FLDS Raid Part II
In my part I post on the FLDS raid, I noted that according to our government, polygamy is illegal, and should not be practiced in the US. However, when it comes to the FLDS church, a religious institution, this group holds polygamy as a spiritual discipline, so why should it not be respected and protected under the Constitution? I am obviously playing devil’s advocate, but the tension is real.
An argument is often made about keeping religion out of the public square, and for the most part, I agree. I am wholeheartedly against having the 10 commandments in courthouses and the Bible in public school. If you have to have the Bible, then you must honor the Qu’ran, Kabbalah, and by definition… the FLDS church. But, it is so fascinating to watch which pieces we choose to legislate on and which we do not. We all have views, and they will be expressed in our social policy.
There is rarely a bright line as to what constitutes something being illegal, and what makes it legal. Polygamy, for example, was outlawed in the late 1800’s in direct response to Mormonism. The spread of Mormonism had caused a host of controversy and violence b/w the church and the govt. (You can read about in Under the Banner of Heaven, which I referenced in my previous post) Interestingly enough, at the risk of sounding like the “founding fathers types” who find Christianity in everything from pumpkins to the mayflower, to the pilgrims; the argument that was used was that America is a Christian nation, and does not permit polygamy, therefore, we have grounds to outlaw the practice. Years following this, the Mormon church officially changed their stance to be against polygamy, and even tried to hide the fact that their founding father was a polygamist himself.
However, freedom of religion is core to what it is to be American, so why do we still ban polygamy? What about immigrants who have multiple wives?
In the OT all of our heroes of the faith were polygamists and God did not explicitly ban it. Does this mean it was okay in the OT, and not in the NT and thereafter? How can something be sin for one generation and not for another? Isn’t sin, sin? These issues can be really confusing, and I will offer no exegetical answer, i will let your comments and a future post by meade debate that. It is such a tricky subject, b/c you have to ask the question, “If the FLDS members practicing polygamy were not abusing children and it was between multiple consenting adults, who are we to judge? Do we then judge Moses? David? Solomon?” What do you think?
For me, and I guess this is my feminist side coming through… my question always is… why is polygamy always one way? For instance.. I have never heard of one woman with multiple husbands. Why is it okay in the OT and in Mormonism for there to be one man with his little gang of chicks, but not one woman with her gang of hot hubbies?
Meade
amybaker
yngfrnkstn
v02468
May 2, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Polygamy is alive and well in America, just very quiet do to the laws of the land. There are plenty of women with more than one husband as well.
It is less common though because men are more competitive with each other and do not share well with one another.
Mine! Mine! Mine! — oh, and that’s mine too! LOL
May 2, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I always thought that polygamy was legislated against for the same reasons that you aren’t allowed to have human sacrifices. We have freedom of religion in the US as long as what we practice doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. I am not sure exactly what right polygamy violates, but it probably has something to do with children (or IRS tax code).
May 2, 2008 at 4:51 pm
tom you kill me! the thing that is so funny about all of this is that more conservative minded people are against it b/c they believe in one spouse, and more liberally minded folks are against it, b/c it’s just weird to them. but then there’s a whole host of other far categories on either side…
May 2, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I think if the culture was different, the OT could have a “woman with her gang of hot hubbies”. Consider it old school social workers.
May 2, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I’m not sure about the Conservative vs. Liberal divide on polygamy. Firstly FLDS i quite definitely and defiantly conservative yet are / were polygamist.
Heck, I’m Republican (Voted for Reagan, Bush, and Bush) but live a polygamist lifestyle with my two “wives.”
May 2, 2008 at 6:13 pm
jonolan… you illustrate much better what I was trying to get at… they are conservative by all measure.. yet encourage multiple partners. It shows how there can be vast differences for the reasons why people choose party affiliation.
AV: what? I am not really sure what you mean. But… does the culture then dictate whether or not it is wrong?
May 2, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I do think that the culture does dictate whether it is wrong or not. It may be something of a forced viewpoint on myself. If I thought there was a ‘better ethic’ in the NT than the OT it would force me to evaluate a lot of OT ethics that I would rather not reevaluate.
May 2, 2008 at 10:40 pm
jonolan: Please feel free to decline to answer.. but, how would you argue for your rights under the law and the Constitution? and, I must admit I am perplexed that you are a Republican, I would have guessed a libertarian. How do your “wives” fit in with your political beliefs?” I am just curious.
May 3, 2008 at 7:16 am
Amy,
I wouldn’t argue that my polygamy was a right granted by the Constitution; I’m a fairly strict constructionist. I might argue that th FLDS’ polygamy was protected under the freedom of religion clause of 1st Amendment. The legality or illegality of my secular-based polygamy is - if it’s anyone’s - a matter for the states to decide.
My “wives” - I quote this because only one is my legal spouse - are part of my political beliefs on insofar as my political beliefs include the thought that “marriage” should be considered - BY THE GOVT - as nothing but a partnership with right of survivorship and therefor should be bound only by contractual law.
Let the religions hold sway over what each of them claims is a marriage. But constrain the the government to regard all marriages or “civil unions” as for-profit corporate partnerships with specific rights grant by the principles to each other.
BTW: The above is how my family deals with property ownership and such.
May 3, 2008 at 11:16 am
I think polygamy should be legal but the way the FLDS church practices it is probably best left criminalized … it’s one thing to marry consenting adults but by bringing in children who have no choice, it becomes an excercise in indoctrination. Then again, if it were legal they probably wouldn’t have to indoctrinate children because adults could be more open about making the choice to be polygamous. They have no choice but to indoctrinate the children if they want to perpetuate their lifestyle/spritual obligation.
May 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I don’t practice polygamy, but I have ancestors who did. Here’s one question: the bible says not to have sex outside of marriage. Which should be outlawed? Polygamy or people having sex with multiple partners outside of wedlock?
I recently wrote a post on polygamy as well on my site:
http://www.graceforgrace.com
May 3, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I guess if human sacrifice were part of a religions practice, that should be protected under our laws? Society has laws for a reason, and if a religion’s practices don’t fall under those laws, then maybe those people should go somewhere and establish a new place to live like the Puritans did. The majority of people in this land tend to think that polygamy is abhorrent and does not belong in a civilized society.
May 3, 2008 at 6:42 pm
For more information on the Mormon organization, check out:
http://defendingcontending.com/category/mormonism/
I hope this will help you in your future examinations.
- The Pilgrim
May 3, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Daniel.. I agree that it should be left illegal, but forget indoctrination.. that is by legal definition child abuse and statutory rape. That is the grounds for the illegality, not the indoctrination.
May 3, 2008 at 8:48 pm
jonolan: you bring up an interesting point.. that being.. what two parties consider the purpose of marriage to be. For instance, if you see it as a more business arrangement such as you propose, the end policy result is one of health care, and financial type issues.
On state vs. federal policy. So… are you then saying that the legality should be determined by individual states, not federally?
May 3, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I agree indoctrination is not the issue because what is indoctrination? I’m going to “indoctrinate” my kids against racism and that’s okay. No one would say I should let them decide if they want to hate minorities for themselves when they’re older. We all “indoctrinate” others with our view of right and wrong.
Teaching people the truth isn’t wrong. The problem is some people want to teach things that aren’t true and we need an authority who can arbitrate between who is right. That’s one of the functions of the government. We’ve decided as a society that polygamy should be illegal. There are good reasons for this.
May 3, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Ama49:
I don’t think it makes sense to pit t exra-marital sex and polygamy against each other. That would be like saying should we be outlaw theft or assault as if we only get to pick one.
Regarding their illegality sex outside marriage has far fewer legal ramifications than polygamy regarding property ownership, care of children, and protection of children. We actually have laws to deal with a pregnancy that takes place outside marriage as well. If a guy gets a girl pregnant she can seek child support even if they weren’t married.
May 4, 2008 at 8:54 am
Amy,
It’s not so much a question of the purpose of marriage as it is a question of the government’s role in it. Marriage provides certain privileges and responsibilities under the law that are based largely on contract law. I think this should be the sole role of government in the matter.
Should of a Constitutional amendment being made, it should be a matter for the states to decide. Marriage is not a federal matter and should stay that way - IMSHO.
Meade,
I disagree with you. we don’t need am authority - a mortal one at least - to arbitrate what is truth or falsehood. We had that in the middle ages; it was called the Catholic Church and it was the sole arbitrator of “truth” in the west until Luther. History shows it wasn’t such a good thing…
Also, what good reasons are there for outlawing polygamy? If one sets aside religious prejudice, what is the basis for making it illegal? Most of the complaints leveled against polygamists are not actually leveled against the fact of the polygamy, but against other behaviors that they exhibit - FLDS for example.
May 4, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Jonolan:
There has to be an authority. I agree the government is a poor one but there must be one. Don’t you think if someone abuses a child it’s wrong and should be punished? Don’t you think if someone breaks into a home and steals property there should be an authority other than the victim who can see justice done? Authorities have their danger but chaos is much worse because EVERYONE becomes an authority and there’s widespread violence.
May 5, 2008 at 7:01 am
Meade,
You’re not actually trying to say that there’s a moral or societal equivalence between child abuse or burglary and polygamy are you?
May 8, 2008 at 8:57 pm
We could go on and on, arguing back and forth and sideways about the moral implications of polygamy, etc. etc. We could also argue about cults and whether they deserve the same kind of protections that recognized religions enjoy. And we could argue about society and convention and whether or not our social constructs are better than other groups’ social constructs. But to me the bottom line is this: if you are a citizen of this land, if you wish to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship, you must agree to abide by our laws. Those FLDS people at the YFZ ranch, regardless of their religious practices and theology, are required to obey both Texas law and federal law. In the state of Texas, neither having sex with a 15 year old girl nor marrying a 15 year old girl is legal; both are considered illegal and carry severe penalties under the law. Therefore, the state was right to intervene in order to uphold the law where it had been so openly and egregiously neglected.
If you want to test this out, simply do the following. If a member of a particular religious community was found to have thousands of child pornography images on their computer, and they claimed that their religion worshipped the naked bodies of 5-8 year old children, and thus what they were doing was holy and righteous, would they be set scot free? Hell no. They would be whisked away as a child pornographer, and they would have the proverbial book thrown at them, to the full extent of the law. If this is the case, then why is it somehow okay for 50 year old men to marry and screw 15 year old girls in a state where it is most definitely illegal? This is an indefensible crime, and all I can say to the FLDS people is that if you want to continue such practices, go find a country to live in where such practices are not illegal - surely they exist. But not in America.
If a person wishes to drive 100 mph on the highway, and they get caught doing so, it would be ridiculous for them to say that the law is wrong and that they should be allowed to drive 100 mph, since to them it’s right. No no no. That’s anarchy, and as soon as we fall into anarchy, no one is safe, and no one is free.
May 8, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The OT shows many of God’s people living in polygamist marriages, yet the NT seems to limit marriage exclusively to monogamy. This contradiction ought to be evidence enough that our belief of monogamy as “God’s law” is hogwash and merely a reflection of our biases. We decide what parts of the bible we believe are to be universally applied and which aren’t. Most conservative Christians have no problem with the idea that man is the head of the family and the church, yet think requiring a woman to cover her head to be old-fashioned and absurd. When will humans face up to their superstitions and give up this kind of enslavement to the past? Answer: never. For these reasons, although I don’t personally think polygamy would work for me, I have to admit that I”m against it only because it’s “weird” to me, and that as long as we’re not talking about any kind of wacko mind warping or cult brainwashing or child abuse, I guess I have to say that it should legal, just like homosexual marriage should be legal in the same circumstances. (and I’m a married, straight, Christian male)