Am I a Plaster Saint?
Author's note: This post is not a jab a the Mormon church, or the good people whom I grew up with and who often get a bum rap they do not deserve.
__________________________________________
When it comes to extremist sects, I tend to get soft on property rights. I believe that there are circumstances in which our government should be able to step and remove children (or "wives" in fundamentalist parlance), and I completely support such invasions so long as they are based on adequate evidence.
But when it comes to the Amish, who don't want to follow building codes, my property rights values flare, and out comes the dander in my pre-14th Amendment primal self. Why should the government be able to tell you how to design your private home? What does the government care if you don't use grade certified lumber, stainless steel fasteners, toilets, or electricity?
That makes me a hypocrite. I can't think of a single meaningful distinction between the two issues and yet I am willing to draw the line. Take, for example, this snippet from my inner monologue (and, no the voices do not have names):
But when it comes to the Amish, who don't want to follow building codes, my property rights values flare, and out comes the dander in my pre-14th Amendment primal self. Why should the government be able to tell you how to design your private home? What does the government care if you don't use grade certified lumber, stainless steel fasteners, toilets, or electricity?
That makes me a hypocrite. I can't think of a single meaningful distinction between the two issues and yet I am willing to draw the line. Take, for example, this snippet from my inner monologue (and, no the voices do not have names):
- The relationship between building codes and social harm is tenuous when compared to statuary rape . . . but so what? They're still public safety laws.
- Sexual assault and gender subordination are pressing social concerns . . . and indoor plumbing isn't? Besides, you can't seriously say a fifteen year old Amish girl is free or liberated.
- Religious extremism (distinguished from religiousness) is a historical problem worthy of rigorous government intervention . . . and so is building and housing safety.
- The Amish are expressing their religious beliefs, which makes them worthy of a special kind of deference . . . okay, but then what's wrong with polygamy? Besides, try telling that to the non-Amish neighbor who has to spend thousands of dollars on galvanized nails and percolation tests.
- The difference is that the Amish are harmless . . . now you're just being a bigot.
posted by Patrick Bageant at 11:20 AM
16 Comments:
Those are the thoughts of an Idahoan (or Dan). You're a big man for admitting it though.
Nope, Dan is ok with both.
By that I mean ok with both instances of government intervention, not ok with both polygamy and building code violations.
I am by no means an expert but the situations are different. Building codes: no girl children are getting raped by the lack of a certified plumber installing a toilet. My understanding of the Amish is they get to choose. AT 18, don't they get to go out into the world, mess around for a year, and only then come back and decide whether to "be" Amish? What kind of choice does a 12, 14, or even 16 year old girl have when her parents force her to sexually submit to an old man?
Very different topics.
1:37, what kind of "choice" is it to come out and visit the world for the first time when you're 18? Not to confuse the two, but the Mormon "lost boys" prove it's very hard indeed to just jump into society and figure out what's going on.
I'm certainly no defender of ANY religion to be honest, but its more of a choice than the girl children in those nutty sects have to not be sexually abused by men twice or three times their age.
However, I don't want this to astray into Polygamy cults vs Amish treatment of women. I was pointing out that building codes and lack of complying with, are a much different thing than nutty cults sexually abusing children.
Laura, let's take it easy on equating "Mormon" with polygamist. I lived in Utah till I was 18, 90% of the people in my hometown are Mormon, and I never once met a single polygamist.
In my experience, no one is more opposed to polygamy than mainstream Mormons, since they've spent hundreds of years trying to distance themselves from it.
For example, I've been trying to take my name off of whatever Mormon list I'm on for a decade without success, but if you even bring up polygamy, they excommunicate you immediately. Come to think of it, maybe I should try that.
Polygamist religions in the western United States are extremist sects that share many beliefs and a foundational text with Mormons, but equating the two is like confusing "Muslim" with "terrorist."
Probably an unnecessary point to make, but I just wanted to clarify.
Question to Dan: IF there were polygamous families that were NOT extremist/abusive to children, would you still be opposed to them?
If so, why? I am more opposed to the abuse that goes on in these extremist sects, than the fact that a family has more than two parents.
Point of verbiage that may help. This is as I understand it from discussions with my LDS acquaintances, and may not be 100% correct:
When getting technical, contemporary John Smith-ies prefer to go by "LDS," which is short for Church of the Latter Day Saints. They want to draw the distinction between the contemporary Mormon Church (which made a declaration against polygamy and other things at the turn of the century and got serious about it in the 1950's), and the isolated groups who continue to practice the pre-turn of the century doctrine.
Those isolated groups (ie the people are talking about here) are called "Mormon Fundamentalists," and their practice is called "Fundamentalist Mormonism." (Duh.) Their creed is essentially the same doctrinal bag as the old school Mormon Church, which sanctioned polygamy and racial exclusion -- only whites are to play ball in the Kingdom. (And speaking of the Kingdom, wow. You can look it up for yourself.)
In case this wasn't confusing enough, the modern LDS church also claims that there is no such thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. They would have people use the phrase "polygamous sect." The attempt to disassociate with their sect-y cousins (!) hasn't caught on and nobody really uses that phrase, except when they are trying to be polite.
The point is, "Mormon" is a tad ambiguous because the LDS Church still calls itself Mormon, but it has changed the list of practices it sanctions. The fundamentalists also call themselves Mormons, but they have not changed their practices.
That is why the clearest terms are Mormon Fundamentalist, and LDS. Using them will also please people who practice the LDS faith, many of whom find polygamy and racism as offensive as we do. Or more so, since they practice their religion knowing it carries a cloud of stigma they may not deserve.
I am pretty sure the distinctions usually are referred to as "LDS" and "FLDS." News in Utah uses those terms.
Dan, it's hard to believe Mormons have been trying to distance themselves from polygamists for "hundreds of years" when the LDS movement started in 1830.
Plus the mainstream church did not begin to prohibit polygamy until 1890.
Is it really harmless to violate building codes? I myself have marveled at the complex and arcane system that is the building code, and often find it hard to justify certain ... fascisms for want of a better word. But, the building codes are not all about paternalism. Sure, the government wants to minimize harm to those who would bring it upon themselves, but if the Amish are really an isolated community, then I think we can generally agree that they should be able to form their own codes. When someone from the mainstream community enters an Amish building, however, they reasonably expect a certain level of safety. If that expectation is not met, then there is a problem. In other words, the codes protect my ass from getting hurt and if you view violation of the codes as something like presumptive negligence, I think the regime begins to make sense (gimme a break, I'm just coming off a 24 hour final). Maybe the Amish are completely isolated, though. I don't claim to know the answer to that. Um... in conclusion. I'm going to bed. (I think that's how I signed off on my exam as well)
I think Dan was exaggerating for effect, but if not, he technically is correct, in that it's been nearly 1.2 hundred years since the Mormon church began prohibiting polygamy. Dictionary.com's first definition for "plural" is "consisting of, containing, or pertaining to more than one."
Depending on the number set you use (let's first go with "rational"), "more than one" refers to any number 1.ō1 or greater. Of course you could make the argument that only the whole number set makes sense in this context, but I assume that people seldomly mean whole-number multiples of 100 when they say "hundreds".
What about the cost of inspection when you buy a new house? Do you really want to have to hire an inspector who determines if the bare minimums in the house have been met, or is it better to just assume the default rule is "meets government standards" and we only go up from there?
"That is why the clearest terms are Mormon Fundamentalist, and LDS. Using them will also please people who practice the LDS faith, many of whom find polygamy and racism as offensive as we do. Or more so, since they practice their religion knowing it carries a cloud of stigma they may not deserve."
Although I'm not sure why I bother defending a church that has put me through more crap than I care to remember, I still disagree with Patrick's classifications. The fact is most Americans know the LDS church by the term "Mormon." Although the church DOES prefer to be called "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," "Mormon" is still acceptable shorthand. For example, if you go to www.mormon.org, you will find the LDS Chuch's official information page for potential new members.
Using a term like "Mormon fundamentalist" conflates the two groups to an extent that I find unfair. I mean, really, you guys would be surprised the extent to which polygamy is reviled by "real" Mormons. They're scared of it, and rightly so. (They still pretty much believe you are polygamist in the afterlife, but that's another issue.)
Fundamentalist LDS, or "FLDS" is one specific group of polygamists, and I believe it's the largest. There are other groups as well. I'll agree with Patrick that they do follow many of the same tenets of the 19th Century Mormon church, but they are VASTLY different from the church today. I mean, most of them are only allowed to wear the sort of pioneer garb that would have been appropriate in 1847 (when the Mormons arrived in Salt Lake). Not only that, but they typically have anointed their own "prophet," who speaks for God and has likely said all kinds of crap that is not in the foundational texts. (Of course, you can say the same thing about the LDS church, but the 'crap' the prophet says tends to be slightly less vile.)
Anyway, I just think the extent to which polygamists differ from Mormons is a lot greater than most people realize, and I worry every time polygamists are in the news that people are making all kinds of unfounded assumptions about the place I grew up. Although it mostly sucked, it's not quite that insane.
I shall now relinquish my reluctant role as Mormon Defender.
Post a Comment
<< Home