Texas’ Actions Not An Infringement on Religious Freedom
This morning’s Trib contained an op-ed from Maggie Jessop, that began with the not so provocative opening line:
So, you want to hear from the FLDS women, huh? OK, you asked for it.
Normally, “You asked for it” is followed by a good rant. Not in this case. The op-ed itself is semi-coherent - a saccharine paean to applehood and motherpie. FWIW, it’s not worth much. Ms. Jessop’s arguments rests on her status as a mother (which I’ll talk about in a moment) and her apparent lack of criminal convictions (which only means she hasn’t been caught before). It would be a laughable bit of writing if it weren’t obvious she is deadly serious and means every word she’s written.
Ms. Jessop writes:
If someone is different, people get suspicious, perhaps even jealous, and assume the worst. Interesting. I have broken no law. I have never abused my children. I have injured no one in the choices I have made. I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I am entitled to the same rights as you are. I expect the freedom to worship God after the dictates of my own conscience, and believe all men, and women, should be free to do the same.
You are free to worship as you see fit, you are free to believe as you see fit. You are not free, however, to cloak the abuse of children in religion and expect the rest of us to turn a blind eye. Ms. Jessop claims she has never abused her children. That may be true, but she has turned a blind eye while teenage girls have been raped by adult men. They cloak it in the language of marriage, they dress it up in religious robes, but any time an adult has sex with an adolescent, there is a violation of the law and of the adolescent. Legally, a minor cannot give consent - he/she cannot sign contracts, cannot buy houses. He/she cannot give legal consent to sex. Now, there is a compelling case to be made that our current age of consent laws don’t make sense and create unnecessary problems and suffering. For instance, if two people are dating in high school, having sex, so long as both are 17, there’s not much the law will do, the minute one of them turns 18, the law is being broken even if the behavior stays the same; that does not make sense but that’s not what happened at Yearning For Zion ranch. Among the FLDS, adolescent girls are regularly married to men two and three times their ages. The FLDS is clearly a closed, cult (and no, I will not use the term “emerging religion” or “new religiouss movement” to describe this community in which the leaders exercise economic and sexual control over members, very often to the benefit of the leaders and detriment of everyone else).
You are free to worship as you see fit. But freedom of religion is not carte blanche to do whatever lunatic thing you think “God” is okay with you doing. Freedom of religion doesn’t extend to the right to harm others. I can’t commit murder because my faith tells me to and expect society to turn a blind eye. The FLDS have engaged in systematic abuse and cover up of that abuse of children and young people. That Utah and Arizona have so long turned a blind eye doesn’t mean our states should have done that. FLDS adults are absolutely free to worship as they see fit, to live as they see fit. They can throw giant orgies, they can sleep nine women and one man to a bed if it works for them. But the rape of teenage girls crosses a moral line and it is one they should never have crossed. Ms. Jessop tries to scare the rest of us into agreeing with her:
Put yourself in my shoes, because you and your children could be next. You think you are safe because you belong to the public? I am denied my rights because I am alien? Frankly, they are dead wrong. I am just a normal person. I have eyes and ears, not to mention a big mouth, and I have a heart to feel my way through life, and I have a brain to reason and choose.
They take my children because my beliefs could damage them years from now? How ridiculous can they get?
If the Avenues Second Ward is engaging in systemic sexual abuse of minors and having their private doctors cover it up and not act in their roles as mandated reporters, then, yeah, they could be next. If First Presbyterian is doing that, they could be next. And they would deserve to be next. But aside from the FLDS, I don’t know of any churches that actively encourage such behaviors. The Catholic church covered up for pedophilic priests for decades and when the news came out, the Catholic Church faced the music to tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. But those actions, as reprehensible as they were, were nevertheless in violation of stated church policy and moral theology. The FLDS have enshrined the sexual abuse of minors in their theology and their practice. Justified by their faith, however, those actions are not privileged from criminal prosecution. If your church is covering up for rapists, murderers, child molesters, then yeah, you could be next. And you deserve to be. But chances are good your church isn’t doing any of those things.
The challenge presented by the FLDS adults like Ms. Jessop is the challenge of allowing adults to do what they see fit so long as others are not harmed. The rest of society looks at Ms. Jessop her sister wives and her husband and wonders “What in the name of God is wrong with these people?” But they are adults and they have the right to arrange their emotional and sexual lives as they see fit. If their faith tells them that they should be in plural marriages, then fine.
But, their faith not only ignores but sanctions behaviors toward children that are harmful to those children. If the FLDS men had managed to not rape teenagers, and waited until those teens were legally of age before engaging in sex with these women, I rather doubt any state, including Texas, would have acted. But apparently nubile teenage flesh is more than the average FLDS fifty-something man can resist.
Ms. Jessop would have us believe that she is just like the rest of us. And that is true - the rest of us if raised within a closed community like the FLDS have created would believe what she believes. We would not doubt the righteousness of her faith or her cause. We would be able to ignore the increasing incidents of birth defects that result from generations of inbreeding. We would not doubt see nothing wrong with fifty year old men having sex with 14 year old girls. We would no doubt believe that kicking adolescent boys out of town was for everyone’s good. We would no doubt believe that the words of Warren Jeffs are straight from God.
But we are not like her. We have been fortunate. We have not been raised trapped in a closed and closed minded community that sanctions child rape. We have been trapped in a world where the words of deluded and senile old man like Rulon Jeffs are law and we have not lived in a world where the ruthless and amoral Warren Jeffs is an unquestioned authority, speaking the words of God for us to obey. Ms. Jessop is in many ways a victim of a religion gone mad, turned into cult, of a faith turned inward on itself, an ouroboros biting its own tail and poisoning itself it fear, isolation and lies.
Ms. Jessop claims that she just wants to be a mother and nothing more (she also throws in a healthy does of cloying sentiment and unearned self pity):
My day planner ought to be filled with ideas for a day of improvement with my children, for nothing is more joyful than witnessing the development of a child from heaven, nothing more pleasant than watching a beautiful bud of the rarest flower on earth blossom into a picture of loveliness, a precious bloom in the garden of life, nourished by that eternal element of unconditional love, a gift from our Eternal Father, which He makes available to His children through the instrumentality of unselfish motherhood.
My pillow really ought to be a sacred place where I can rest my weary head after a satisfying day of interaction with precious children, not a sponge of sorrow to mop the tears of a childless mother. [Editor's note: where's my air sickness bag?]
Ask your questions about the most misunderstood people on Earth. [Editor's note: yeah, really, child rapists and their accomplices are misunderstood.] Seek the truth, and we will answer with truth. Just ask.
If Ms. Jessop were a mother who did not turn a blind eye to the harmful actions of the other adults around her, if she were not a mother who were defending a toxic cult that sanctions and encourages damaging behaviors, she would be free to be a mother. She could fill her day planner to bursting with all kinds of ideas. But she’s not that kind of woman and so for now, she needs to deal with the consequences of her own inaction.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Glenden,
When are you going to put your secret FLDS video footage on YouTube? Don’t forget to put a link to it here!!!
May 11th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
So Frank you think it’s okay for middle aged men to “marry” teenage girls?
May 11th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I skipped over this op-ed in the paper this morning, only because it’s a no-brainer. Religion and motherhood aside, we have to accept that even members of a cult are citizens with Fifth Amendment rights. I don’t pretend to know what the Texas authorities ought to have done, but what they did IMHO was un-American and illegal.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
What Riichard said. ‘Cept I did read the article.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Glenden, this is a great instance of what I like to call the “let them eat cake” fallacy. You seem to think that modern perception is universal. It is only in the last hundred years or so that people have begun to see marriage between young girls and older men as wrong or sick, and only in a small portion of the world.
With the advent of age of consent laws, which are intended to protect children from predators, we have removed the child’s right to choose. If a 15-year old girl is dating a 19-year old man who has no intention of abusing her (as it was with my grandmother and grandfather), why is it that she is not allowed to choose to marry him? For one in opposition to the sensibilities of people like Roberson, it surprises me that you would impose your sensibilities on such a couple.
The fact is that, within the FLDS community, it is standard practice to marry young. And most of the FLDS women were happy and satisfied with their condition (although many are maladjusted and poorly informed about the choices that were available to them–hence the cult nature of the compound). If you think it is twisted for a middle-aged man to be attracted to a teenage girl, then I can equal impose on you by saying that it is twisted for a man to be attracted to another man. Would either of us be right? You are simply imposing what YOU consider to be tolerable sexual interest on a community that possesses different experiences and standards. “Let them eat cake,” anyone?
Nonetheless, I totally agree with you on the abuse question. I think that polygamy far too frequently encourages abuse. And it’s very perceptive of you to question your own assumptions about consensual age laws. I respect that.
I’m not sure what to think a lot of the time about the FLDS ranch situation. I think it is a miscarriage of justice in some ways, but I despise the “if the government can do it to them, they can do it to us” argument that so many people around here support. I could equally say of a murderer “if the government can put him in prison, it can put you in prison.” It’s not a valid argument. The fact is, the government SHOULD have the power to save children from abusive situations. Children are not the property of their parents OR of the state. Parenthood is a sacred trust, and when that trust is broken, parenthood is inulled until the trust is earned back. The government must allow parents the chance to be responsible and caring. But when they are abusive, the government has to look out for the children and the society of which those children are a part.
Thanks, Glenden.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
May 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Dwight - I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, as a society we need to reconsider age of consent laws. As I said in my post, it makes no sense that two people who have been dating and having sex are suddenly breaking the law when one of them turns 18 and the other is still 17.
There are clear issues when one partner is 13 and the other 35. Is it developmentally appropriate for a 13 year old to be having sex with a 35 year old? For either of them? It’s not the attraction I question, it’s the willingness of FLDS men to see in much younger women viable sexual partners for themselves - the FLDS men’s behavior is not appropriate adult behavior. An adult should not be having sex with an adolescent 15, 25, 35 years his/her junior.
Let me put it another way - the gym where I work out has a veritable flood of attractive 20-somethings, many of them University students, working out at almost all hours. As I near 40, however, I don’t look at these persons and see potential partners. Developmentally, we’re not in the same stage of life and from my perspective, it’s not developmentally appropriate to be chasing 20 somethings - that suggests something wrong in my emotional maturity. On the other hand, I’ve had in recent months a couple 20 something men start hitting on and I’ve consistently turned them down, advising them to find someone who is closer to them developmentally. I guess I”m trying to say it goes both ways - both partners need to be pursuing developmentally appropriate relationships.
You say among the FLDS young marriage is the standard practice and you’re right, but we’re not talking about a 15 and 16 year old marrying each other. We’re talking about a system in which adult men are marrying adolescent girls - and in which those girls are under extreme coercive pressures that prevent them saying no. It’s not simply a matter of older men being attracted to younger women. If these men were simply attracted to these women that’s not an issue - but the FLDS leaders (all of them men) have constructed a system in which they have sexual access to these adolescent girls.
The idea of “consent” is meaningless when it is uninformed consent - FLDS women, as you pointed out, have a very poor idea of their options and they are deliberately kept ignorant of their options.
I can imagine scenarios in which poly relationships are ethical and non-abusive. In these cases, the spouses have the freedom to leave, know their freedom to say no will be respected. In the scenario I can easily envision, there is an absence of sexism. I’ve met people living polyamorous relationships where there are 2 men and three women and the relationship is fully consensual, non-abusive, non-exploitive, mutual and developmentally appropriate.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I agree with most of what you say, and I appreciate your perspective on this. I consider most healthy intimate relationships, both physical and emotional, between marriage partners to require similar age categories. But “developmentally appropriate” relationships are elusive, and far more complex than one might think at the first glance. You must consider that there are viable variations on this theme, as follows:
I have known of men and women who would never develop mentally to the point where consent was valid (at least in the terms we are working with), but got married anyway. Their partner is willing to deal with the difficulty of being bonded to someone who loves them primarily in terms of submissive trust rather than informed consent, and treats them respectfully and lovingly. In psychological terms, one member of the union is incapable of ever achieving a mentality above a certain age (typically middle adolescence in the cases I’m talking about). Does that mean that, when their partner becomes 15 years older than them, they are no longer a viable couple?
Perhaps, however, you are referring to the viability of a long-term relationship. It just isn’t feasible for a 35-year-old man to marry a 15-year old. After all, he’ll die much sooner than she will. But if this is your argument, it leads to the conclusion that women should marry men 7 years younger than them (I’m sure you’re familiar with the statistic that drives this conclusion). So would it be viable for a 23-year-old woman to marry a 16-year-old boy? This argument also defies marriages between equal-aged adults when the lifespan of one is known to have been significantly shortened.
In addition to this, I must be a bit of a postmodern relativist and say that you can’t really know whether someone is developmentally at your level or not. How can you know what’s appropriate? To counter my own point, I’d say that, while you can’t know for sure, there are certainly a lot of reliable guidelines, one of which is age.
As to most of your points, I agree completely. I think it is wise of you to restrict your potential partner base as you do. At your age, I hope I would do the same. And, in the case of the FLDS compound, all of the points you made are almost certainly true. I despise the way that so many polygamist communities create closed environments in which they brainwash their daughters to permit early rape and a tiered repeat marriage paradigm. It sickens me.
Just as a bit of humor, Glenden, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone, after talking to you, turned their backs and said bitterly, “Well, he’s only right because he’s an expert. Sheesh.”
Thanks,
Dwight Sheldon Adams
May 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Dwight - your counter examples - for instance the developmentally disabled person - are challenging.
Part of discussing these issues is examining the idea of developmental stages. Every stage of life is a developmental stage - we don’t stop growing and maturing at 18. Infancy, toddler, childhood, youth, adolescence, young adult, adult, middle age, senior citizen are all distinct stages with their own developmental “tasks” - steps through which a person moves. A friend of mine (now in her mid 80s) talks about being in the stages of dying - of accepting that her death is going to be sooner not later and learning how to have a full and rewarding life as her body is showing more and more signs of the end of life. When I talk about developmentally appropriate that’s the model I use.
As an adolescent, part of the developmental process is learning to think abstractly, to develop one’s own identity as a moral agent and independent person, not defined solely by your family and friends, and to begin developing mature relationships.
Age is a handy - albeit at times unreliable - guideline. I know 16 year olds who are considerably more mature than some 25 year olds I know. I known people who as adults - say in their 40s and 50s - finally come out. They have delayed the normal adolescent sexual explorations until their 40s and 50s. In some sense, they have to go through the stages but they’re doing it at a later stage. These persons are the exception and certainly very instructive.
To address, for instance, the developmentally disabled person whose emotional maturity will never grow past a certain age. I think the focus of our discussion should be on their partner. Why would a person pursue a relationship with someone whose emotional/psychological development is such that they will remain dependent and submissive? I can’t help but look at such a scenario and think that the non-disabled partner will tire of being in the caretaker role. They will - and I would guess sooner rather than later - want a more equal relationship. It’s not a matter of chosing who we love, but of being mature enough to know which relationships cannot succeed. For the disabled partner, the advantage is being cared for, but at some point even a loving dependency becomes unhealthy for the dependent partner.
In the case of the 15 and 35 year old, however, it’s not a matter of life expectancy. IMHO, an emotionally healthy, mature 35 year old should NOT be looking at a 15 year old as a potential partner. Certainly there are 15 year olds who would seek a 35 year old as a potential partner, but a 35 year immature enough to respond has a problem. It seems to me that the older partner is pursuing younger partners out of insecurity and emotional immaturity rather than persons in his/her own developmental range who are probably more threatening because they act and expect their partners to act as equals, peers.
You are absolutely right that no one can know for certain if another person is at your developmental level or not. I think a person should learn to trust his/her instincts.