Pine Belt Progressive

Thank you for your comment, Leon.

1. I am using the word “abuse” not as a matter of subjective judgement, but in the sense that I have read about women and children being subjected to abuse in the legal sense of the word, I don’t take your appeal to semantics seriously.

2. Rather than relying on sensationalized news stories, I am relying on information from a blogger I’ve been reading for a long time, who discloses the sources of her information, who adheres to intellectually sound methods in her writing, and who has a lot of experience studying groups who share similary characteristics with FLDS.

3. Rape is abuse. Trading women like cattle is abuse. These are allegations that have been made by the authorities against men who exercised authority in this group. I agree that every individual involved should have their status determined by a court. That’s a cornerstone of due process. I think it’s pretty clear from the post that I’m all for some due process.

4. If you’re going to appeal to semantics on the word abuse, I hope you’ve got some supporting information at your blog to show where you got all the information you’re spewing here to support an argument that comes very near the category of legalistic rape apologies I’ve been hearing all my life.

5. Your comment about T.V. is specious because you aren’t even making an attempt to compare apples to apples.

6. Your prediction that this will mainstream polygamy is preposterous, though it could very well mainstream acquiescence, on First Amendment grounds, to separatist groups who hold themselves beyond the reach of our public laws, which applied to everyone (except the President and his cabinet) last time I checked.

7. The way you link polygamy with civil unions is pure sophistry, and this sophistry alone is grounds for a reasonable and informed person to dismiss your argument out of hand. I didn’t do that, because I’m all about some friendly conversation here, and I want you to understand why I object to your opinions on this matter.

Saifuddin,

Thanks for your comment.

The fact that some wealthy people are able to evade the laws is a matter of power and privilege. I don’t like it. When I see it I try to point it out, because it is destructive, too. It’s a big reason our public policy is in shambles and we’re fighting an illegal war this very minute. But it’s not the same thing as permitting situations like the one I’m discussing in my post to be regarded as normal or simply ignored out of a misguided sense of individualism or by playing a game of “gotcha” with constitutional arguments.

If you’re going to include Jews in that statement, you really need to cite a specific case and explain why you think this behavior is determined by Jewish identity as opposed to other sociological factors. In the post above, I’m drawing some general conclusions from a specific case. You’re making a general statement about Jews without any support to back it up. So you expose yourself to charges of bigotry, whether you’re intending to make a bigoted statement or not. None of the Jewish people I’ve ever known have asserted, on religious grounds, that they are free to disregard our civil laws in the same way FLDS seems to be asserting that they are free to disregard them.

You haven’t persuaded me that I should abandon the statement you quote.

General comment:

I expected a fair amount of ridicule and disagreement when I published this, but it is not “unthoughtout.” And, I’m having a good laugh about seeing that particular criticism as alloneword.

er . . . I should have said “medical professionals” instead of therapists in that last comment.

Seems like the sort of discussion where precision is becoming more and more important with every word I write.

I would love to know why this touches such a nerve with people, but credible evidence that the President approved of his advisors choreographing torture in the situation room of the White House does not? I’m not being snarky here. I honestly wonder that.

David,

1. Has it been established beyond doubt that this was a prank call, or is this what FLDS officials are saying about it?

2. Are the children being taken away, or are custody hearings where facts can be established and evidence presented in the works?

I think your remark about “harvesting Catholic children” suffers from the same problem my “traded like cattle” comment that you were so quick to point out suffered from. Only, like, to the tenth power.

Lol right back, I guess.

Hey man, all I did was ask a couple of questions based on your previous comment. I thought you might have some info to share I wasn’t aware of.

Last I heard there was an investigation going on to determine whether the call was fake or not, and the woman Swinton made the other phone calls to in Arizona had serious doubts about her being the same caller.

I’ve lived in Texas. I know the law in Texas likes them some arrest and punishment. No need to patronize.

I have no clue what the intention of the authorities is in this specific case. I also haven’t said they’re doing a good job handling the case. It’s chaos! But, the sort of coercion that seems to go on in that sect (note: books have been written about it and people who have gotten out have stories to tell) makes me think it’s important for this to be sorted out. That means lawyers and hearings. Some of the lawyers representing the children are being very critical of the process, and they should be. But that doesn’t mean everyone simply says “no harm, no foul” and lets these people just go back to what they were doing without taking a closer look.

Sorry if that doesn’t satisfy you. Believe me, it takes a lot of restraint to approach this issue the way I’m approaching it. It would be much easier to just wave a First Amendment flag without thinking very much about the other issues — issues which I think are more important in this specific case. But easy isn’t always best.

I may change some of my opinions and may give the authorities a thorough criticism before this is done. But here’s an opinion that ain’t changing:

It is important that groups like this NOT have their own judicial systems or their own medical professionals who are in the tank for the leaders and able to consign people to mental institutions for failing to abide by the standards of the group.

When did Texas raise the age legal age of parental consent?

I’m sympathetic to your point, bitterbarn.

But I can also play the reverse card, if we want to make it about religion. What if this were about Islamic Americans asserting the right to enforce an extreme form of Sharia Law? Would all these people who are saying this is first and foremost about the oppression of a not-mainstream religion still be saying that? If we want to make it about religion, and we’re humoring one another and pretending, there are lots of ways to go.

Not that I don’t see what you’re getting at. I’m hoping to wade off into the religious questions soon. But, I see the First Amendment issue as the easy out on this. 13 and 14 year-old girls who are raised in isolation and subjected to arranged marriages to men who three times their age have human rights, too.

I honestly do believe that the way these people have set up this system place themselves outside the law and to prevent women from leaving should they choose to do so is a legitimate rule of law issue. I honestly believe that’s the most important point. Without the rule of law, we got no civil liberties, anyway. We already have an executive branch that’s placed itself above the law, which is what I normally write about. We don’t need separatist groups with their own court systems as well. That’s the issue for me. This is one piece of a larger pattern of disintegration.

Sorry you thought my post here was too emotional. Your point about needing to be better-informed is well taken. I wish I’d made a better case here, myself. I gave into the pressure to keep the blog fresh, and hadn’t written a long piece here in a while. This one obviously wasn’t ready for publication, but I believe that if I had the amount of time to work on this that I would spend on a graduate-level research paper, I could make this case.

And as I said earlier, due process is very important to me. If the warrant used here is invalid, or if there are misdeeds on the part of the authorities, I’ll be the first to say that there should be some serious consequences for that.

Thanks for your very constructive criticism.

And I’ll add: Keep in mind that the ACLU has more on its plate than it can handle all the time. I’d hesitate to label them hypocrites considering that it seems all these people who are caught up in this chaos have representation, and they have issues like torture and spying to deal with.

Not that it isn’t a valid question. Having dealt with the ACLU in the past, I’ll advise you further:

Go ask the Texas Chapter of the ACLU. It would be their perogative to address this case or not. That’s what the national chapter would tell you if you contacted them. They would also ask whether or not you’d checked to see if anyone actually requested ACLU involvement.

And the reason I haven’t said that they should not be allowed to practice their religion is because I am at the moment dealing with the fact that as soon as I engage the religious elements of this equation, these people’s right to free exercise is going to collide with some human rights that children have that I, personally, view as non-negotiable in any circumstances. That’s going to be tough to deal with. I’ll tell you, I wish I’d skipped this post and just gone straight to that one instead, even though I think most of what I’ve said here is sound and will bear scrutiny; and even though I think what I’m trying to say here needs to be said. Maybe the other commenters here have enjoyed it (I hope so!), but for me, it’s been counterproductive, because I provided too much material here that people can quote without saying much about the actual point I’m trying to make. That’s my problem as the writer. It’s not the readers’ problem.

This could go on for days with no more progress than I’ve already made here if some people wanted it to. That’s a lot of time spent not reading and not writing. The trade off between discussion and writing is probably the sickest part of blogging to me. Both are important, but I’m not one of those people who can do both at once. And the tone of this post is all wrong. This is definitely first draft material.

Still, thanks to all for visiting and commenting. I hope you stop back by and read more of my work.

David -

Good the ACLU is involved. I went way over the top on this. I should have made the point that I though the decision to intervene was the appropriate decision, if the authorities thought the call was genuine at the time. I should have made it in more moderate language, and then I should have devoted more attention to how this case is being conducted. Just because intervention is needed doesn’t mean it’s being handled the right way.

What set me off was my perception (right or wrong) of a lot of people who have enabled the near-complete shredding of the Constitution over the past seven years with their votes and their silence suddenly becoming constitutional scholars and drowning out other issues, now that they have a free exercise case to yell and scream about. Hypocrisy in matters as serious as this one — especially when the lives of young people or the Constitution are involved — is one of those things that drives me over the edge. I felt the need to be forceful, but I proceeded too hastily.

The irony, and the very important lesson about how easy it was for me to reverse roles with those people is not lost on me, and I am taking it to heart. It’s not a new lesson, but it’s one I obviously needed to be reminded of. I can’t remember the last time I came down on the side of the authorities the way I did in my original post here. This may be the first time ever. I wasn’t aware of just how much latitude I was allowing them, which is also odd. I don’t usually post without a more thorough examination of what I’m saying. That’s life with no editor, though. Live, learn, etc.

Either the political climate in this country, or the my own state of mind, (or both) has reached the point where it’s nearly impossible to trust the good faith of anyone I don’t have an established relationship with. That goes double for people who comment here and leave a link that turns out to be a blog with the word “Conservative” displayed prominently at the top. The phrase “fear and loathing” applies here.

Your suggestion toward a solution seems reasonable in its basic elements, and provided appropriate monitoring, I would not have a problem with it.

Having said all that, I think there is a significant risk here of basically acquiescing to the line of reasoning that a person can claim religious freedom and do pretty much anything, provided they do it behind a wall on private property. I’ve been thinking that for a while as I’ve tried to keep tabs on this and watched the way it’s being covered and the things that are being said all-around.

And I hope that once this issue gets mostly sorted out,and no longer in the news, the people who are so concerned about this will keep a close eye on the way some people with unpopular religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) are treated in this country from here on out. Especially groups which are not Christian. I understand the situation in Texas is pressing and involves a huge number of people. It ought to be very carefully scrutinized and the authorities ought to be held to a high standard. It is Texas, after all. Just saying: If religious freedom is something a person really worries about, they ought to be paying attention to some other things that have been going on, too.

And I’m not backing off on my basic opinion that FLDS in particular needs to be more closely regulated than they are now. There must be a better way to balance their liberties against the public good than the one we’ve had for the past few decades.

RE: Your comment about the legal change. I found the date and sponsor in a news report earlier today, but the background info is very helpful.

bitterbarn, in reference to your last comment:

Thanks for letting me know about that law and it’s very late repeal. I had no idea. I have no doubt that anti-Mormon sentiment is pretty high in Texas. But I would caution you not to assume that every case worker, lawyer, and policeman involved on the side of the state is virulently anti-Mormon. That’s just as bad as assuming that all FLDS members are crazy. There are legitimate law enforcement concerns with this group, and some of these authorities may be making a sincere effort to do what’s right in a situation that presents many tough choices. The bottom line is that if you have a problem with stereotyping groups, it’s important that you do not stereotype any group. The rest of your comment intrigues me enough to explore further.

1. Are you aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has disavowed all affiliation with FLDS?

2. Since you’ve mentioned fundamentalist baptists, I’d like to talk about fundamentalism a bit more. I try to do some occasional writing here as a Christian against fundamentalism, so fundies in general are something I pay a fair amount of attention to. I think it’s interesting that you direct a negative comment toward Baptist fundamentalism. I think it’s legitimate to do so, if I understand your point. But, I wonder what you think about the fact that FLDS is also a fundamentalist group. I understand why you might think it important to look out for FLDS members in this specific case. But, what do you say about FLDS’ half-century history of the sort of misogyny that makes Baptist fundamentalist attitudes toward women look progressive by comparison? What do you say about their economic exploitation of their members and their child labor practices?