More information has come out on the much-publicized raid of the FLDS Compound in Eldorado, Texas. (See prior posting.) The full text of the affidavit of a Texas Ranger that was filed to request a search warrant for the Temple on the FLDS premises has been released. (See prior related posting.) The Affidavit, dated April 6, sought a subsequent search warrant after authorities learned about the Temple while conducting a search of the YFZ Ranch under an initial narrower warrant.
Still unclear is a report in today's International Herald Tribune indicating that federal officials are involved in the search as well. This was revealed when lawyers for FLDS had asked a state court judge to prevent the Temple search, arguing that "Members of the religious denomination occupying the community consider it a desecration of one of their holiest sites for a non-member to enter their temple." State District Court Judge Barbara Walther, however, said that she had no authority to stop a federal search of the property. FLDS lawyer Gerald Goldstein had said in court that he was aware that federal agents were searching the ranch. The Herald Tribune article also gives more details on the actual search of the Temple. FLDS leaders refused to unlock the Temple or provide keys to it because this would be aiding in the desecration of their place of worship. After several less drastic means failed, authorities broke down the Temple's doors.
UPDATE: The AP on Friday published a profile of Gerald Goldstein (bio from law firm website) who is acting as counsel for the FLDS. Goldstein is a respected criminal defense lawyer and a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. For 11 years he served as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas Law School and has served on the board of directors of the San Antonio Bar Association, among many other professional accomplishments.
UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle on Friday reported that Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran had been receiving information about the YFZ Ranch from an informant for four years. However it was not until a call from a 16-year old last week to a domestic violence hotline that law enforcement authorities felt they had sufficient cause to take action and the possibility of a cooperating witness.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Another Affidavit Released In FLDS Search; Federal Agents Apparently Also Involved
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
10 comments:
It's just a little convenient to have a place that is off limits to the law enforcement authorities --a place to potentially hide goodness knows what people or evidence. Criminals love secrecy because their deeds are evil.
I'm surprised that there has not been a bigger outcry over this from the civil libertarians.
Not only was the warrant over broad, but it certainly smacks of religious discrimination.
Yes if there was abuse, that case of abuse should have been investigated. I appreciate that given the closed nature of the community such a limited investigation would be difficult, however would that be worse than a full fledged invasion launched on an allegation from an unsubstantiated minor regarding a man that has apparently not been to Texas for 30 years?
So, Yes, if laws were violated there should be an investigation and prosecution.
But just try and tell me that this was not about:
1) social disapproval of polygamy. One of Lincoln's "twin pillars of barbarism" still annoys us. Witness the hidden cut in the anti-gay marriage refrain of "marriage=1 man + 1 woman." Just can't be man and woman, has to be one of each (otherwise it would be as bad as a *gasp* same sex marriage). It has been clear since Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was just too bizarre to puritan sensibilities to be afforded any serious protection of the laws.
2) social disapproval of "young marriages" (sure it is out of the mainstream, but I do believe that 16 and 17 years of age are sufficient for marriage with parental approval in Texas). If they were performing marriages of younger than 16 then the state does have a compelling reason to act. But honestly, is this method the one with the "least" state obtrusion?
3) Religious prejudice. Agree or not with this sect's views on god, marriage, or modern society, they have been held up to ridicule and humiliation--culminating in the public desecration of their "temple" by sheriff Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
For god's sake, the children were paraded out of the compound in front of television cameras and loaded onto BAPTIST buses.
Gee, if only you kids were baptist to begin with you wouldn't have to be going to internment camps.
Anonymous - The reason for the Baptist buses is probably because they had a very limited choice in transportation. The population of that county is very small. I read that it's less than 3,000 people for the whole county. And that includes thepeople from the FLDS. It was likely the church buses or school buses, and church buses look like they be much more comfortable. And that assumes that the county owns school buses.
I had a well thought out post that just evaporated, so I'll be quick lest it happen again.
The Baptist busses and church accomodations must be one of the most boneheaded maneuvers ever pulled by Texas cops. And from what I've seen so far, admissable evidence is going to evaporate as fast as my prior post. The coming trials are going to be a complete clusterf*ck, and in a few years, there'll be more wealthy pedophiles in Texas.
On the bright side, maybe they grabbed a few kids that needed saving. OK.
I think it's quite possible the accused was with the girl. Just because his parole officer saw him doesn't mean anything. The event was on Easter, and the man surely could've been in Texas on that date without his parole officer knowing.
How would you find out the truth if you don't take the women and children to a safe place away from the men? And why shouldn't the Baptists help to make it less traumatic for the children treating them with more hospitality than a jail could offer? Seems someone was aware of the importance of doing this very carefully.
when I saw people taken to the buses, a blanket/sheet was held up to prevent the cameras from showing the faces of the women and kids.
For pete's sake, anonymous --polygamy is illegal and this town has had this going on under their noses for years. This girl's call gave them a reason to do something about it.
It's not about Baptists vs. Mormons at all. It was about helping --and finding out which of the women and children might feel like prisoners and might be subject to abuse. How can you find out if you don't separate them from the men?
And finally, these polygamous men marry one legally and put all the others on ADC and get foodstamps -because these randy bucks can't afford all these women and kids. So this is not just about their religious free exercise --they are doing something irresponsible and asking the rest of us to pay for them. That's not Biblical --nor is polygamy sanctioned. This is their made-up religion from Joseph Smith/Brigham Young. "Bring'em young" seems to be their motto.
"The Baptist buses and church accommodations must be one of the most boneheaded maneuvers ever pulled by Texas cops"
*Amen*
If the county had few resources available, the LAST option should have been using religious buses--and if then, cover the logos on them. Anybody ever heard of PR? Appearances matter.
You think anybody in the Muslim world would mind if we rounded up a bunch of muslim families and loaded them on buses that said "christianity"?
I'd bet you they would be demanding apologies before the day was out.
Intentional or not--and I'm willing to give the Texas officials the benefit of the doubt--it was incredibly "boneheaded" as tim noted.
Barb, you say it is "not about Baptists vs. Mormons at all" and then end with "That's not Biblical".
That sounds like a religious argument to me.
Moreover, you seem willing to dismiss their position because, as you note, their religion is "made-up".
So we don't have to grant legal protections to "made-up" religions? And just who gets to decide which religion is made-up?
Shall we place me in charge? Though I admire many of my good christian friends, I happen to think all of christianity is "made-up". I mean honestly now, you mean to tell me that this FLDS church has more far-fetched beliefs than can be found in other parts of christianity:
Virgin birth? (an oxymoron) Immaculate conception? (offends justice)
Transubstantiation? (cannibalism) Trinity? (the old Medieval rubric was that the surest sign that you failed to understand the true nature of the trinity was that it made sense).
Each of these beliefs to a non-christian can seem very strange, if not laughable. But to a believing christian they are serious and should not be mocked.
Legal protections are not about what we think of another's beliefs, but about our willingness to protect their rights to believe those things no matter how silly they may seem.
Like I said, if the state felt it had a compelling reason to act to protect the innocent, then it should act. But the state is also under the onus of doing so in the least obtrusive way possible. This was clearly not the least obtrusive, it was the most intrusive and least mindful of the rights to privacy and due process of the people involved.
Lastly, I'd just pose a question myself. Yes polygamy is currently illegal in Texas.
Why?
Anthropologists have been able to present compelling evidence that family structures (such as marriage) arise as a response to the economic circumstances that the society operates within. As such, there is no "objectively" better form of marriage than another. Rather, each is better adapted to certain circumstances. In the bible, for example, nomadic pastoral peoples tended to have multiple wives (such as those dwelling in the negev such as Abraham and Moses--which appears to be the justification for modern christian polygamy).
In modern times those economic constraints have faded away--now any kind of familial structure is equally likely to survive and thrive.
So why is polygamy against the law?
You might say that it is because "these randy bucks can't afford all these women and kids"? But how is this different from the man that impregnates 5 mistresses and has them live off of welfare? (other than that under polygamy he has promised to take care of them)? Now, I confess that I have no idea of what these people do for a living, how many are on welfare, or how self-sufficient they are (though I am skeptical of some of the critical claims I have heard about them).
But my question remains: why is polygamy illegal if not for religious (and religious culture) reasons?
Just because it is a law doesn't mean it is right (anybody remember slavery?)
Forgive me if I repeat myself --but perhaps we are not all reading all the comments on other articles here on this case...
when the patriarchs of the Old Testament took more than one wife, it was usually not out of obedience to God.
About Abraham --at first he had one wife and God was displeased when Sarah gave her maid to Abraham in order to follow the pagan custom of claiming the children of your maid for yourself. The couple lacked faith that God would fulfill His promise to give her a child since she was getting too old -- and she was getting desperate so she told her husband to take the maid to bed. he did not marry her but there are a couple of other wives mentioned as his later, and I don't know if the former ones may have died off. It is believed that the child of the maid is the patriarch of the Muslims and the conflict between Jews and the other Semite peoples today has been called, "The war of the cousins" Sarah regretted her sin and Abe lived to regret it as well.
The following website deals well with the issue of Biblical monogamy/vs. polygamy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4074.asp
When I state what the Bible says--i realize that's moot for those who don't believe in the Bible --but none the less, I believe the Bible is Truth about sin vs. righteousness. I know that many acts of Biblical people were sinful --not what God wanted.
With Abraham as the Father of Israel, God is starting with pagan people --and leading them into enlightenment, so that out of them would come "The Light of the World," Jesus, the annointed one from God.
So we don't look to the acts of the patriarchs for our model of righteousness --but more the teaching of the prophets, and the ultimate teachings by Christ.
As I said before, the problem with polygamy is that the birthrate is almost one male for every female. No man has a right to take more than his share, leaving the other men bereft of choices among the young women --while an old gink,announces, "God wants ME to have 12 wives --I'm sorry about you other 11 blokes --you're just out of luck--and out of the clan!"
It's interesting, isn't it, how non-believers will use the Bible to make their points if they can.
It isn't that non-believers try to use the bible to make a point (if they don't believe, why would they care what it says--what authority does it have?) But rather, to highlight that what most believers seem unwilling to confront: that they must use a "belief" or "interpretation" of that document to support their position.
It is this intersection of belief and the law that is the area of concern.
Given that the bible must be subject to interpretation, how is the state to say that one "belief" or interpretation is more legitimate than another--except on the very basis of that belief (a tautology).
Most every believer I know claims to have the "correct" interpretation, and yet they differ on what that correct interpretation is. So, for example, Barb might say: "God condemns polygamy and I can prove it." And then selects certain passages that support that position (and rationalizes away those that refute it). Then an FLDS member steps up and says: "God supports polygamy" and selects certain passages that support that position (and rationalizes away those that refute it).
The precise point of having protections against "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion is to prevent one group from saying: "our interpretation is the correct one and you must conform to it."
Honestly now, one could come up with some very distressing laws based on their interpretation of the Bible, could they not?
-Slavery
-Stoning
-Enforced modesty
-Prohibitions against women talking
-Sexual practices/positions
-the length of men's hair
-Celibacy
-Dietary restrictions
and so on...
Each of these at one time or another has been viewed by some Christian group as an important element of biblical orthodoxy.
Would you feel comfortable with having these as secular laws? Would you like it, were the positions reversed, if the FLDS got to make laws of the country?
I have no problem with people believing the bible as they wish to. More power to them. I think that people believing in a moral code and trying to better themselves is an admirable goal. My problem is when they begin to say: "All must follow my beliefs/interpretation."
...and prohibitions against polygamy would seem to be an example of this.
ANON, The things you say the Bible supports by some people's interpretation --are not really supported by the whole of the Bible --or even by the parts.
It is you who picks and chooses and interprets with limited perspective
Take slavery. It really is never condoned in the Bible --even where it is acknowledged as an institution of Bible times. It is not instituted BY God as a good thing. He wanted his Jewish people out of it and delivered them.
Jesus's "golden rule" nullifies it. "Do to others as you'd want done to you." Presto. Free your slaves - oops wait, they have no where to go and no way to survive. So what do you do? Free them, treat them as equals, as employees not slaves, but support and keep them anyway. I think that's what Geo. Washington did.
St. Paul said slaves and slave masters who became Christians should treat each other as fellow Christians, like family --kindly and respectfully on both sides.
Applied Christianity destroyed slavery --but it took awhile to do so. And yes, some Christians tried to find an excuse for what they considered Africans' inferiority in the Mark of Cain or the Curse of Ham --(neither of which were said by the Bible to be racial differences) and the right to enslave them --and some social Darwinists did the same, saying the Africans were less evolved than the whites. So sinners abound, on both sides of the aisle, which the Bible tells us. Even the Africans and native Americans enslaved each other. It was a universal crime --and it goes on today in the sex slave trade --and in the oppression of the Dahlits of India's caste system. In fact, whenever people are denied basic human liberties by people over them, it is a type of enslavement.
but that doesn't mean there is some basic libertarian right to do evil --just because you don't know evil when you see it. That's where the competition for definitions and ideas and free expression come in--along with a legitimate concern for who makes the laws and does the judging.
Some on your list were cultural concerns for Jews and others in those Biblical times --the hair length for women. Short hair indicated a floozy. Long hair a woman's "crowning glory." Samson wasn't supposed to cut his hair, nor were the Nazarites --but oddly, the Christians of my grandfather's era saw the long hair on men in the 60's as a sign of hippiedom, rebellion, anti-traditional morals, pro-free love, etc. Of course, they were challenged by the youth to deal with the fact that Biblical patriarchs probably had long hair like the hippies --so they finally, in the 70's all caved and all the christian faculty members grew their hippie hair and 'fro's -like everybody else.
Hair length was a trivial thing. and still is. Though some embrace those legalistic cultural teachings of the bible yet today. LIke the polygamists and the Amish and some pentecostal and fundamentalist groups whose women must have long hair.
Sexuality is not in the same category. There is so much right with the traditional marriage definition and so much wrong with our departure from that --starting with disease. including no potential of kids made by gay couples. Our design is such that we really are not made to have orgasms except in traditional hetero marriage --and it's only disease free between 2 virgins followed by lifetime monogamy. The diseases alone are reason enough to discourage homosexuality and promiscuity and encourage youth to go straight.
Jesus outlawed stoning --saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And the Bible says "all have sinned --there is not one righteous, no not one." So we can't stone.
there are contradictions in the Bible that do result in different interps and different emphases by different groups.
E.G. women's talking in church and leadership. Paul was against it in a letter to Timothy --and another place --and yet, he said, In Christ there is no male nor female. Jesus said, in Heaven, there is no distinction between sexes. And Paul also said that in the last days, the young men and young women would both prophesy or tell forth the word --have dreams and visions to share in the holy Spirit. The Bible doesn't say that only men can be saved, or that only men can be taught (mary and martha story) , or that only men can be filled with the holy spirit and tell forth the word.
John Wesley said that man's reason, the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit were a 3-fold method of God's communication to us. Man's reason is only enlightened by the Word and the Spirit --but it has a role to play. We don't check our brains at the church door. Reason says that homosex is unsafe and undesireable and should be discouraged. Reason says that hair length is a trivial issue --since Jesus also said that man looks on the outside, but God looks at our hearts.
the Bible's teaching on celibacy is clear --it is for those who find it a gift --not difficult --as St. Paul claimed about Himself. It is not for those who struggle with desire to have a spouse --because God made us for marriage and gave us desires for that purpose, that we might have intimacy as one flesh in God's image --and procreate and have the joy of parenting and grandparenting--which does help us grow old gracefully--with the love of family to care for us in old age.
The Bible doesn't suggest celibacy for priesthood --and says pastors should have only one wife for sure. (talking to a culture where some have more --though not the Jews.)
IN FACT, the story of Deborah is a great one --she is one of the jewish judges in the book of judges --and she led Israel in battle because the male leader asked her to ride with him --she was reluctant as I recall. There is not a whisper of criticism or judgment of Deborah as a female leader. So we conclude that it's not an abomination for a woman to hold leadership.
Pliny the younger, a historian unfriendly to the church, tells of two slave women who ran a church in Jerusalem, I think (not sure about the place.)
dietary restriction were nullified in the New Testament. Peter had a vision pronouncing the unclean foods of the old Testament to be clean. Hence, Christians eat pork --on their high holy days.
Jesus said, It's not what you put IN your mouth that defiles a man --but what comes out of his heart! (and out of his mouth.) Exception might be alcohol --which does defile in excess --dulling inhibitions and reasoning powers.And cigarettes and drugs defile, also.
But jesus's comment was in reference to the old Testament laws that said certain foods defiled a man. In fact, the dietary laws were presumeably protective for the Jews survival in the O.T. times.
I don't personally know if all the OT laws can be considered truly from God or from His human messengers applying some of their own thinking. Reason, Word, and Spirit combine to lift the prohibitions on foods --but Reason, Word and Spirit --ALSO combine to reinforce the old Testament commands on sexuality, honesty, justice, coveting, not stealing or adulterating.
We just don't agree today that common sense or man's reason modifies the Scriptural Word or The Spirit's guidance on homosexuality or abortion as sins. They are still sins, harmful, counter to God's design plan. There is no scripture to justify these two controversial practices --whereas you can find scripture to nullify slavery, dietary laws, church celibacy mandates, concerns for hair length, --and to modify definitions of modesty, views on alcohol in moderation.
Our church refers to the indisputables and the disputables of Scripture. Woman's role is a disputable --based on Scripture, the Spirit and Reason. Sexuality is an indisputable on the same grounds.
Post a Comment