America & Religion 19 Apr 2008 11:43 am
Where Freedom of Religion and the State Clash
I’ve been watching the whole saga of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or FLDS). It is a very interesting situation, for sure. There is no question that polygyny (polygamy is a broader term) is oppressive to women and girls (and, also oppressive to boys, since many of them are kicked out of the church so that there is less competition among men for multiple wives.)
And, of course, since many of the girls are married off well below the legal age (as young as 14) certainly this practice amounts to institutionalized statutory rape, supposedly legitimized by revelation from God.
I don’t believe that the FLDS is necessarily any worse than the general population when it comes to child abuse (that is to say, I’m sure the prevalence is as just high, but not necessarily much higher.) And, for me, polygamy (or polyamory - the broad terms meaning sexual and marriage relationships between multiple adults) isn’t something that should be regulated by the state. In my opinion, the state really doesn’t have any business regulating what consenting adults choose to do.
Of course, that’s the rub. The girls in the FLDS, even those who are over the marriage age are not likely consenting - or if they are, it is a “consent” born of life-long brainwashing. What if, for example, the FLDS had the same polygynous practices, but women only got married at 18 or older? What do I think about that? Even though I would abhor that situation, I’d have to say that the state should have nothing to do with it.
Interestingly enough, polygyny is not something that is especially problematic for the writers of the Bible. It was completely normal to the writers of the Hebrew Bible, and it’s acceptability or lack thereof in the early Christian church is debated. Of course, no other forms of polygamy (multiple husbands, or other kinds of combinations) aren’t a part of the picture at all. At some point, polygyny became unacceptable, and polygamy is still considered such by our society as a whole.
Joseph Smith thought that plural marriage was ordained by God, as a part of his whole idea that believers needed to get back to the Old Testament ways. It was, apparently, not accepted by all followers originally. It eventually became a central part of Mormon religious practice. It was, of course illegal, and eventually, the legal pressure to conform was so great, that the church gave it up. This also lead to the schism which resulted in the FLDS.
So to the bigger question - when does the state (and, by extrapolation, the population at large) get to say when a religious practice is not acceptable? I don’t think for a moment that the arguments against polygyny in the late 19th century had much to do with women’s empowerment - even though that would be more of the argument today. And when does the prevailing morals of the majority, even if not involving laws relating to harming of individuals (such as regulations of relationships between consenting adults) infringe upon the freedom of religious expression? All good questions.
on 19 Apr 2008 at 12:04 pm 1.Allyson said …
Even if the women got married at 18+ your point about life-long brainwashing still remains true. Many of the women will rarely be able to break free and truly consent to this life.
on 19 Apr 2008 at 1:11 pm 2.admin said …
I totally agree - but then there is the question of whether we as a society should do anything about that. One could argue that growing up among, say, radical feminists is also a form of brainwashing. (I wouldn’t make that argument, but some might.)
Do we give the right to the state to intervene? What does that mean for us, then?
on 19 Apr 2008 at 1:58 pm 3.Kevin Mark said …
[note: I avoid the sexual or feminist issue and address the freedom aspect]
I’m surprised the g-ment did intervene sooner. It seem America is not comfortable with freedom of religion unless it meets a certain mainstream view (eg. christian in nature). The g-ment tried to get rid of the mormans in the 1800s IIRC. The g-ment has tried to tax the amish and failed. There was FUD spread about Mr. Ellison’s muslim faith. And they destroyed the branch dividians. And the candidates must profess in loud, public terms their faith or be labeled as un-american by the public. so it would appropriate that W would be the one to go after people professing a different religion when trying to hilight american religiousness by g-ment support. What would happen if their was a wahabi enclave in a far away township where women could not drive or be unescorted?
This ‘war game’ seems like iraq:
-find something you want to attack
-find false evidence to base an attack
-execute ’shock and awe’
-have no plan for how to handle the aftermath
-breakup families and create turmoil for the children
Its funny when I hear about america’s moral relativism from the pope and you have a very strict religious community being attacked. Would strict adhearants ala ‘little house on the praerie’ be mocked like these folks? I’d expect it.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 12:14 pm 4.Amanda said …
Your post prompted me to start asking people whether they think polygamy should be legal or not. Honestly, I think this is exactly what the Unitarian church was good for in my life. I’ve been surprised by how many people just haven’t given it any thought. Or haven’t gotten past the “well, it is weird so it must be wrong” stage, or the “is wrong the same as illegal” stage. I’m pretty sure that one of the teen sunday school curricula has a whole discussion section on talking about legislating morality. Maybe our teacher made that up, though.
I think a lot about marriage in general and these particular kinds of state sanctioned relationships and what it means that my own relationship is sanctioned and yours isn’t, not outside of Mass anyhow. And for me a lot of getting married was about the commitment ceremony aspect, the standing before our families and saying “we want to make this work and we want your help and support in so doing” not the “now we’re legal” aspect.
And I think a lot about politics and organizing and strategy and I kind of think sometimes that gay marriage is a red herring, but I also am never sure what to say when people say things like “well, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Next they’ll want polygamy and then bestiality and then the whole world will go to hell in a hand basket” because …
… I think it is sort of obvious that each should be evaluated on its own merits and because …
… I know it isn’t particularly strategic, but yes I do think the next question might be “why is polygamy illegal?” and because …
… Most people who want to get married, homo or no, pretty much stick to the norm and I don’t think there’s going to by a polygamous marriage movement coming next from the HRC anytime soon and because …
… I know the bestiality bit is hyperbole, but there is a difference between a man and a dog. If you can’t tell the difference and can’t tell why a man might be able to consciously enter a committed partnership while a dog can’t really think that deeply about things, I really can’t help you.
All of which is to say, I don’t think it is the state’s business.
I know a few folks who practice polyamory and it seems to me they spend all their time flirting and dating and I’m not looking to trade (one relationship is enough for me) but it is truly bizarre, truly, to imagine that this is something that the state should have any say in at all.