Wow did I get a great response from my Alas! A question. . . post. I am thrilled at the dialogue and comments that were submitted. There was also a great variety of perspectives. So thank you to everyone who contributed!Some of the comments brought out questions or comments that I would like to respond to.
Ki said, "I would like to hear more about what the difference between consensual and abuse type are. Not many people understand that there is a non-abuse type polygamy."Essentially the distinctions are the same as in monogamous relationships. As long as the participating individuals who enter into polygamous relationships are legally adults (18+); are doing so by there own free will and choice; strive to raise any children which come into that relationship as happy and healthy members of society; and do not abuse the welfare system; I classify this as an acceptable, consensual relationship. Conversely, any polygamous arrangement which involves underage children (17 or less, and don't send me your bogus arguments...if monogamists can wait till 18 -- SO CAN YOU!); any forced marriage; children that are raised in neglect and/or duress; and misuse the welfare system; I classify this as an abusive system.
I had a couple of comments advising the use of the constitutional argument. I whole heartedly agree with the constitutional argument and it is a strong argument. However it takes a an amendment to change the Constitution. That is why I chose the privacy argument, there is already a judicial precedence and decriminalization is a ready and relatively painless solution.
There were some comments to the affect that citizens don't get to pick and choose which laws they follow, illegal is illegal, and how the "just law" argument can be used to pervert justice. I understand all these points and believe it or not, I agree with them. Rather than create a 10 page blog outlining the distinctions between my argument and the the points made, I would like to recommend a book: The Roots of American Order by Russell Kirk.One of my commenters strongly stated, "I don’t like your hypocritical and bigoted (or ethnocentric) arguments at all. It may be fun to brand government officers as hypocritical but it is lame. And implying a whole nation is bigoted is whiney victimhood."
Hmmm. . . how do I address this one. . . Well, to start out - I'm sorry you don't like my hypocritical, bigoted, and ethnocentric arguments. You don't tell me why. . . I suspect you don't like the big ugly words. Let me assure you I did not throw them around lightly nor did I use them inaccurately. Let me ask you, why don't you like those arguments? Is it the arguments you vehemently dislike, or the labels? Why don't you like those labels? More importantly is there some truth to my use of these descriptions?
I don't have a problem if others disagree with polygamy. I respect if others believe the practice is immoral, against their religious tenants or traditions. I would hope their objections are thought out and reasonable instead of reactionary. None the less, it is something else entirely to jail pluralists for the practice. Especially if the impulse to incarcerate is born of prejudice and cultural bias.
Now to address the "It may be fun to brand government officers as hypocritical but it is lame." This is ironic because I felt I exercised a great deal of restraint when it came to this issue. What is more, I was particular to indite only those politicians, justices, and legislators "who formulate and pass laws, prosecute citizens, seize assets, and break up families to pander to the prejudices of their majority constituents." Let me assure anyone who agrees with this comment, I don't flippantly view my pointed remark as "fun", and my criticism is certainly not lame. What is lame is to have a judge, on the flimsy evidence of a phone call (later proved to be entirely false), order a combined law enforcement force to roll into a town in tanks, with riot gear, and automatic weapons and seize all the women and children.
I wonder what these girls will think when Officer Friendly comes to school and passes out plastic badges and coloring books?
Is it lame to criticize the unjust exercise of power by those in authority?
As a hypothetical situation, how many would think I was having fun and being lame if I criticize officials who rolled into the Village in Manhattan with tanks, riot gear, and automatic weapons then placed under custody all the children of homosexuals and their biological parents, while arresting a few of the life partners? I wonder, would the same judge and executive officials do the same to a gay community-- because of a phone call?! Why should I refrain from branding as hypocrite a legislator to craft bills that specifically targeting the minority alternative lifestyle of polygamy but wouldn't dare do the same to other minority alternative lifestyles that are more generally accepted and empathized with by the public? Where are the task forces established by state attorney generals, governors, and funded by the state legislatures to stigmatize other entire minority groups and specifically target and prosecute them?
At no time did I imply that the entire nation was bigoted. I invite you to carefully read my post again. I did emphatically state it is bigotry to jail polygamists for bigamy.
To close on an up note, I am grateful for all the comments and viewpoints (even if they stir me up). It is good for me to find out what they are and learn from them. I hope some of my responses stir your feelings and cause you to think deeply about some fundamental (no pun intended) and complex issues. As good ol' Socrates put it, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Thank you and keep the comments coming!
7 comments:
Okay buddy:
1. Thank you for further information on the concept of a non-abusive relationship.
2.Thank you for the book recommendation--but I've got enough on my plate, so why don't you give me a sentence or two on why you get to disobey laws, but illegal immigrates (who aren't doing anything else wrong) are criminals.
(And don't bother with the Susan B. Anthony or Rosa Parks arguments. Things would have changed anyways because people were pushing for the change when it happened.)
3. As for the anonymous comment . . .I couldn't find the whole thing when I went back looking for it, but I could guess a little by your response to it.
I'm going to just point out that they only threw out those words (hypocritical, bigoted, and ethnocentric) because you did. I guess if it's good enough for everyone else, it's good enough for you?
And if you squint your eyes and turn your head a little I can almost see their point. It is hypocritical to say you believe in following the law, and then disobeying it. All your arguments for legal plural-marriage were "ethnocentric" just because you are defending your "ethnic center."
Now, advocating the rights of consenting adults to live as they please, without being punished: I'm having a hard time seeing that as bigoted.
Oh! Wait! I know! You're a bigot because you called everyone else names.
Which could be dispensed with in the future if you wanted to please more people. But I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say you probably aren't much of a people-pleaser.
Good post.
P.S. I think one tank photo was more than enough. Really, are you trying to inflame our emotions?
Definitely food for thought, and obviously a topic that hits home. A forum community I post on has a rather substantial interest in all things mormon (I use the term loosely) and thus kept a very close eye on the whole raid as it was happening, and as details began to finally filter through. Many of those whose opinions I respect were outraged at the treatment these people recieved. While many of them are repulsed by a bigamist lifestyle, the, dare I say, abuse many of these families suffered at the hands of the authorities repulsed them far more. I could go on, but suffice it to say, there was a great deal of discussion, and at the very least, sympathy for the victims, however they were defined.
I am curious, as I think Ki mentioned in a comment on the previous post: Where is the line drawn? If someone's religion seeks human sacrifice, and consenting adults willingly give themselves to that cause, should it be allowed under the Constitution? On a less extreme note, and bringing my comment forward to this new discussion: Does your desire to decriminalize bigamy apply to both sides of the coin? Would you stand by a woman desiring multiple husbands under the same guidelines? Namely, all being consenting adults, not abusing each other or the welfare system? Thanks for stirring the pot man! :D
Hello Ki, love your feedback!
1. Your most welcome
2. I hope you will have the chance to make room on your plate because it is a great book.
First of all, I don't get to break laws and I do not believe I am above the law. I have made the choice and accept the responsibility that any day the legal authorities could knock on (or knock down) my door, arrest me, put my family under custody, and seize my assets. I am not an anarchist who is seeking to do away with the rule of law and government, I am living in civil disobedience to a law I believe is unjust and working by my small means within the system to bring about change. None the less, I am fully aware I am subject to the potential consequences.
I am frankly stunned by your dismissal of Susan B. Anthony and Rosa Parks. . . but at your request, I won’t bother.
3. I am lost as to what you’re saying in paragraph one and two, sorry, so I won’t be able to respond.
I hope my points above clear up the hypocrisy issue in paragraph three. Yes, I am defending my point of view and I hope I am doing a respectable job. Is this ethnocentric? Let’s take a look. Webster’s Dictionary Online defines the word as meaning: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior. Now let’s examine two examples. Person A states, “Polygamy IS abuse!” Is this ethnocentric? Yes. Why? Because there is no factual basis for this assertion, this is an unreasonable argument based on a cultural bias and value system. Person B states, “Polygamy between consenting adults should be decriminalized because the law is unjust and it violates the judicial precedence for privacy.” Is this ethnocentric? No. Why? Because this argument is not founded in cultural bias. Asking that a minority group’s civil rights not be trampled on is not ethnocentric.
I am advocating the rights of consenting adults to live in polygamy without being punished. . . and you’re right, it does to fit the label of bigoted. Good ol’ Noah Webster defines bigot as: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Therefore, your assertion that I am a bigot is false because your definition is inaccurate and does not apply. What is more, by your own definition I am still exonerated. I have not called everyone else names. In fact, as stated in my post, except for a handful of unjust politicians, judges, and legislators whom I labeled as ribald hypocrites, I have called no one any names.
Those who advocate change and prick the moral conscious are seldom viewed as people-pleasers.
I am glad you think it is a good post.
Hello lovesuddenly,
The short answer, yes. I believe the decriminalization of bigamy should apply to both sides of the coin. This leads to your first point, then where do we say stop? I will drum a post that addresses the issue, so keep readin and sending me your comments.
You might not favor 10 page blogs, but I seem to favor ten page replies. I think you partially missed an aspect of Ki’s question about abuse. You touched on under-age problems, the importance of free-will choices, neglect of children, and abuse of the welfare state problems. So far, so good. But there is more.
Wife Abuse. Free-will is a cornerstone of proper relationships, but there is more to it. Free-will monogamy marriages may also involve abuse. Not only must the relation begin with free-will, but free-will must continue. Lack of compulsion and duress throughout the relationship is vital. If a wife feels trapped (unable to risk possible alternatives) or coerced either by her faith, fear of damnation, fear of retribution by her community, or husband, there is a potential for abuse. From my own study of plural marriages in early Utah it is obvious that freedom of choice was FAR greater in Utah than in Massachusetts from the 1852 to 1893 (based on the number of divorces and remarriages). However, abridgement of free-will is normally more of a symptom than the definition of what people think of in abuse situations.
It is physical, sexual, or verbal abuse that most think of when considering abuse. Since most “Mormon” polygamy is patriarchal, this conjures up images of commanding fathers who expect uncompromising obedience from wives and children. This image is “doubled-down” by a respect (reverence?) for priesthood in Mormon culture. Is there any more of a tendency for husbands to physically strike their wives or children in polygamous families than in monogamous families? Or to yell? Or sexually abuse them? You see far more plural marriage families than I do. On average, do you consider physical or verbal abuse more common per capita in plural or in monogamous marriages? From your own experience what do you think? Are there any statistical studies?
Tapestry claims sexual abuse is rampant in plural marriages. But then, Tapestry is melodramatic, and a highly emotional advocacy group. I worry they may “bend” the truth a little to make their points. Has anyone ever studied this statistically? Are your anecdotes any more believable than Tapestry’s?
On one hand I can imagine a polygamist father harried by multiple wives and numerous children might be more frequently in situations when he loses his temper. In large families about the best one can hope for is “organized” chaos. On the other hand, with multiple wives and children there are more to wait on and meet his needs, thus lessening the number of occasions when a loss of temper may happen. My guess is it has far less to do with the numbers in the polygamous family than with the underlying tendency of the father to lose his temper in the first place.
Finally, even if the first wife SAYS she consents to a second wife, surely there is some jealousy, and some feeling of loss or neglect. I’d bet this is what gentiles feel is the real grounds for condemning and outlawing plural marriage. For a husband to publicly “shame” his first wife by publicly taking a second is very much part of why some consider plural marriage inherently abusive.
Child Abuse. The story of Brigham Young asking a youngster wandering around the front of a church meeting to come up on the stand and sit on his knee comes to mind. When Young asked the youngster who his father was, the lad replied, “Why, you sir.” So Brigham entertained his son the rest of the meeting.
And yet, I find it hard to believe that in large families any child is neglected for very long, even if attended to by brothers or sisters.
In plural marriage families that do not live together there must be some feeling of being neglected by their father. They may not always see their father as much as they would in a smaller isolated parts of the family. Is this a reason why so many of the children of plural marriages leave the order?
Husband Abuse. Although I’ve never been abused, I know from personal experience that being in one wife’s dog house can be uncomfortable. What would it be like if several wives at once “ganged-up” on their husband. And if one wife can nag a husband, what would it be like to be nagged by a whole tribe of women? Perhaps not abuse, but could this be called the plan of happiness? And oh, the mothers-in-law!
Constitutional Argument. In effect, the Supreme Court amends the Constitution with each ruling. It isn’t part of the written Constitution, but it is a part of the way things really work in America. Look at the huge effect of the Roe v. Wade, and the school prayers decisions. So all it takes is for the Supreme Court to reverse its decision for the Constitution to be amended back to where it belongs regarding free exercise of religion (ala Plessey v Ferguson being reversed by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education).
Of Hypocrites and Bigots. In the performance of their duty government officials deserve our respect. The sheriff may have had an armored personnel carrier but that does not make him a bigot or a hypocrite. And even if he is a bigot or hypocrite 99 times out of 100 it is improper to accuse him of that because he performs the duties of his office. Calling the sheriff a hypocrite in this case is strongly implying the sheriff has plural wives (or has sex with underage children), but charges others for the same acts the sheriff does. Do you really believe the sheriff or his deputies have plural wives? As for bigotry, would you accuse the sheriff or his deputies of bigotry for arresting burglars, dope addicts, drunks, illegal aliens, check forgers, or any other criminal? Does he hate them passionately or is the sheriff just doing his duty? I’d be willing to bet most of the sheriff’s men had a lot of sympathy for the polygamists—far more sympathy than passionate unreasoning hatred for them.
The liberals of our fair land have a habit of labeling their opponents hypocrites, bigots, and fascists. It is both overdone and ineffective because they do it so much. That is why calling people hypocrites and bigots is lame. I find it disconcerting that you stoop to liberal tactics. The only one you missed was calling the sheriff a fascist, which of the three he was closer to being guilty of than the two of which you did accuse him. But even here, technically the tactics were far more of an “oh my gosh, what do we do now that we have a thousand of them” nature than of the relentless brutality of the Gestapo tactics. What the sheriff did may have been cruel and ill advised. But the motive was not unreasoning hatred (bigotry). The motive was fear—fear that children were being sexually abused, and the desire to stop it. Following the orders of an unwise judge, the sheriff did the best he could. The biggest mistakes were made by the judge whose orders were reversed on appeal. Justice is being done. Slowly. Awkwardly. But not even the judge with all of her mistakes can fairly be accused of bigotry or hypocrisy. She might have been stupid, but there is no evidence she was unreasoningly hateful, or part of a plural marriage. And she WAS reversed. The polygamists are getting far more justice than they would at the hands of real bigots. So don’t howl and name call like a liberal. I think I’ve made a reasonable case for why they are not bigots and hypocrites. I do not like your accusations bigotry and hypocrisy because (1) I do not believe they in any way represent reality, (2) public officials transacting their duties deserve respect, and (3) such liberal name calling tactics reflect badly on your judgment, intellect, logic, education, upbringing, and manners.
Since you did the name calling what is your evidence that Texas officials are bigoted (unreasonably hateful) or hypocritical (doing the very thing they accuse others of doing)? Where’s the beef? Or are you just name calling like a so many liberals? What is your evidence that Texas judges or law enforcement treated polygamists differently than other accused law breakers? If you believed your own children were at risk for sexual abuse wouldn’t you hope officials would take measures to protect them, even if those measures were at first over the top?
Yes, I believe the judge messed up pretty badly, but NOT because she is a bigot. And the hypocrisy accusation is ridiculous. The judge, the sheriff, and deputies are not having sex with underage children.
Prejudice and cultural bias. You talk of prejudice and cultural bias but I’m a bit confused about when you think these are primary motivations for law enforcement. Are we talking about children being taken from their families, or are we talking about bigamist husbands being jailed? Or both? I don’t deny that prejudice and cultural bias have some part to play in this somewhere—and to that extent laws and law enforcement are wrong. But I hope you are not implying they are the only reasons for anti-bigamy laws and law enforcement. Anti-bigamy laws were written, passed, signed, and ruled constitutional because well-meaning public servants think plural marriage is in and of itself inherently abusive of women and children and therefore deserving of suppression. In some cases they are probably right, and in some cases they probably wrong. But please, do not lightly go down the path of accusing people of prejudice and cultural bias. It is a case of judge not, lest ye be judged [the same way].
What is lame. Judge, sheriff, and deputies are not having sex with underage children so it is lame to accuse them of hypocrisy. They were not motivated by unreasonable hatred so it is lame to call them bigots.
What you call “pander[ing] to the prejudices of their majority constituents” is called representation by some in America. In a republic the constituents quickly replace those who refuse to “pander to the prejudices” with someone who will. So what you are indicting is actually representative government. I have no trouble with your quarrel with prejudice, only when you seem to imply whole systems of government are shot through with it. That kind of over-broad argument looks to suffer from moat-beam sickness (aka hypocrisy).
It is not lame to protect children from sexual abuse. When children are potentially being abused it is more important to protect potential child victims than it is to protect parents’ custodial rights. The first most important objective is to stop the abuse. Monday morning quarterbacking will not do. The judge had evidence that at the time was believed to be credible. When in doubt, to protect children the assumption is that if one child is abused, all children may be targets for abuse in the same family. At YFZ ranch law enforcement officials encountered children and parents frequently unwilling to identify each other, and dormitory living conditions. It was a bit of a stretch to decide to separate all children from most adults (especially from the men). But it was not unprecedented. If it stopped abuse, it may have been worth it.
That it turned out the original evidence was unreliable was not known at the time of the original investigation (Monday morning quarterbacking). Yes, it was bad evidence. But the investigation turned up reliable evidence of child abuse and other law breaking. Most families are now back together, and maybe, just maybe some child abuse has been stopped.
It was not lame to use sufficient force to prevent armed resistance by thousands of people. It was not lame to try to stop systematic child abuse. Considering what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge, the YFZ ranch raid was a model of restraint. I hope the polygamists thank their luck stars it was not Janet Reno in charge (or they might all be in heaven now).
What about the YFZ ranch raid to you consider an unjust exercise of power by those in authority—the fact that someone deceived the authorities? Do you deny that underage girls were being abused? Do you think it is lame to stop sexual abuse of children? Do you think it lame to enforce the law?
To be unjust wouldn’t the exercise of power have had to have been done against people the authorities had reason to believe were innocent, or the arrest overly violent. Any arrest is likely to be unpleasant. Since no one arrested was physically injured, and since several indictments have been handed down, it seems to have been “just” to me.
However, I will admit a lot of what happened made me angry too.
Conclusion. You can criticize the way it was done if you just refrain from calling the legislators, prosecutors, sheriff, deputies, and judges a bunch of hypocrites, and bigots. That is what I called lame.
New York judges are not Texas judges—NYC would be unlikely to prosecute homosexuals for anything short of nuclear terrorism because homosexuals in NYC are a special protected class. But actually, in a more reasonable analogy tanks and riot gear would in fact roll based on a believable phone call and if necessary to protect children from sexual abuse by large criminal ring of “straight” people in NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, or Miami.
Unfair, inequitable, but NOT hypocritical is the legislator who promotes one “alternate life style” and suppresses another. And call them bigoted if you want, but your perception is not reflecting reality. The anti-bigamy laws were passed not by most legislators out of an unreasonable passionate hatred for polygamists, but by well-meaning men trying to protect women from the public “shame” a husband taking a second wife. Some of those legislators may have disliked Mormons, a few may have been bigots, but most were good men trying to protect society and preserve what they considered civilized behavior. Culturally biased—maybe—but aren’t we all?
Task forces stigmatizing minority groups is a bit paranoid. Those task forces are far more likely trying to figure out the best (and fairest) ways to enforce the law. Throwing a bigamist in jail is no more bigoted than throwing a counterfeiter in jail. It is just law enforcement. It simply doesn’t fit your own definition of bigotry as unreasonable passionate hatred.
You probably think I am splitting hairs here. But I am genuinely concerned that your perception does not reflect reality. Inaccurately and overly-negative labeling of others, especially government officials in the performance of their duties, is not going to help you cope with government. Judge not [falsely], lest ye be judged.
Again, I think we ought to thank heaven it was this particular judge and sheriff rather than Janet Reno who did this. Many aspects were done badly, but at least there are no dead or shot up people. And maybe, just maybe, some child abuse was prevented.
Papacito
I am interested to know your moral and political positions on homosexuality.
In your arguments, I have noticed the following:
On one hand, you contrast polygamists to homosexuals. You illustrate your belief that homosexuals are afforded rights that polygamists don't enjoy. You indicate that mainstream society empathizes with homosexuals, while polygamists are left out in the cold. Gays are even protected from the sudden seizure of their children, unlike polygamists.
On the other hand, when convenient to your argument, you seem to group polygamists WITH homosexuals, as two groups who practice alternative lifestyles. You imply that polygamists and homosexuals are on the same side of the fence, opposite mainstream society and the government. You imply that homosexuals and polygamists currently fight the same fight: for their right to exist and thrive in peace.
So I have to ask: Is your use of homosexuality in your arguments as convenient as it seems, or do you believe that all alternative lifestyle groups should be afforded equal rights as long as they comply with your guidelines (consenting adults, healthy, happy children, etc.)? It seems your Fundamentalist Mormon belief system would not mesh well with gay rights; therefore, I am more inclined to believe you resent society's growing acceptance of homosexuality and only use such alternative lifestyle examples to your advantage when necessary to prove your point.
Your thoughts?
Post a Comment