Special Features
(The Real Views takes pride in continuing the publication of Laurie Todd's writing. Laurie has a
balanced perspective and brings to the paper her experience as an attorney, mediator and an avid
student of politics and history as well as her accomplished skills with words. Enjoy! CF—Ed)
Are We Really Protecting Our Children?
By: Laurie R. Richardson
“The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.”
This quote comes from a Protestant theologian and anti-Nazi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
who was executed after a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler. The quote came into
my mind while perusing recent news articles involving the church in San Angelo,
Texas. And one can’t really consider this news item without remembering the
incident near Waco fifteen years ago. While investigating the San Angelo sect, I
noticed that once again those involved are utilizing the First Amendment; more
particularly the Free Exercise Clause to justify placing their children in harm’s way.
As usual, in order to fully understand this issue, you must first familiarize yourself
with the relevant historical and legal context. The First Amendment to the United
States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...” The first
clause is referred to as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free
Exercise Clause. Further, our Supreme Court has addressed the issue of polygamy
through their jurisprudence, particularly Reynolds v. U.S., decided in 1878. Here
the Court held that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
members could indeed be prosecuted for violations of a federal law banning
polygamy. This case considered adults only, not minor participants, and concluded
that even though some members of this religion considered it their religious duty to
enter plural marriages, the state could prosecute such members under federal law.
It should be noted that this case involving the LDS Church is not the only time the
Supreme Court has considered conflicts between religious acts and federal statutes;
in fact most other religions have been represented at the Supreme Court at some
time.
It should also be noted that current LDS Church doctrine does not support
polygamy. Although the Church does recognize a fifty-year time-span when
polygamy was practiced, this ended formally in 1890. Further, any church member
who continues this practice may be excommunicated from the church. This
information can be found on the Official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
website located at http://www.lds.org. Thus there is no ambiguity on this issue for
members of LDS Churches, and the Church at issue here was a Fundamentalist
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints church.
As many of us may now be aware, this Church has now been raided, and the
children were removed from their parents care and placed with foster parents.
According to news accounts of the current incident, defensive arguments range
from the typical assertions of freedom of religion, to the more creative “our
children weren’t practicing polygamy, we just lived there.” And they were
surprised that the local courts removed children from their care. These parents fail
to recognize that choosing to remain involved, in fact living at a compound, where
children are pressed into marriages and sexual relationships while still minors
displays a serious flaw in their parental judgement. In fact, as my experience
defending parents accused of abuse and neglect of their children will attest, cases
involving sexual acts with children are clearly among the most serious and difficult
to resolve. Such cases indicate serious parental failures as it is difficult to believe a
parent could place their child in such a hazardous environment in the first place.
Additionally, once you have displayed such a lack of judgement, it becomes
increasingly difficult to show that you have changed.
Such poor judgment may stem from wrong ideas about our legal system and their
rights. They may wrongly assume that because they have the freedom to practice
the religion of their choice, this right is absolute and the state cannot come in and
prevent them from practicing a particular religion. Such thinking is naive. A state is
burdened with parens patriae responsibility for children; simply put if parents are
incapable of safely and adequately parenting their children, the state is obligated to
step into the role of parent and provide care for children. Thus, states are required
to remove children from unsafe homes, and failure to do so with or without
adequate investigation could subject them to liability for the death or injury of the
children. To further clarify the role of religion and parenting: if the practice of any
religion will prevent you from safely and adequately parenting your children, the
state can and will remove your children. Simply put, you can practice any religion
you want, but if your choice of a religion is going to negatively effect your
parenting, the continued practice of that religion may prevent you from actively
parenting your children.
Although this may seem harsh, isn’t it the right rule? If religious practices interfere
with safe and adequate parenting, wouldn’t any reasonable person question
whether this is the right religion for them? The right to rear your biological children
as you see fit is an important right, some states even describe it as a “Constitutional
right”. I find it appalling that parents are again placing such importance upon their
right to practice the religion of their choice that they are granted license to
endanger their children. Perhaps I may be naive, but I always thought a parent’s
first objective should be to protect their children; and that religion should support
this objective, not undermine it.
balanced perspective and brings to the paper her experience as an attorney, mediator and an avid
student of politics and history as well as her accomplished skills with words. Enjoy! CF—Ed)
Are We Really Protecting Our Children?
By: Laurie R. Richardson
“The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.”
This quote comes from a Protestant theologian and anti-Nazi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
who was executed after a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler. The quote came into
my mind while perusing recent news articles involving the church in San Angelo,
Texas. And one can’t really consider this news item without remembering the
incident near Waco fifteen years ago. While investigating the San Angelo sect, I
noticed that once again those involved are utilizing the First Amendment; more
particularly the Free Exercise Clause to justify placing their children in harm’s way.
As usual, in order to fully understand this issue, you must first familiarize yourself
with the relevant historical and legal context. The First Amendment to the United
States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...” The first
clause is referred to as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free
Exercise Clause. Further, our Supreme Court has addressed the issue of polygamy
through their jurisprudence, particularly Reynolds v. U.S., decided in 1878. Here
the Court held that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
members could indeed be prosecuted for violations of a federal law banning
polygamy. This case considered adults only, not minor participants, and concluded
that even though some members of this religion considered it their religious duty to
enter plural marriages, the state could prosecute such members under federal law.
It should be noted that this case involving the LDS Church is not the only time the
Supreme Court has considered conflicts between religious acts and federal statutes;
in fact most other religions have been represented at the Supreme Court at some
time.
It should also be noted that current LDS Church doctrine does not support
polygamy. Although the Church does recognize a fifty-year time-span when
polygamy was practiced, this ended formally in 1890. Further, any church member
who continues this practice may be excommunicated from the church. This
information can be found on the Official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
website located at http://www.lds.org. Thus there is no ambiguity on this issue for
members of LDS Churches, and the Church at issue here was a Fundamentalist
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints church.
As many of us may now be aware, this Church has now been raided, and the
children were removed from their parents care and placed with foster parents.
According to news accounts of the current incident, defensive arguments range
from the typical assertions of freedom of religion, to the more creative “our
children weren’t practicing polygamy, we just lived there.” And they were
surprised that the local courts removed children from their care. These parents fail
to recognize that choosing to remain involved, in fact living at a compound, where
children are pressed into marriages and sexual relationships while still minors
displays a serious flaw in their parental judgement. In fact, as my experience
defending parents accused of abuse and neglect of their children will attest, cases
involving sexual acts with children are clearly among the most serious and difficult
to resolve. Such cases indicate serious parental failures as it is difficult to believe a
parent could place their child in such a hazardous environment in the first place.
Additionally, once you have displayed such a lack of judgement, it becomes
increasingly difficult to show that you have changed.
Such poor judgment may stem from wrong ideas about our legal system and their
rights. They may wrongly assume that because they have the freedom to practice
the religion of their choice, this right is absolute and the state cannot come in and
prevent them from practicing a particular religion. Such thinking is naive. A state is
burdened with parens patriae responsibility for children; simply put if parents are
incapable of safely and adequately parenting their children, the state is obligated to
step into the role of parent and provide care for children. Thus, states are required
to remove children from unsafe homes, and failure to do so with or without
adequate investigation could subject them to liability for the death or injury of the
children. To further clarify the role of religion and parenting: if the practice of any
religion will prevent you from safely and adequately parenting your children, the
state can and will remove your children. Simply put, you can practice any religion
you want, but if your choice of a religion is going to negatively effect your
parenting, the continued practice of that religion may prevent you from actively
parenting your children.
Although this may seem harsh, isn’t it the right rule? If religious practices interfere
with safe and adequate parenting, wouldn’t any reasonable person question
whether this is the right religion for them? The right to rear your biological children
as you see fit is an important right, some states even describe it as a “Constitutional
right”. I find it appalling that parents are again placing such importance upon their
right to practice the religion of their choice that they are granted license to
endanger their children. Perhaps I may be naive, but I always thought a parent’s
first objective should be to protect their children; and that religion should support
this objective, not undermine it.
Return Home