I'm still following the situation in Texas with the Fundamentalist LDS cult...er, church--no, cult! So is Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

The FLDS Compound Standoff and Liberty

Category:
Posted on: April 10, 2008 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

I'm sure everyone is aware of the situation going on in Texas, where authorities have raided an FLDS compound. FLDS is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a breakaway Mormon sect that still practices polygamy. The affidavit filed to secure a warrant has been released publicly and the things it describes are quite repulsive and reveal classic cult behavior.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services got phone calls from a 16 year old girl inside the compound. She'd been taken there at 13 years of age, where she was promptly "married" to a 49 year old man and impregnated. That man has already been convicted of child sexual abuse in the past. She has one young child and is pregnant with another.

She reported being physically abused by her "husband" repeatedly and not being allowed to leave the compound except for medical purposes, and only then when accompanied by a male from the compound. They would not allow her to take her infant child with her off the property, which serves to insure that she won't try to escape. This is classic cult behavior.

The girl told authorities that she is being held against her will and they went and got a warrant to get her out. Upon entering the compound, they found dozens and dozens of girls who had been "spiritually married" to middle aged men and impregnated at 13 or 14 years of age. That's why they started bringing all the children out. The list of felonies being committed there on a daily basis is long.

Sandefur writes about a ridiculous post by Butler Shaffer at Lew Rockwell that discusses "interesting parallels" between this situation and...military bases. Seriously.

As I observed media coverage of the government's assault on the Mormon sect's property at El Dorado, Texas, I was struck by the fact that the description being offered of the church's facilities and activities paralleled those of military installations.

For starters, the activities of the religious group were described as "secretive" in nature, ignoring the fact that the military routinely puts the stamp of "secret" on virtually everything it does - short of participating in a holiday parade. Nor does the church permit non-members access to its property. In the words of the state prosecutor who seems to be directing this assault, "their place of worship is very special to them. It appears to be of great concern to them if a person from outside their congregation even attempts to step inside their place of worship." But have you ever tried getting onto a military base? If so, haven't you met with the same "great concern" from armed guards desirous of keeping those "from outside their congregation" from entering?

It has also been reported that this church provides a great deal of on-site housing, as well as provision for the daily needs of its members, so as to make the facility as self-sufficient as possible. Again, if you have been able to get onto military bases, did you fail to notice all of the on-base housing (barracks) as well as churches, schools, recreational facilities, gas stations, movie theaters, medical offices, PX stores, and other means of accommodating the needs of their members?

One cable news report informed us that church officials wore insignias indicating the level of their authority within the organization. Need I point out the obvious?

Argument by insinuation. Allow me to point out what is, indeed, obvious: if military bases were used for raping (no, the "spiritual marriage" does not transform the rape of a 13 year old girl into anything other than rape) barely pubescent girls, he might have a point. Yes, military bases are well guarded and have on-base housing. And therefore....what? Shaffer doesn't say, of course, I suspect because he knows his insinuations are utterly moronic. Like this conclusion:

Finally, the stated purpose for this governmental assault on the church has been that young, teenage girls have been the victims of rape and forced marriages. If this is true, there is no moral defense one could possibly make of such practices. But the government is hardly in a position to make such a condemnation. In a March 31, 2008 news story, the Los Angeles Times carried an op-ed piece informing us of what was known ever before that date: the frequent rapes of women soldiers by their fellow soldiers. One woman was reportedly raped by a military physician, another by her commanding officer. The author concludes that "women in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."

All of which is true, and all of which should be stopped. But that hardly justifies this idiotic claim that because government sometimes does bad things, there is no justification for it also doing good things. If the government has any legitimate job, surely it's protecting young children from being raped by those in a position of authority over them. That the government also does bad things hardly undermines the legitimacy of that task. Sandefur nails it perfectly:

Once again, this is not libertarianism. This is an unprincipled, childish hostility to anything done by government, even if it is acting in defense of the rights of the innocent against the nastiest imaginable assaults.

Quite so.

Using religion and sex to subdue girls and women disgust me--probably almost as much as the apparent knowledge the local community had about the "goings-on" at a church...with a bed at the altar.

Lalita Amos's blog | login or register to post comments