The Nation: Meanwhile, in Texas

[marmar]

BLOG | Posted 04/08/2008 @ 6:25pm
Meanwhile, in Texas
J. Goodrich



You may have followed the events taking place at the polygamist Mormon retreat in Texas:

Texas authorities investigating allegations of abuse and the forced marriage of young teenagers to much older men have taken more than 400 children into custody from a remote ranch owned by a polygamist religious sect, authorities said Monday.

The children were joined by 133 women, in homemade ankle-length dresses, who departed voluntarily. While investigators questioned them, state police detained the men who live at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, which is affiliated with sect leader Warren Jeffs. He was convicted last year of being an accessory to the rape of a 14-year-old girl.

To force young girls to marry is against the law, of course.

But while reading about these events I couldn't help thinking that they offer an extreme example of something which happens fairly often: the clashing of religious and human or individual rights. Consider that Jeffs' sect practices polygamy for reasons that they regard as religious. Then consider the consequences of this practice: young girls being forced to marry much older men, young boys thrown away as surplus to the needs of a polygamous society.

Yes, the above example is an extreme one. But milder versions of these clashes of rights happen all the time, and one important role for the government and the court system is to decide how to weigh one group of rights against another group of rights.

An example of a Supreme Court case which favored the religious rights is Wisconsin v. Yoder. That case, in 1972, decided that

Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion.

I doubt that it was the Amish children who pursued this case or that those same children were then free to have as much elective education as they wished once they had finished eight grade. No, the decision was not about the children's rights but about the rights of a religious community to survive.

Cases like the current one in Texas are easy to judge because existing laws tell us which rights have precedence. But the Bush administration has chosen to focus on the enforcement of religious rights within the wider program of civil rights enforcement. What does this mean when human rights and religious rights clash and no laws prioritize one over the other? I'm worried.


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough?bid=769

[pnwmom]

1. I think it was a mistake to deny Amish children the same guarantee

to education that other children have.

[DCKit]

2. I grew up with an Amish kid who chose to continue his education...

and was banished for it. However, the "English" accepted him into the community. I don't think it was a big deal or a threat to the Amish, but I can hardly speak from his perspective.

[Quantess]

3. This "Freedom of Religion" thing gets me, because in the case of YFZ ranch,

the women and children are trapped. This article says it's an extreme case, true, but we're still talking about--what? 400, 500 women and children who have had to live this way.

I still believe in the general concept of freedom of religion, but I think it's a good thing that the government is cracking down on these immoral fringe LDS extremists who use religion as an excuse to be incestuous pedophiles.