A while back, one of my colleagues in the holy ministry asked me to comment on the situation with the polygamist cult in Texas. I got distracted, and have not yet responded. Now, I don't have to. Another colleague in the holy ministry, the Rev. James McDonald, has done so in a way that I can't add or detract from.Please take a moment to read his thoughts and analysis here.
He writes from the perspective of a conservative Presbyterian pastor, though I believe he is absolutely right that any stripe of conservative Christian should be concerned and wary over where this is going - even though we certainly don't condone polygamy and polytheism (I never thought I'd ever have to write such a thing, but these days, if you defend anyone as a matter of principle, there will inevitably be someone accusing you of being "one of them").
You Missouri Synod Lutherans who deny evolution and believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, who consider homosexuality to be a sin, who don't condone premarital sex, who oppose abortion and stem cell research, and who refuse to ordain women; you are only slightly less out of step with modern culture than these people. If you think conservative Christians will never be treated as an antisocial cult, just ask some of your Lutheran brethren in Sweden and Finland.
Thumbs up, Pr. McDonald. Thumbs down, State of Texas. And please pray for those hundreds of children caught between the pincers of false religion and the nanny state.
24 comments:
Do you know anything about how these children have been treated? The false report is very bad, and means that the case will probably eventually be thrown out. But regardless of this, social services do have a legitimate purpose, despite the very real abuses of power that we have all heard about.
Take a look at this article:
http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html
I agree that we are in very real danger of having "normal" redefined until we become the bad guys; but aligning ourselves in *any* way with these people is *not* the way to defend from that. It will only destroy our own credibility when people see the obvious lunacy of this group.
I liked Lutheran Lucciola's brilliantly simple take on the matter:
This is NOT normal: http://lutheranlucciola.blogspot.com/2008/04/polygamous-wives-clip.html
THIS is normal: http://lutheranlucciola.blogspot.com/2008/04/here-is-not-creepy.html
Anonymous makes a good point... but nevertheless- We do believe in freedom of religion.
Even if that religion is oddly messed up- people still have the right to follow it.
I agreed that Social services* needs to investigate problems like this where children are involved- but it should have happened better than it did- illegally obtaining DNA samples, and rushing the complex with enough guns and arms to slaughter a small army isn't how it should have been done.
* or whatever organization should be filling that role, be it social services or simply local law enforcement.
If people are abandoning their teenage boys (or girls) - be they FLDS or not - then they should be prosecuted for that. "Polygamy" or their religion has nothing to do with it.
Shelters all over the country are full of teenage runaways. Thousands upon thousands of kids are abandoned and abused by their parents. The FLDS folks should get neither special punishment nor deference. The vast majority of people in the USA who are neglecting and/or abusing their children would identify themselves as Christian.
Have *any* of these people in Texas been charged with abandoning their sons? And even if so, does this legitimize taking children from people who *haven't* done this?
I do have a problem with deciding who gets to keep their children based on "normal" and "abnormal", "creepy" and "not creepy." These are all utterly subjective. There are plenty of people who find Mennonites and Amish to be "abnormal" and "creepy" - who think they're abusing children and the state should take their kids from them because they are religiously different.
I'm sure there are people who find me wearing a cassock with my son riding my shoulders to be "creepy" and "not normal" - as well as our school that doesn't teach evolution, and makes the kids wear uniforms and say morning prayers.
There is a local guy who I find "creepy." He has a split tongue and surgically implanted devil horns. Definitely "not normal." But I hear he's a good father. Should the state take his children away?
And then there is Germany, the ancestral land of most of our LCMS Lutherans. Deutschland finds home-schooling Baptists to be "creepy" and "abnormal" to the point of illegality. Since these people don't want their children learning evolution and being indoctrinated with the homosexual agenda, the state finds these people to be dangerously antisocial, to be enemies of the state. The state has taken their children from them (and I'm sure many a Lutheran will just shrug and appeal to Romans 13 in defense of the Reich).
So, if we "align ourselves" (and I don't know what that even means) in *any* way with people like this, it could hurt our credibility?
I disagree. Right is right and wrong is wrong. What Janet Reno did in Waco was wrong (even though the Davidians were a really bizarre cult). The State has no right to take children away from parents based on prank calls, shoddy investigative work, and religious prejudice.
I don't believe Christians are called upon to stand up for what is right only if it will help their public image. I don't believe Christians are called to do the right thing only if it makes us look good.
If we would not tolerate the state acting this way to fellow Lutherans, Presbyterians, or homeschooling Baptists, we should not tolerate the state acting this way toward Mormons, Hare Krishnas, Atheists, or even Satan-worshipers. Either we are a society of law and order, or we are not.
The law must treat people equally no matter how unpopular their religion might be, without regard to how "normal" or "creepy" they might be.
And if the split-tongue guy is not abusing his children, it is not for me to try to get his children ripped from his arms and sent to live with strangers. Even heathens have parental rights, and more importantly, a bond of love between parent and child that is not something to be taken lightly just because we don't approve of their religion.
It is incongruent that the state does not take away children from a mother who has had several children from several different men - and yet takes children away from a mother who has had children from one man.
Dear Pr. Hoff:
Thank you! That incongruity is what needs to be examined. I believe the REAL motive isn't so much "Protect the children" as it is "Make these freaks conform."
I believe it is best to protect children without using the mantra "protect the children" as a means to coerce non-conformist religions into conformity.
If adultery is legal, than so is the "polygamy" practiced at this NLDS ranch. I don't condone it any more than I condone worshiping the devil - but that's also legal, and in a country where religious liberty is respected, it is not the role of the state to ensure Christian orthodoxy or cultural conformity.
"If adultery is legal, than so is the "polygamy" practiced at this NLDS ranch. I don't condone it any more than I condone worshiping the devil - but that's also legal, and in a country where religious liberty is respected, it is not the role of the state to ensure Christian orthodoxy or cultural conformity."
Polygamy as it is practiced in the FLDS pairs young, often UNWILLING girls with old men.
If adult "polygamy" is to be compared to adultery, then "polygamy" as it is practiced at this FLDS ranch is comparable to child prostitution and sexual slavery.
If they are under the age of consent, or are unwilling, then prosecute someone.
It should be really easy to find out who is 1) underage, and 2) of age, but under compulsion.
Removing 400+ children from their parents in a unilateral "sweep" is not addressing that problem. And why is it that the original complaint was a crank call?
Everyone is speaking in generalities, but justice is doled out based on evidence - not innuendo.
It just doesn't seem like I'm asking for a whole lot than to presume innocence and work from there based on evidence, not rumors. It's the way our constitution works - unless government officials are above the law.
Answering your questions one at a time....
If they are under the age of consent, or are unwilling, then prosecute someone.It should be really easy to find out who is 1) underage, and 2) of age, but under compulsion.Removing 400+ children from their parents in a unilateral "sweep" is not addressing that problem.
I think that in extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary measures are called for. We have learned from Waco and Jonestown the type of behaviour of which these cults are capable when they feel threatened, and the CPS didn't want to risk another tragedy by attempting to reason with people who have abandoned reason in favor of heresy and fanaticism. Maybe Texas went too far, but better safe than sorry.
Moreover, even if the leaders of the cult had allowed questioning of individual children, it is unlikely that the children and teenagers would have told them the truth regarding any abuse that was taking place, for fear of retribution. So, the best way "to find out who is 1) underage, and 2) of age, but under compulsion" was to remove them from the compound and place them where they could speak freely without fear retibution or punishment; the CPS did this in order to determine whether "they were under the age of consent, or were unwilling,", so as better to be able to "then prosecute someone."
And why is it that the original complaint was a crank call?
Don't know, but dark clouds have been known to occasionally have silver linings.
Divine Providence, perhaps? :)
Dear CJ:
Either we are under the rule of law or we are not.
Again, if the girls are under 16 and are sexually active, their paramours (unless they are under 18 themselves) are guilty of statutory rape. They know exactly who the girls 15 and under are, and which of them were/are pregnant. They can prove the paternity of their children with DNA.
If the girls are over 16, then they can have relations with whomever they want (legally). That's the law. Now, if they are coerced, that's called "rape." You investigate it, and prosecute it.
We can always say: "But they're lying." Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But how do we determine if a man is a rapist if his paramour of legal age insists that the sex was consensual? Prosecution requires witnesses or testimony or some kind of evidence. Whether we like it or not, in Texas, a 16 year old may legally consent to sex with anyone she wants (and until recently, so could 14- and 15-year olds).
The solution you advocate: Arrest all the children, toddlers, young men, everybody. Seize the children who are even pre-teens being raised in nuclear family situations or being raised by single mothers. Seize even children that nobody believes are being abused. And evidence? Why, we don't need that. Extraordinary circumstances, and all that.
That's why we put American citizens of Asian descent in prison camps in WW2. That's why American Lutherans were denied their constitutional rights as citizens in WW1. "Rxtraordinary circumstances" and all that.
Of course, according to the government, every day is an "extraordinary circumstance" that exempts them from obeying the law.
The Constitution was written to handle extraordinary situations, to put government in a box for a good reason.
Using trumped up evidence as a pretense, excusing unconstitutional conduct, and simply insisting that the girls of legal age who were sexually active "might be lying" and so we will continue to treat every member of the cult as a criminal is nothing less than fascism.
This, my friends, is why we Lutherans are always on our heels defending ourselves against the charge that we enabled the Nazis. That was a time of "extraordinary circumstances" as well.
When someone points out that the original complaint was a fraud, the retort is along the lines of the Wizard in the Alltel commercials: "My bad!" The answer is to ascribe the fraud to God by "divine providence" and make a little emoticon happy face.
The threat of a fraudulent call to Child Protection Services being sufficient to have your toddler taken from you isn't so funny when you have a toddler.
This isn't a football game. Hundreds of children have been taken by force from their parents' arms. Hundreds. All of them, as long as they are no longer nursing. Can you imagine what these children are going through?
This is totalitarianism. But every totalitarian makes the excuse that their "compassionate" totalitarianism is okay because it is aimed at "bad people".
No doubt there were actual thieves, murderers, and truly evil people among the 12 million people the Nazis had in their camps. No doubt at all. Good thing justice was done. "Dark clouds have been known to occasionally have silver linings." Maybe that whole "extraordinary" holocaust thing was "Divine Providence." Would you like to add a little "happy face" to that?
"And evidence? Why, we don't need that. Extraordinary circumstances, and all that."
They had evidence, in the form of a phone call from a sixteen year old girl who claimed that she was being abused. Whether or not the call later turned out to be a hoax, at the time that the CPS took action they had every reason to believe that the call was genuine, and they responded accordingly. Indeed, they were obligated to act upon the allegation made in the phone call as though it were true, for long as they had reason to believe that it was true, and this is precisely what they did.
A similar situation happens from time to time when pranksters activate fire alarms. Should the fire department hesitate in responding to a call until they know for certain that it is genuine, and not a fraud?
As for your statement,
"When someone points out that the original complaint was a fraud, the retort is along the lines of the Wizard in the Alltel commercials: "My bad!" The answer is to ascribe the fraud to God by "divine providence" and make a little emoticon happy face",
... nice try, but that is not the same as ascribing the fraud to God.
I'm sure they still teach in seminary that God knows everything, and sometimes uses His foreknowledge to bring good things out of people's bad actions.
Case in point, if the fire department answers a false alarm at an apartment building and finds no fire, but does find that someone in the building is in the process of having a heart attack, and needed their help, that would be Divine Providence, no doubt about it. Just because God uses someone's sin to bring about a blessing, does not make God a sinner.
Dear CJ:
Fascism always sounds good - until you find *yourself* behind the barbed wire. There was a Lutheran theologian named Martin Niemoeller who learned about it the hard way.
The "God knows everything, and sometimes uses His foreknowledge to bring good things out of people's bad actions" card can be used to justify and excuse any illegal or immoral behavior. It boils down to "the ends justifies the means." And that is not Christian theology, but rather Marxist ideology.
If we still actually followed the rule of law, evidence that is fraudulent, or that is obtained fraudulently, would be thrown out rather than serving as a de facto invitation to the invasion of private property.
If someone were to call a police hotline and leave an anonymous tip that you were a drug dealer, once that fact that the call was a prank, it would not justify the police arresting you for a few weeks to try to find something else to arrest you on (based, of course, on the presumption of guilt). That's the kind of thing we used to be *utterly aghast* about when the Reds did it. Now, the Red *States* do it - and American citizens applaud.
But then again, it's easy to be flippant when someone else's ox is being gored (or someone else's toddlers are being taken from their mothers' arms).
The "God knows everything, and sometimes uses His foreknowledge to bring good things out of people's bad actions" card can be used to justify and excuse any illegal or immoral behavior.
Certainly it could be used in that way, just as my automobile could be used as a getaway car in a bank robbery. But, I'd rather just use it to drive to the grocery store.
It boils down to "the ends justifies the means." And that is not Christian theology, but rather Marxist ideology.
I fail to see how anyone who knows God could ever claim that God's habit of bringing good from evil excuses evil behaviour. It only boils down to that when that is the only way in which someone is capable of viewing God's mercy and providence. (This is rather reminiscent of the dwarfs in CS Lewis's "The Last Battle", who wandered into heaven itself but could only see a dirty stable...)
As for your statement that God's use of His foreknowledge to bring good things out of people's bad actions is Marxist ideology, Paul says in Rom 8:28 that "we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose."
Paul was not a Marxist.
God used Satan to enter Judas to bring about the crucifixion, and thus mankind's redemption. God can (and often does) use even evil people and evil actions to further His plan.
And yet, Judas hanged himself, is in hell, and Satan is on the way there. Things turned out well from God's perspective, but not for Judas, not for Satan, and not for all those whom Satan deceives.
Just because God can "make lemons into lemonade" doesn't give us any right to simply shrug at evil, try to make sin out to be beneficial, or celebrate cruelty, violence, and unlawful behavior by elected officials. Sorry. You don't get a pass on those grounds.
The state is not God, and neither are you.
Having innocent children taken from their parents in households where no laws are even alleged to have been broken, simply because some of their neighbors may have committed crimes is simply evil and utterly contrary to the rule of law. And saying "Oh, well, round 'em all up and let God sort them out" with a little smiley face is utterly unchristian.
I suspect if *you* were victimized by an overzealous prosecutor or bureaucrat that thinks he is above the law you'd not be making such a twisted appeal to St. Paul to justify their wickedness.
If one of your children came home and said he just ran over a little old lady with the car because he was drunk and text messaging instead of paying attention, somehow I doubt that you'd say: "Oh well, don't worry about it, dear, divine providence. God will work it all out for good." At very least, you'd have to count on God not to do anything to fix your insurance rate that's going to go through the roof.
Evil has consequences, and can't simply be shrugged off by an appeal to God's sovereignty.
God used Satan to enter Judas to bring about the crucifixion, and thus mankind's redemption. God can (and often does) use even evil people and evil actions to further His plan.And yet, Judas hanged himself, is in hell, and Satan is on the way there. Things turned out well from God's perspective, but not for Judas, not for Satan, and not for all those whom Satan deceives.
Agreed.
Just because God can "make lemons into lemonade" doesn't give us any right to simply shrug at evil, try to make sin out to be beneficial, or celebrate cruelty, violence, and unlawful behavior by elected officials. Sorry. You don't get a pass on those grounds.
Agreed again. You'll get no argument from me on this, either.
The state is not God, and neither are you.
To which I say, "thank goodness", on both counts. :)
Having innocent children taken from their parents in households where no laws are even alleged to have been broken, simply because some of their neighbors may have committed crimes is simply evil and utterly contrary to the rule of law.
Whoops, hold the phone! This would indeed be contrary to the rule of law had it happened in an ordinary town, where where good people often end up living next door to lawbreakers and deviants through no fault of their own, BUT the FLDS community is not a town, it is an HOMOGENOUS, INTENTIONAL RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY, and laws HAD been alleged to have been broken, and HAD BEEN BROKEN -- there were sixteen year olds removed from the compound who already had borne several children!
Every person in that compound APPROVED of marrying off underage girls to old men -- this practice is intrinsic to the doctrines of their faith -- and so they knew that it was happening, and yet they chose to remain in that community, raising their own children in a faith which deliberately breaks the laws of the United States of America and abuses innocent girls. Even the monogamous couples inhabiting that compound are complicit in the underage sex and polygamy that was going on there, because they willingly practice a religion which teaches such things, and live in a COMPOUND (not a town) where everyone practices this religion. By being willingly complicit with CRIMINAL child sexual abuse, all of those parents forfeited the right to raise their children, whom they were willingly indoctrinating into a CRIMINAL lifestyle.
"And saying "Oh, well, round 'em all up and let God sort them out" with a little smiley face is utterly unchristian. I suspect if *you* were victimized by an overzealous prosecutor or bureaucrat that thinks he is above the law you'd not be making such a twisted appeal to St. Paul to justify their wickedness."
Who is justifying wickedness? If you remember, the statement about Divine Providence (and the smiley face which you find so offensive) was in answer to your question,
"And why is it that the original complaint was a crank call?"
to which I replied,
"Don't know, but dark clouds have been known to occasionally have silver linings.
Divine Providence, perhaps?" :)
I didn't try to justify the crank caller, and I didn't say that making crank calls is right, I only pointed out that God had brought good out of the call, and yet you persist in trying to make it look as though I said that since God brings good out of evil, therefore God approves of evil and fraud, and that a good outcome somehow justifies wickedness, when in fact I said no such thing.
In fact, assuming that seminaries still teach classes in logic, I maintain that you KNOW that I said no such thing, and are employing a fallacy to make it look as though I did.
ARE you doing that, Father Hollywood?
Dear CJ:
Though we have pretty major differences in our belief in the role of the state, I do appreciate your honesty.
You write:
"Whoops, hold the phone! This would indeed be contrary to the rule of law had it happened in an ordinary town, where where good people often end up living next door to lawbreakers and deviants through no fault of their own, BUT the FLDS community is not a town, it is an HOMOGENOUS, INTENTIONAL RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY, and laws HAD been alleged to have been broken, and HAD BEEN BROKEN -- there were sixteen year olds removed from the compound who already had borne several children!"
You admit that this is a double standard, that these people are not being treated as you or I would, but rather because of their religion. They are losing their children not because of anything they have done, but rather because of a "thought crime."
Others won't admit to this, but you do. I disagree, but I appreciate your candor.
I believe that each individual is entitled to be treated equally under the law. There are no "extraordinary circumstances" where the state can pick and choose whose rights to respect or ignore based on thought-crimes or religious belief.
The people who acted illegally need to be prosecuted. The innocent need to be protected. And I know you agree with that statement. Where we disagree is what constitutes guilt. You believe that any member of the FLDS is not entitled to have children, that simply by virtue of their membership in this religion, the state is justified to take their children away - regardless of whether or not they have done anything illegal.
And why would you assume seminaries "teach classes in logic"? Your statement is what is known in logic as a "non sequitur." You could also call it a "red herring."
Excellent points, Cynthia. I certainly saw the logical fallacies being applied to your argument and I am glad that you have born with them patiently and continued to make your points.
Father Hollywood,
Cynthia's point about this not being a town but a homogenous religious community is at the heart of this issue. She is also correct that those who stood by, even though they were not guilty of the same crimes, were complicit because they knew about these crimes and did nothing to stop them.
If my neighbor is forcing his daughters to be sex partners with (old) men and I knew about it and did NOTHING to deliver those girls who were being oppressed, then I am complicit in that crime. As far as I am aware, it is against the law NOT to report a crime, no? How much more complicit am I if I am living in a commune, abiding by the rules of this sexually perverse religious system and I wholeheartedly support it even though I am not, personally, guilty of forcing a daughter of my own to be a sex partner with a much older man? Surely my young daughters are in danger of such a thing and my complicity in the crimes that are happening around me make me more than suspect.
You admit that this is a double standard, that these people are not being treated as you or I would, but rather because of their religion. They are losing their children not because of anything they have done, but rather because of a "thought crime."
Almost. The trouble is, this goes beyond "thought crime" -- these people are teaching thier children that it is their religious duty to BREAK THE LAW and follow a religion that forces underage girls to copulate with older men. This is a crime in itself - it is called, "contributing to the delinquency of a minor."
Let's look at this in another way: Rastafarians smoke marijuana in their religious services. If a bunch of them were to form a community and teach their kids that it is their religious duty to smoke pot when they grow up, in defiance of local, state and federal law, what then?
And why would you assume seminaries "teach classes in logic"? Your statement is what is known in logic as a "non sequitur." You could also call it a "red herring."
Sorry about the fallacy, I honestly thought that ALL seminaries required logic and philosophy classes. Are you saying that yours didn't?
Dear Corrie:
If people know about crimes being committed and do nothing, then they can be charged with conspiracy. Of course, proving what people know and when they know it is next to impossible. And, of course, one solution is to presume guilt, and make membership in the religion itself illegal. That's how the Chinese handle such things.
And once again, pregnant teens are ubiquitous. Pick any city in the U.S. and you will find thousands upon thousands of situations of illegally sexually active young girls. And once again, we don't round up the "studs" and take children away from the mothers who are involved in criminal sexuality.
The double standard in this case just doesn't seem to bother anyone.
But thanks for writing.
Dear CJ:
The Rastafarian example is really illustrative. We Lutherans were in exactly that boat during prohibition. The only legal use of the equally-illegal drug alcohol was for sacramental use.
Even to this day, I routinely pour alcoholic beverages from my very hands into the mouths of children. I'm sure there are some people out there who would want me imprisoned and my son taken from me.
We have become a nanny state of busybodies and scolds. Instead of prosecuting real crimes, we want to state to enforce our religious values.
In children under 16 are having sex, those who are having sex with them should be prosecuted. If children 16 or over are having sex, I don't like it. I would implore them not to do it. But I certainly disagree with arresting people for thought-crimes and taking their toddlers from them.
And why would a seminary, a master degree program, teach logic (which is an undergraduate subject)? That's like teaching long division in a bachelor of arts program.
The Rastafarian example is really illustrative. We Lutherans were in exactly that boat during prohibition. The only legal use of the equally-illegal drug alcohol was for sacramental use.
Even to this day, I routinely pour alcoholic beverages from my very hands into the mouths of children. I'm sure there are some people out there who would want me imprisoned and my son taken from me.
There just might be, but the law of the land wouldn't back them -- sacramental wine was not illegal during Prohibition, and it's not illegal now, no matter the age of the recipient.
There is no such provision for the sacramental use of marijuana, however (except for in Alaska), and so any Rastafarian who teaches his children to use it is teaching them to do so in defiance of the law, and is therefore contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
There is thus NO comparison to be made between sacramental wine, which is legal for anyone regardless of age, and "sacramental" marijuana, which is ILLEGAL for EVERYONE regardless of age.
And yes, logic IS generally an undergraduate course. The seminaries with which I was familiar in my youth were mostly connected with colleges, and those seminary students who had for some reason not taken logic courses at the undergraduate level were required to go back and pick them up before being allowed to proceed very far in seminary.
So, I take it that you took logic as an undergraduate, and thus easily recognise a fallacy when you see (or employ) one? :)
Dear CJ:
I think your appeals to "the law of the land" are most illustrative. Until a couple years ago, the "law of the land" in Texas allowed children of 14 years old to have sexual relations legally.
The "law of the land" in Saudi Arabia allows decapitation of Christians.
The "law of the land" in the United States formerly permitted slavery, putting people in internment camps based on ethnicity, and even genocide in the case of certain Indian tribes.
The "law of the land" in Nevada allows prostitution and the "law of the land" in California allows medically prescribed marijuana.
The "law of the land" in every state in the union permits infanticide. That doesn't make it right, just, or in accordance with God's law.
You put a lot of faith in "the law of the land." But if we follow your desire to allow a two tiered legal system, one for politically-correct religions and one for politically-incorrect religions, soon that "law of the land" will be used against anyone who opposes abortion, the teaching of evolution, and female ordination.
Do you think that sounds extreme? Ask German Baptists and Swedish Lutherans whose churches are part of the Mission Province.
All I have been saying all along is that children ought not be removed from their parents without due process. People cannot be presumed guilty based on their religion. No-one seems to be able to explain how it is that a single mother, who was never even suspected of abuse, who has not been charged with anything, has had her toddler taken from her with no due process whatsoever.
That, madam, is diabolical. And if you believe this is good, just, and noble, than you cannot worship the Triune God. You worship someone else.
Put your faith in Jesus instead. You need to repent. That is why you are spending more time on my blog than you should be. How much time have you spent today praying for these folks?
But if that's not your thing, then maybe you should get your own blog. They're really easy to set up, and they are completely free.
Pax,
Rev. Larry Beane
Post a Comment