This is pretty easy pickins, I know, and it almost NEVER happens... more than annually anyway. But it's a tough call for me to reach any kind of conclusion on it. I wasn't there. I don't know the facts. The case hasn't been tried on Fox or C-Span yet, so I really can't say for sure what might be going on down there.
After all, I'm as much for government staying out of my life as the next guy. On the other hand, government should provide some basic services and protecting children is one of them. In my humble opinion.
So for now, I'm going to assume the folks who filed the complaint alleging child abuse did so because they truly believed it was happening. (I know, I know, just like people who bomb abortion clinics) BUT, I'll assume that because they didn't just rush in with guns blazing, but rather, followed the law, filled out the paperwork, and allowed the wheels of justice to turn, ever so slowly, that the folks who filed the complaint were semi-reasonable. (or is it unreasonable to wait on the system when you believe kids are in danger?) BUT I'll assume that as part of due process, others with less personal interest in the case including judges, law enforcement officers and elected officials signed off on the complaints and pursued them with the diligence of a reasonable human, and that brings us to where we are today.
167 kids were removed from a fort - a literal fort - where they'd been shut off from just about every aspect of modern American society. Say what you want about modern American society, if you live here, you should have access to it. Now for the hard part. One of the LDS women described the raid in which the kids were removed as similar to what "Russians" or "Nazis" did. (Sounds like she could use a little more exposure to current events) There's some truth to that. Armed men raided a homestead (fort), pushing women to the side and taking children. That does sound a lot like terrorism.
But the really tricky part is that in their minds, these self-described fundamentalist LDS Churchgoers (I won't call them Christians just yet) were only doing what their faith told them was right. Or at least within their rights. According to their interpretation of the Bible, the way they lived was cool. And they do believe the Bible offers the guidance for their way of life. (Ok, NOW I'll call them Christians) Granted, they've dropped the violence of the Old Testament, and the lessons to be learned, but their beliefs, though slightly appended by more modern "prophets," are based in the New Testament. Fundamentalist LDS folk are LDS folk and LDS folk are New Testament Christians.
So, how does faith help solve this matter? And if it doesn't, then it's part of the problem. In the case of the 167 kids in Texas - abused or not? Drop the religious protection, and the choice is clear. Raid the place. It's a cult fortress. But put it back in the context of a religious organization, and it's no longer as easy to decide. There are religious freedom rights to consider, and those rights require absolutely no logical justification other than being called a religion.
So there you go. Our nation, founded on protecting religious freedom, is now damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we interfere on behalf of a 15 year old girl who may or may not want to be married to and bear the children of a 50 year old man with several other wives, we're fascists. If we don't interfere, we may be violating that 15 year old's basic human rights... so we're... fascists.
Sounds like a pretty easy decision to make like that... err on the side of caution, eh? But toss the religous argument into the mix and it's no longer easy. So by my moral standard (that which causes human suffering is bad/immoral) interfering is the way to go. While we may violate someone's religious beliefs, that alone doesn't directly cause suffering, and they'll have their day in court. If we're wrong, their lifestyle/religion will be restored. But if the girl really is being abused, held against her will, raped, then not interfering is condoning the abuse and furthering the suffering. That's wrong. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, eh?
I've read that one of the pre-cursors to the fall of an empire is that the empire becomes more "liberal" and its citizenry grows lazy, taking the fruits of the empire for granted. It's true, except for the liberal part. Because liberal means willing to consider other perspectives, making an effort to understand other points of view as long as those points of view can be defended with sound logic. That's not lazy. And requiring a logical justification isn't liberal or "secular." It's actually a lot of work requiring a lot of faith in the person espousing that other perspective. What's lazy is taking for granted the fact that a few key words absolve one from having to argue or defend one's position. That is decidely not liberal, not logical, and in the case of the Fundamentalist LDS folk in Texas, all the justification they need to maintain their compound.
Luth
Out
