Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Posted Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:25 PM by Joe Napalm

Not too long ago, my wife and I made the most stupid decision of our married career. We leased a vehicle. It was a champagne-colored Honda Accord SE with a sunroof. Now, if you're not Anheuser-Busch with a fleet of delivery trucks, leasing is quite possibly more stupid than catfish grabblin' or voting Democrat. But more painful than knowing I was "ripped off" was seeing advertisements in the newspaper or hearing radio ads about the very same vehicle for considerably less. It was three years of daily disaster and the self-inflicted wounds are very, very deep.

So, along those same lines of seeing the same product for much less coin, I was grieved to see a blog post that I had intended to write already packaged for consumption after I had spent so much time and energy to produce an inferior product. But, more on that in a moment.

While working on the series of Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) posts, I researched religious liberty and where it ends. I started with the United States Bill of Rights, its "sister" document, the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the document that inspired them, the Virginia Declaration of Rights. All are basically in agreement -- and the French document specifically spells it out -- that religious liberty is guaranteed as long as the activities of religion do not violate public order in ways harmful to society.

I had a good idea of where the "line in the sand" was drawn, but I still needed to find where the Mormon church danced near the line or crossed it. First, and I don't have time to dive into it, you need to read the history of the Mormon church. A great resource is Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults [link]. From before its inception, the founders of the false religion have been at odds with the U.S. government. Joseph Smith began life as a crook. He was convicted in 1826 for swindling people by using "magic". And the legal woes grew progressively worse from tar-and-feathering in Kirtland, Ohio, to the Battle of Crooked River with Missouri militiamen to outright military action by the U.S. Army in Utah.

Next, although the Bill of Rights had been written for some time, it actually wasn't until 1879 when the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. And, believe it or not, it was the Mormon church and the prosecution of polygamy that sent it to the High Court. From Wikipedia.org:

The Supreme Court has consistently held, however, that even though the First Amendment guarantees the right to free exercise, this right is not absolute. For example, in the 1800s, Some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law barring polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. [link]

And, again at Wiki:

The Court said, "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." [link]

As you can see, the precedent for the legal extent of religious liberty has been set for more than 125 years, if not longer. The actions of some members of the FLDS in El Dorado, Texas, were in direct disregard of the established laws against underage marriage and polygamy and the Texas executive acted to stop it and to bring them to justice. This was not a single action without precedent as some have alluded. Check out Short Creek raid in 1953 [link]; the 2003 conviction of Rodney Holm for unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year old; the exploits of Fawn Broadbent and Fawn Holm, two girls who escaped parental custody; the 2005 indictment of 8 men for sexual misconduct with minors; and on and on and on.

And not only the legal run-ins, look into the men who were excommunicated by the FLDS church and stripped of their wives and children, who were reassigned to other men. Gross, isn't it? Absolutely disgusting. So now I have to ask, are you going to plead Baal's case [link]? Not me. In fact, I'm going to avoid anything that even resembles that nastiness and that's why I find pioneer dress and insular living creepy.

Finally, during my research I googled "where religious liberty ends," and lo and behold, I found this wonderful article: [link] (It's a cached site because the original has been moved to the Tribune's subscription site). Although it pains me to look at it because I had intended to write a similar post, I recommend it. In fact, just disregard everything above and check it out.

This concludes the series of posts about the FLDS. It is a dead horse and has been beaten. Now, I will take an aside and write about modesty before moving to the Texas government and its dealings with kook religions. This should be interesting....

Comments

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:13 PM by Bahnsen8

Great post about a nasty group of pagans.

Now, back to the point.

Can you give me the exact facts, in this incident, regarding how and why a search warrant was obtained to enter the property of the nasty pagans?

Respectfully,

B8

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:47 PM by Joe Napalm

Sure. That'll be in the next post about Texas. And then I'll combine the two in one final post entitled, "Whose sin is the greatest?"

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 8:39 AM by Bahnsen8

Great, because if you show me that a warrant was obtained properly ON THE FRONT END, PRIOR TO ENTERING the nasty pagan kilo-acre compound where the women give you the creeps and the kids give you nightmares, then my whining on this topic will end.

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 9:55 AM by Joe Napalm

...and it's all about you, so I'll do my best to convince you that, even though they didn't have a warrant, God can use governments to punish "pagan" men, women and children.

Consider this: What if a man of God's choosing had gone in there and killed them all? Women, children, animals and burned the place to the ground?

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:44 AM by Bahnsen8

An Arminian lecturing a Calvinist on the sovereignty of God- I like this better all the time....

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:44 AM by Bahnsen8

An Arminian lecturing a Calvinist on the sovereignty of God- I like this better all the time....

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 10:50 AM by Bahnsen8

oops, double post, sorry

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 11:21 AM by Joe Napalm

You mean someone in the crossroads of Arminianism and Calvinism lecturing a hyper-Calvinist on the sovereignty of God.

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 4:26 PM by WesleySonofCornelius

I love the name slinging ... just add Luther and it starts to sound like a joke.  "Calvin, Luther and Arminius walk into a bar" ... finish it for us, Fluffy!

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Friday, May 16, 2008 11:00 PM by Bahnsen8

Yes, the ONLY way an Arminian knows how to categorize any Calvinist is as a hyper-Calvinist.

And, just like one can't be a little bit pregnant, one can't be a little bit Arminian. All or nothing.

B8

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:56 PM by WesleySonofCornelius

Joe,

You can only be Arminian or Calvinist!  Just like you have to be Dispensationalist or Covenantalist.  Except Covenantalists and Dispensationalists are both Calvinistic in some form.  So I guess no one can be Arminianist!  Wow ... this is getting complicated.

This Calvin verse Arminius reminds me of the Paul vs. Apollos debate ... *sigh*

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Saturday, May 17, 2008 5:52 PM by Joe Napalm

It's like there is a civil war battling on and I walk up and get shot by both sides because they thought I was on the other side. Where, in fact, I didn't know there was a war raging until I topped the hill.

Honestly, I could care less about this Arminianism / Calvinism thing. I see great men on both sides who have done great things for God. What I fear is that some prop up all these labels, etc., and make them false religions -- or at least a way to wound a fellow Christian.

And the Dispensation / Covenant thing? Both are wrong.

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:42 PM by WesleySonofCornelius

Nicely put!

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:20 AM by Bahnsen8

In truth, Joe and Wesley, I share your general disdain for labels. I should not jest with them. If we were having coffee, the jesting would work, but in text it just does not fly.

Sincerest blessings to you both,

B8

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:06 AM by Joe Napalm

If we were having coffee, I'd buy you decaf. :P

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:38 AM by Bahnsen8

LOL, whew doggie! Yea, others have also suggested decaf for me.

B8

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:21 AM by Fluffy Cow

...Calvin ordered water because he thought he was predestined to do so, Luther refused to stay because the bar was owned by a Jew and Arminius said, "Ouch".

# re: Religious Liberty and the Line in the Sand

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:22 AM by Fluffy Cow

Sorry I took so long...