Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[bmacwilliam]

Why is it your business to "neutralize the cult"? Or a state interest?

If the central tenets of the cult involve rights violations, then it damn well should be neutralized. The only challenge is to define the rights.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I fully agree with you on this matter.

Brant,

I still don't understand if you are endorsing the state taking kids away from their mothers and making them wards of state or not, and if you agree with 14 year-old brides forced into marriage.

I object to both.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Bob,

I fully agree with you on this matter.

Brant,

I still don't understand if you are endorsing the state taking kids away from their mothers and making them wards of state or not, and if you agree with 14 year-old brides forced into marriage.

I object to both.

Michael

So do I. If you set up a cult like the one under discussion or Waco 1993, you are begging the state to smash you to bits. I do not know what the particular right and correct procedures should be for the current situation. I do think taking members of the cult in toto and reeducating or deprograming them is wrong. They should only be dealt with individually on a case by case basis. Maybe that alone would accomplish breaking their collectivie cult programming. The idea that you are above the law (age of consent) because you've created this little world where 14 yo girls are married off to very older males who turn them into teenage mothers is absolutely wrong. My primary focus is on your view about reeducation here.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Hm. I'd say it's rather inconsistently put: first, the state has to be kept out of interfering with what cults teach (which was the context of the first quote) and then how deadly are the interferences of cults with thought, which sentiment would seem to justify interference in what cults teach. ??

Ellen, it's only in today's warped political context that to state that something is bad can be taken to imply that the state should make it right.

Barbara

[Ellen Stuttle]

Hm. I'd say it's rather inconsistently put: first, the state has to be kept out of interfering with what cults teach (which was the context of the first quote) and then how deadly are the interferences of cults with thought, which sentiment would seem to justify interference in what cults teach. ??

Ellen, it's only in today's warped political context that to state that something is bad can be taken to imply that the state should make it right.

Barbara

Barbara, I don't think the problem I'm having understanding what message you're conveying is due to "today's warped political context." I remain unclear as to whether you approve of what was done in this case.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do think taking members of the cult in toto and reeducating or deprograming them is wrong. They should only be dealt with individually on a case by case basis.

Brant,

This is exactly what I was suggesting. I'm sorry I gave any other impression.

I haven't had time to read the following articles (I did skim them), but I have read several similar ones over the last couple of years. Also, in addiction there is a process called "intervention" which is used for extreme cases, as a kind of last-chance measure. It is not a guarantee, but the force used in interventions is often justified by the force used by the addict in screwing up the life of everyone around him.

Deprogramming

Exit counseling

Deprogramming and Exit-Counseling

I have mixed feeling on all this. I don't think you can successfully combat cult programming without discussing the cult's ideas, but this can go too far and become another form of brainwashing. I think the ethical and rational basis of the ideas and procedures used needs to be clearly and carefully defined. If the state becomes involved in something like this, frankly I would be more comfortable with the state hiring private organizations than trying to engage in this through government employees. I see direct government employee involvement as a recipe for disaster.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Michael: "If the state exists to protect rights, then it has to get to the core problem.. . . I don't see any other way out except for intervention by authorities into a cult when gross misalignment with our laws and rights is at stake. I hope I do not shock too much by the following suggestion. China had infamous reeducation camps."

Wow, Michael, you do shock. "Reeducation camps?"

[ . . . ]

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking.

I'm with Barbara. Michael's camps are a non-starter. We north americans don't have the funds or a mandate to do any of what he envisions, let alone the will. What we do have on our hands is a creepy and illegal polygamist breeding project that has made captive subjects of its girls. As more details emerge from the investigation, we'll get an idea of the extent of the project.

News from the Texas authorities says there are 53 girls in custody between the ages of 14 and 17. Of the 53, 31 have given birth or are expecting (or both). I foresee the harshest custody battles over these young sect members. The state will ask, "Mrs Jeffs, why should you have your girls returned to you, since you are unable to protect them from sexual abuse?"

More notes on numbers. While the ranch held 53 girls between ages 14 and 17, only 17 boys of these ages were found. Of the last women who left the shelter at San Angelo, 40 did not return to the YFZ ranch, instead choosing safe house accomodation on the outside. Two boys who turned 18 while in state custody chose to remain outside.

From what I can gather there were 463 kids under 18 at the ranch, 139 sister-wives (at least) and an undetermined number of adult males.

What if we find out there were only 40 adult males, fathers? Each of whom had impregnated a girl between the ages of 14 and 17, ostensibly a "spiritual" bride.

There may be some hard battles in the courts before we say, "Here's your kids/wives back, Mr Jeffs."

Edited May 1, 2008 by william.scherk

[Selene]

This violates basic American legal jurisprudence which focuses on individual, not collective crimes. Reeducation camps is what happened in South Vietnam when the communists took over.

Brant,

And removing children from mothers for alleged collective abuse doesn't violate the same basic American legal jurisprudence? Why is that an acceptable alternative?

btw - I am not suggesting Communist-style reeducation camps. I am trying to find a form of keeping the children with their mothers and neutralize the cult at the same time.

Any suggestions?

Michael

Why is it your business to "neutralize the cult"? Or a state interest? Is the age of sexual consent appropriate in Texas? Is it 16, 17 or 18? What should it be? The authorities get one phone call and they go on a mass fishing expedition. The dominant culture says childhood will be prolonged with something called adolescence put into enforceable statutes. Is this cult a benefiary of welfare? If so, we have the state ironically subsidizing contemned behavior--whatever that really was/is.

--Brant

16 with parental consent

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Let me be clear. I was not suggesting a permanent measure. I was suggesting an ad hoc program for dealing with a cult.

I don't mind disagreement, but I want to make sure the person is disagreeing with me and my ideas, and not with someone else and theirs.

Anyway, do you have any ideas for salvaging value from this, or do you suggest trashing all the people, sending the kids off somewhere else and hoping the adults die off soon?

I also have a comment about the concentration camp thing Barbara mentioned. I have tried to swallow this idea to digest it, but I cannot get it through my head that an entire country of Germany was a cult when the Nazis were in control. I see parallels and some common features between cults and dictatorships, but I think they are different animals.

I see it is possible for a cult to gain political power and rule a country by holding a monopoly over the military and police forces (including secret police), and I see some dictatorships try to spread their cult-like messages through propaganda programs, but I see a fundamental difference between a cult and a dictatorship. Formal nation government and having subjects who are not part of the cult are one of them. Also, cults excommunicate subjects. Dictatorships remove subjects from the goodie-patch, but do not allow the subjects to leave. There are some other differences.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

William,

Let me be clear. I was not suggesting a permanent measure. I was suggesting an ad hoc program for dealing with a cult.

I don't mind disagreement, but I want to make sure the person is disagreeing with me and my ideas, and not with someone else and theirs.

Anyway, do you have any ideas for salvaging value from this, or do you suggest trashing all the people, sending the kids off somewhere else and hoping the adults die off soon?

I also have a comment about the concentration camp thing Barbara mentioned. I have tried to swallow this idea to digest it, but I cannot get it through my head that an entire country of Germany was a cult when the Nazis were in control. I see parallels and some common features between cults and dictatorships, but I think they are different animals.

I see it is possible for a cult to gain political power and rule a country by holding a monopoly over the military and police forces (including secret police), and I see some dictatorships try to spread their cult-like messages through propaganda programs, but I see a fundamental difference between a cult and a dictatorship. Formal nation government and having subjects who are not part of the cult are one of them. Also, cults excommunicate subjects. Dictatorships remove subjects from the goodie-patch, but do not allow the subjects to leave. There are some other differences.

Michael

Michael -

Can you say concretely what you think should have been done? And what was done which should not have been done? This thread is over 180 posts long now, with lots of give and take, and frankly it's a bit confusing. A short - few sentence - summary might be helpful.

I am certain you have said it in bits and pieces and before. Can you say it succinctly now?

At the moment I don't know what you are advocating (and it may even be that you are saying you haven't thought it through enough yet - that's fine, too), and it seems silly to agree/disagree without even knowing your position.

Alfonso

[william.scherk]

Anyway, do you have any ideas for salvaging value from this, or do you suggest trashing all the people, sending the kids off somewhere else and hoping the adults die off soon?

Hmmm. That is my only alternative?

I can only predict, I don't have any suggestions for the situation on the ground beyond urging that we all pay attention to the details. There are plentiful actors working on behalf of the FLDS values. There are plentiful actors working on behalf of the values of children, and even more actors in place to watch over the whole procedure of hearings. At this stage in the proceedings at least, we can only cross our fingers that the YFZ ranch operations are less dire than the worst charges (wholesale physical and mental abuse).

I predict that the state of Texas will put the hammer down on the menfolk who are ruled to have had children by underage girls. I see the state holding a hardline against returning any pregnant under-18s to their captors/husbands.

Maybe you will see a dim cousin to 're-education' be applied to reunited families, in the form of a Family Service Plan. This might assuage your concerns about ignorant but good FLDS folks who need a little guidance to raise their children without flouting the law.

It shall be intriguing to see the actual husband fellows coming out of the shadows. My only useful suggestion is for them: end the practice of underage marriages, publicly.

[Alfonso Jones]

Hm. I'd say it's rather inconsistently put: first, the state has to be kept out of interfering with what cults teach (which was the context of the first quote) and then how deadly are the interferences of cults with thought, which sentiment would seem to justify interference in what cults teach. ??

Ellen, it's only in today's warped political context that to state that something is bad can be taken to imply that the state should make it right.

Barbara

Whenever I see the evidence of the assumption that "something is bad" implies "the government should fix it" I wonder . . . . "Did they ever read Rand?"

Alfonso

[william.scherk]

16 with parental consent

-- what does this refer to? Marriage in Texas? Until 2005, the age of marriage in Texas was 14 (with parental consent), since then raised to 16 with consent, and 18 without.

But the age of consent for sexual activity is 17, with a defence possible if the other partner is within three years of the age of the younger or legally married to the underage person.

This leaves a lot of murk for the FLDS. A first wife could be married legally and 'spiritually' at 16, but taking a second wife of 17 or younger lays the man open to sexual assault charges.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Funny thing marriage. Has no particular meaning except citizenship, residency, and tax liability -- 100% statist.

;)

[John Dailey]

~ 1)-- I'm surprised that at this point no one as yet has brought up the paraphrased question: "Who will protect us from our 'protectors' "(or, in this case, our children

s 'protectors'...which excludes us parents/guardians)?"

~ 2)-- I'm surprised that at this point no one has, as yet, pointed out that the State of Texas operated on an anonymous 'report' which self-identified itself as a female, age 16, etc. (which the MSM ran a marathon with) thereby making the official accuser the State itself. That some female is suspected of lying in a hoax call is irrelevent to all the State has done so far. This is a large fishing expedition (and, it might, I stress m-i-g-h-t, catch a couple...besides the big one so far, Jeffs), and no more, on the basis of a polygamous life-style (even if patriarchicly heavy-handed), using arbitrary accusations of pedophilia as a scapegoating tool.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ The import of these two issues alone separate...in this thread...the obvious parents from the non-parents. Anyone who is raising kids now know that they better stay on the safe side with all neighbors, school-teachers, extra-curricular event associates, etc...else the police might get an 'anonymous' report...by a stolen cell phone, maybe! And once that happens, there goes the whole family, especially home-schoolers.

~ 3)-- I'm surprised the word 'marriage' is bandied about so much when clearly there was no state-recognized one that occurred (especially in a 'religion' not recognized as such by the state). What the hell is meant by 'marriage' by all these users (apart from the sect-members) of the term? Clearly not the same thing as any other user, ergo the term is meaningless since it's undefined in this whole discussion; spare me the refs to "spiritual marriages" which are always in quotes anyway.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ 4)-- As far as I'm concerned, the RUMOR/GOSSIP (hasn't that subject been covered elsewhere?) about 'underaged' (whatever that means; guess it depends on the state...and religion discussed) sex (er, "spiritual marriages") relations probably has some seed of truth re that community; however, such a rumor is reason for the State to tear asunder ALL those families? Without ANY FACTUAL corroboration? Not in my book.

~ A side point: let's not get bogged down in a State's laws being broken (hence its sovereign right to interfere in 'X') with our view of the morality of the situation (actually, situations here; so many overlap.) We're not that far from the old Jim Crow laws you know. Breaking a law, per se, is not immoral...it's just usually not smart.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ 5)-- At first I was tempted to accept MSK's proposal about the State requiring (you did mean that, right MSK?) open 'education' access by such groups, rather than their usual in-house required seclusion from 'outsiders.' But then, I ask myself: Is DCYS, or its ilk, supposed to be part of this monitoring necessary to ensure it's accessed? Hmmm...

~ Further on this: anyone remember Nazi Germany's Youth education? Very anti-home-schooling, no? I understand this Nazi vestige law is still on the books in Germany, resulting in big-time harrassing of home schoolers there; then, there are the home-schoolers in Ca getting some probs as of late. --- Besides, clearly The State is not above propagandizing its own brands of falsities (who would argue that?), and, in a more subtle, while very broad-based way...especially with MSM colluding therein.

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ 6)-- Finally, there's the perceived pedophilia some dance around, yet what this ostensibly is all about. Who, with whom, when? If no relevent answer, spare me statistical probability arguing. How many legal 'minors' (re the State-of-Texas) have been specifically established as sexually abused? Out of how many children separated from their families? Keep in mind, we're talking 'abuse' and 'minor' by Texas' LEGAL defs, and not our consensus (Ha!) of MORAL ones.

~ 7)-- As far as Stepford Wives/Robotic/'brainwashed' members (male AND female) go, MSK's explanation of the TV interviews is right on; the Amish would look similar, were there anything they got dragged into the news about. Technically though, yes, 'brainwashed' they all are by the intimidating patriarchy...which they've accepted. Same goes for the Muslim Fundy Terrorists, and pretty well all who accept some 'morality' leader complaining about what's wrong with the 'outside' world. So?

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ Most of us were 'brainwashed', and once we dared venture beyond our safe home/community, most of us learned; some don't wish to. Let 'em alone, I say...until a FACTUAL occurrence shows re making children mental COMPRACHICOS, or a physical need of theirs is withheld.

END

LLAP

J:D

[Barbara Branden]

I have mixed feeling on all this. I don't think you can successfully combat cult programming without discussing the cult's ideas, but this can go too far and become another form of brainwashing. I think the ethical and rational basis of the ideas and procedures used needs to be clearly and carefully defined. If the state becomes involved in something like this, frankly I would be more comfortable with the state hiring private organizations than trying to engage in this through government employees. I see direct government employee involvement as a recipe for disaster.

Michael, I agree that combatting cult programming will often require reeducation. Not always, however. There are many people of all ages who have been able to throw off the influence of a cult without outside assistance. But the state should be kept out of it entirely, both directly and indirectly. It will not lessen the danger of state control of ideas if the government hires private organizations to do the deprogramming; the government would still be deciding, by its choice of organizations and by its control of payment, which ideas are to be accepted and which rejected.

And consider this problem. Who is to decide what is a cult and what is not? If you give this power to the state, I surely don't have to spell out what would eventually happen. The British in the early days of this country would certainly have advocated "reeducating " the unstable and fanatical cultists who demanded independence from Britain. And what do you suppose would happen to libertarians under a more statist government than we have? In Soviet Russia, those with ideas considered by the state to be "sick" were sent, at best, to psychiatric institutioms; that's what we would be opening the door to if we put the state im charge of deprorammionmg cultists.

You wrote: "On the reeducation idea, my point is to expose young minds to other ideas, not force those ideas on them. The only reason I think the state should use force is because force is already being used by the cult to keep access to other ideas out.

"You asked about Catholic, Objectivist, etc. I was not discussing a system of ideas or a culture, but offering a suggestion for dealing with a cult. As I understand it, Catholic, Objectivist, etc., do not use force to keep other ideas away from children. Cults do. That is the fundamental difference and I think it is a mistake to dismiss it in an analysis."

But if you put people into a camp, and order them to listen to a particular curriuculum, what is this but attempting to force other ideas on them rather than the ones they presently accept? What if they refuse to listen? You won't let them go, you'd keep them prisoner until they "saw the light" so obligingly brought to them by the state. This is the plain, garden-variety use of force to ensure the acceptance of those ideas deemed acceptable by the state.

As for who their teachers would be, the issue is relevant. The American culture and values, the ideas off the Founding Fathers, the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - - all this is not mathematics, it is subject to interpretations. Someone must do the interpretimg. Who shall it be? Government beaurocrats?

How do you teach freedom to people you have locked up?

I would suggest instead -- and I'm writing this pretty much off the top of my head -- something like the following:

There are a number of women who escaped the compound and have been courageously trying to help those still imprisoned, (They did not require government reeducation to recognize that they were living in a nightmare.) They are the logical ones, if they so choose, to attempt the reprogramming. -- but not by forcing anyone into a camp but by attemptimg to convince the victims to voluntarily seek their halp. And there is little question that many of the women and children would seek their help. Why are the doors of the compound locked and escape so difficult if these victims think their lives are just fine as they are?

You wrote: "And what do you suggest doing with men who were born and raised in that culture who married young wives thinking they were being virtuous? I am talking about those who have otherwise lived productive lives of peace. Throw them in jail alongside murderers, thieves and rapists?"

Michael, if they have forced unwilling children to have sex with them, they belong in prison. I find it impossible to believe that a mature men thinks he is being virtuous when he forces a sobbing, terrified young girl to have sex -- and when he has locked the gates of the compound so that his victim cannot escape.

Incidentally, I heard today that some of the children removed from the compound, who are being examined medically, have been foumd to have untreated broken bones.

Barbara

[Wolf DeVoon]

I haven't had the courage to open this link. Somebody else do it.

Baby Dropping Ritual (Reuters)

[Brant Gaede]

I haven't had the courage to open this link. Somebody else do it.

Baby Dropping Ritual (Reuters)

It's not that bad, Wolf. No apparent physical trauma. Only about half psychologically damaged. There could be some broken necks, I suppose.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Hm. I'd say it's rather inconsistently put: first, the state has to be kept out of interfering with what cults teach (which was the context of the first quote) and then how deadly are the interferences of cults with thought, which sentiment would seem to justify interference in what cults teach. ??

Ellen, it's only in today's warped political context that to state that something is bad can be taken to imply that the state should make it right.

Barbara

Whenever I see the evidence of the assumption that "something is bad" implies "the government should fix it" I wonder . . . . "Did they ever read Rand?"

Alfonso

Hello???? Where did I ever imply any such thing? It's exactly Barbara's apparent presumption -- as near as I can tell from what she's written on this thread -- that the State of Texas barging in there was doing right which I am questioning. If you actually think that I have any presumption of "the government should fix it," you have not been reading my posts.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Anyway, do you have any ideas for salvaging value from this, or do you suggest trashing all the people, sending the kids off somewhere else and hoping the adults die off soon?

Hmmm. That is my only alternative?

I can only predict, I don't have any suggestions for the situation on the ground beyond urging that we all pay attention to the details. There are plentiful actors working on behalf of the FLDS values. There are plentiful actors working on behalf of the values of children, and even more actors in place to watch over the whole procedure of hearings. At this stage in the proceedings at least, we can only cross our fingers that the YFZ ranch operations are less dire than the worst charges (wholesale physical and mental abuse).

[....]

William,

As best I can tell, you, too -- like Barbara, as best I can tell -- approve of what was done in this case. I wish you would stop speaking with the Near-Royal "We" you've kept using. (Another example, "we North Americans" in an earlier post, and there have been several others.)

Would you please speak for your opinions, only?

Ellen

___