FLDS Thoughts and Some Questions

For two days I've been trying to compose a sensible, researched, thoughtful blog post about the FLDS case in Texas.  My thoughts are so scattered as to be incoherent.  One moment I am outraged that the state felt it had the right to even enter the compound and seize control of over 400 children; the next, I wonder how that group operates, followed immediately by questions about what circumstances justify parental rights becoming taken by government.

Philosophy, especially as it is applied to parental rights, is not one of my strong points.  I've read an excellent discussion, both in the blog post and in over 100 comments, on Crooked Timber by Harry Brighouse.  I've read another view on Watching Those We Chose about how this case is a challenge to religious liberty.  These two are among the better articles, with Crooked Timber's being the most detailed.  I highly recommend them both.

I've been thinking along another line.  FLDS has been called a cult, and I found the use of the word interesting, and a bit offensive. So I went searching what is meant by cult.  This explanation and discussion of cults is interesting, and very detailed.  Cult has, I believe, become a mostly pejorative term, except when applied to wine.  It's primarily used when the group to which it refers is reclusive and seen as extreme.

Christ and his disciples, as described in the gospels, were a cult.  There is not other way they could be described.  Over centuries, this cult became the second largest Abrahamic religion of the world, losing its cult status.  Therefore the question, when in the growth cycle does a cult lose its negativity?  When does a cult become a mainstream religion?

The idea that simply because a cult has different practices from the surrounding society is sufficient reason to invade and forcefully change them, is simply outrageous.  And there comes the turning point in my reasoning.  If the cult's practices harm individuals, either physically or in their emotional development, there may be reason to seek a means of removing the danger.  A cult should not be allowed to violate individual rights.

And, at that point there is another twist, especially in this case, taking two, separate paths.  At what point does a young person become capable of making his or her own decisions about life style, and also at what point is the state justified in terminating parental rights?  Does the state have a say in determining the former?  Harry has an excellent discussion of these.

From my perspective, the methods the state of Texas has used are atrocious, heavy-handed attempts to destroy a group of people that were merely different.  As Gadfly says:

It seems that the state of Texas, including the overworked and understaffed Child Protective Services and District Judge Barbara Walther are acting on presupposition and prejudice in how they have acted from the moment of raiding the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or FLDS, compound in Eldorado. [Emphasis added]

Few news agencies have provided many facts.  It seems that there are very likely some simply outrageous and illegal practices going on.  Again from my perspective, there had to be more peaceful ways of investigating, charging, and stopping the illegalities without destroying families and the innocent.

I realize this statement is not sustained by evidence, but it seems to me that Texas still has a "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality.  After all, that's what our President did in Iraq.  Here though, to continue the metaphor, they have shot themselves in the foot and further damaged our rights.  Again quoting Gadfly:

Likewise, let’s not prejudge the FLDS. Remember, the Pilgrims came here for religious freedom. Remember also that if you try drawing First Amendment lines to exclude one belief, you’ve lost the right to object when somebody else wants to exclude yours.

It's incorrect to say you've lost that right. But it surely does become less illogical that you complain.

Comments

[Felix Grant]

I don't have enough knowledge to intelligently discuss the rights and wrongs of this case. I will, instead, follow a point of principle which I believe is relevant to all such cases.

At the beginning of paragraph two, you use the words "parental rights". I would argue that, in the context of such cases, neither parents nor state (nor, for that matter, the community) have any rights. The only rights which count, here, are the rights of the children involved.

Parental rights are often taken, in libertarian discussion, to be synonymous with children's rights, but that is emphatically not so. The two are not necessarily at odds, but they are certainly not the same thing.