Current Events, Law & Society
The Boundaries of Polygamy
As I was reading the news today, I was full of bewilderment at the latest incident in Texas where 400 young girls were freed yesterday by police authorities out of a polygamists compound being operated by a religious sect known as the Fundamental Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Allegedly, the young girls were paired with old men in polygamous union, often by force and coercion or moral coercion, in accordance with the sect’s religious belief and practice.
It is of note that the above-mentioned sect is a breakaway cluster from the main Mormon religion formally known as the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, which had long ago negated on the practice of multiple marriages as a religious practice, where the U.S. Supreme Court had time and again decided against the practice of polygamy in America.
A landmark case on polygamy, one that is still being referred today as a leading case, is the 1879 U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled Reynolds v. United States where it was cited prominently how polygamy was (is) an “odious” conduct and ultimately contrary to “historic American values and culture”, even “from the beginning of time”, declaring farther how “marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law”
Yet, it is still an open secret in America, especially in locations within Utah and Arizona states, that polygamy have and are still being practiced and once in a while, such societal American phenomenon comes out in the open, like the Waco Incident of 1993 and now with this very recent detection of a polygamists compound in San Angelo, Texas.
Of immense interest now is the legal concept of freedom of religion, as to whether or not one’s belief and conviction allows one to practice his or her religion unabated and unhindered by any governmental restriction, as a matter of constitutional right?
Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion where the Bill of Rights, under Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, states that:
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exervise and enjoyment of religious profession and whoship, without discrimniation or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be requires for the exercise of civil or political rights.”While in America, the First Amendment similarly proclaims:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In the end, “freedom of religion” in our territory and in America, where our jurisdiction had mostly structured the form and content of our laws, as well as government system from, remains one constitutional right that is held with enormous weight and sanctity, just like “freedom of expression” that the law and the judiciary often bestows attention to it, resolving questions involving such question of religion and practice in the most prolific manner and in often public spectacle, for the community to relish and appreciate. (Read this very interesting case on marriage and religion - Estrada vs. Escritor.)
Yet, the point of final determination as to the question of ‘freedom of religion’ remains in the one singular rule that proclaims unambiguously how the right to belief is not tantamount to the right to practice, where in the 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296), applying the Belief-Conduct Distinction, it was deemed that:
“The Free Exercise Clause ‘’embraces two concepts– freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'’ “
Similarly in our local jurisdiction, it is dogmatic that an individual has absolute freedom to believe in any form of religious belief, ‘he may even believe in the devil and worship Satan’, but once he or she puts this believe into action or outward conduct, then the State begins to interfere in the form of regulation and prohibition where in the present issue, as to whether or not freedom of religion allows one to establish highly anomalous and very scandalous polygamy compound such as the one in San Angelo, Texas where girls as young as 12 years old are compelled to enter marriages with much older men, and where there are persistent rumors of rape and physical harm.
Of course, American laws squirm at and reject polygamous union that despite that the leaders and members of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in such, the law does not allow them and they have in fact violated pertinent laws, criminal laws for that matter, and their ‘freedom of religion’ would in no way come in towards their protection or the justification of their conduct.
ipanema Says —
I’m glad that they were rescued. I’m furious at people who use religion and whatever lame excuse just to abuse young girls and children.
hey, lovely template!
Made on April 11, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Toe Says —
How horrible! Freedom of religion has limits. This practice infringes on the rights and freedom of these young girls. Wow, such horrible things could happen in America!
In the Philippines, only the Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy but only in accordance with the Muslim law.
Made on April 11, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Philippine Updates Says —
I wonder what Erap and his numerous wives will have to say about this…
Oh yeah, how about that Lozada who spends at least 400,000 per year in Wack Wack golf alone but keeps his mistress and 3 other kids in a poor village have to say about it..
:-D
Made on April 11, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Atticus Says —
poor kids. i wonder if they’d grow up understanding that what was did to them was wrong, and that it wasn’t their fault.
sarap suntukin ng mga iyon. hay.
Made on April 11, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
spliceanddice Says —
True, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution. Yet like the many things in this country which may or tend to bring harm to the interests of the public or of the nation, any freedom enacted against the welfare of the public or which will jeopardize the people ought to be sanctioned. Sanctioning the people, however, does not literally amount to making the constitutional freedom inutile.
Made on April 11, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
pining Says —
Oh good thing they were rescued then, polygamy shouldn’t be tolerated in any form, methinks.The Mormon religion is quite peculiar isn’t it? A few weeks ago I’ve seen a documentary about a man who literally lost his face to hemangioma/tumour. Lo and behold, because they’re Mormon they won’t allow blood transfusion, so the poor man has to live through the rest of his life with this infliction.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 12:55 am
Major Tom Says —
To ipanema: It’s a horrendous thing happening over there if young girls are detained and imprisoned against their will. They should be outside playing or schooling or enjoying American life. Tsk..tsk…some form of evil is just unfathomable.
Thanks for the notice on my template. It’s actually a very simple one from Chris Pearson.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 7:28 am
Major Tom Says —
To Toe: Horrible, horrible things Toe. Makes me wonder that even in the richest nation in the world, something like that could happen.
Yes, in our jurisdiction Muslim practices a polygamy that is not I am meaning here. It’s entirely different and very far.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 7:31 am
Major Tom Says —
To Philippine Updates: Now that’s a thing fo concern. Such practice of irresponsible multiple relationships often leads a man to become corrupt and gross. It’s unideal I am sure.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 7:33 am
Major Tom Says —
To Atticus: American authorities should do something drastic about this particular happenstance. It’s becoming eerily frequent in Arizona-Texas area.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Major Tom Says —
To spliceanddice: In terms of freedom of religion specifically, we have become more lenient actually than the country we have learned it from. Yet, every constitutional right has a limit and couldn’t entirely be absolute.
Therein comes the balancing test that the State has to conduct everytime question of liberality of conduct occurs or arises, whether or not the individual right has such weight that the State relents, or if the State should protect the greater good than allow a specific right to go unhindered.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 7:38 am
Major Tom Says —
To pining: As it seems, often religious practices verges from what we see as ordinary.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 7:40 am
barrycade Says —
im also glad those girls were rescued. some people indeed always turn to religion to find justification for there actions. crucify them! haha
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Major Tom Says —
To barrycade: That’ll be good lesson for them. I hope there’d be thorough prosecution of those involved.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
bugsybee Says —
I watched an Oprah episode where 5 women - two of them sisters who shared a common husband - painstakingly emphasized that their freedom to “live the way we want to live” should be respected. My goodness (and I thought I saw horror written on Oprah’s face)! If we allow everybody to do that, there would be chaos. (They didn’t even belong to a religious sect.)
And how about the children? Where does a parent’s freedom end and his/her children’s freedom begin? Are they free to say, “no, I don’t want this, let me out!”?
I wonder why it took so long for American authorities to arrest the polygamists in Texas. Many of the children’s lives have already been irreversibly destroyed.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
spliceanddice Says —
@bugysbee
What’s more bothering is the fact that the practice of polygamy still continues to exist not only in the United States but also in many other parts of the world. This includes, of course, our Muslim brothers in both Muslim and non-Muslim nations.
It may truly take a long time for the arrests to be made. But to stop polygamy is an entirely different story. One that requires more than mere arrests.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
beatburn Says —
we really have to remember the caution about false prophets.
welcome back to blogging exchanges dude, haven’t visited this site in a while.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Major Tom Says —
To bugsybee: It becomes problematic that way and it’s part of the issues I am reasoning at. Yet, there’s a form of such that is completely bizarre, like that in Texas, where young children are subjected to such animosity.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Major Tom Says —
To spliceanddice: polygamy in America has really gone beyound the bounds of acceptability.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Major Tom Says —
To beatburn: Welcome back too. Hope we’d have more frequent exchanges.
Made on April 12, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Ferdz Says —
This is a good example where law must also somewhat overseer the boundaries of religious practices. Polygamy is also practiced by the Muslims by having multiple wives but I guess the question is the willingness of both parties. In this case memebers are “Forced” which isn’t a good thing. Anything that will go against free will isn’t right for me.
Made on April 13, 2008 @ 8:36 am
Abaniko Says —
I was shocked to read about the story. It’s too sad to know that some people hide behind religion to be able to abuse other people, especially children.
Made on April 13, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Major Tom Says —
To Niko: It’s apparently so horrendous when young girls are being treated that way.
Made on April 14, 2008 @ 4:52 am
Major Tom Says —
To Ferdz: That’s the main considerations or grave things about this, “force” and abuse of moral influence.
Made on April 14, 2008 @ 4:55 am
tutubi Says —
hinding behind religion just to satisfy their carnal desires…tsk..tsk…
Made on April 15, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
bw Says —
Freedom of religion does have its limits whether we like it or not. This case is in the same context with gay marriage where the law assumes an exclusive legal partnership between a man and a woman. The law does not say that marriage can be contracted between partners of the same sex nor multiple partners for that matter. Clearly these polygamists have no case with their freedom of religion pitch
Even in Islamic states that allow polygamy, the wives are limited to no more than 4
Likewise the court must establish whether the man has the financial capability to support another wife else the marriage request will not be granted.
Made on April 17, 2008 @ 4:42 am
Major Tom Says —
To tutubi: That’s a very bad thing I reckon. They’d be so damned for that.
Made on April 17, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Major Tom Says —
To BW: When the exercise of fundamental right goes beyond the boundaries accepted by norms and laws, that’s when it fails the test of legality and acceptability as a whole.
Made on April 17, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Pastor Don Milton Says —
Hypocrites!
You think that it’s perfectly fine for a man to deflower a thousand virgins and to leave them to become prostitutes in order to support their children but as soon as a man takes two women as his wives with their consent and the consent of their parents you want to commit the worst atrocity that can be committed against any man, steal his children!
Your attitude is rooted in a deep hatred for Jews and the laws of the Bible that govern marriage.
Repent!
Made on May 2, 2008 @ 7:06 am