, sacrifice, drug rituals, etc. As long as it doesn’t happen in a “safisticated” society then it is allowed. At this point I would conclude with the following statement; who made the government g-d?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Jack,
The punishment was harsh for that time. $500 isn’t chump change and 2 years at hard labor will wreck you. My question is; once he has paid the time, does he get to keep his second wife? No double indemnity and he did pay for it.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Nope, the second marriage is invalid.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Jack,
I would disagree being as the second marraige was done other than the government. If it was acceptable and PROMOTED by his religion then I am also assuming that whatever the government concluded, it didn’t change the religious doctrine to which he subscribes. Therefore he should have kept his 2nd wife.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Jack,
Reynolds has stood pat for over a hundred years, The means something
May 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Jack,
Under your way of thinking any activity in the name of religion then can stand. Drug use, child sacrifice, animal sacrifice, sexual acts etc.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:39 am
[…] belief system that is shared by all of these writers. NoVA Townhall blogger Jack has even explicitly defended the sect’s practice of institutionalized pedophilia, arguing that the marrying off of such […]