The Children of Eldorado

Now that Austria has replaced Texas in around-the-clock media coverage of child abuse, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ has moved from the front pages to the inside. The polygamist group, housed in an Eldorado “compound,” has long promoted the plural marriage as the divinely ordered state of holy matrimony, after splitting from the mainline Mormon Church nearly a century ago. Across Texas, more than four hundred of the cult’s children are in foster care, as authorities investigate reports that children might have been physically abused as well.

But, beneath the outrage over the sexual exploitation of children, there lurks a nagging question: what are the limits of religious freedom in an increasingly pluralistic society? Does government ever have the compelling need to abridge the free exercise of religious beliefs and actions? Where do we draw the line?

The last time the government made the choice to go after a religious group, it was the heavy-handed Justice Department of Janet Reno that launched an assault on the Branch Davidians, a Seventh Day Adventist splinter group. That ill-fated 1993 effort resulted in the slaughter of 21 children the government was trying to save, along with dozens of their adult co-religionists. Mormon theology tends to be triumphalist rather than apocalyptic so the raid on FLDS was accomplished without bloodshed.

But, many religious groups in America have beliefs that are outside the mainstream. Jehovah’s Witnesses will die rather than take blood transfusions. Christian Scientists refuse to seek medical treatment at all. The Amish live in tightly knit communities, and refuse to become integrated into the modern world. Scientologists consider psychiatry to be a demonic practice. Mormons don’t drink coffee. One could make a compelling case that all of these religions are abusive to their members, especially the children who haven’t made a decision to join.

Does that mean that the cops should raid the Kingdom Hall around the corner from you this Sunday, where Jehovah’s Witnesses are gathered, reading their crazy riffs on world events and trying to determine when God is going to kill the rest of us? Should the FBI force the Amish to turn on the electricity or pour Starbucks down the throats of those earnest young elders on their bicycles?

I don’t have any particular love for religious cultists, having spent the first thirty years of my life in their twisted web. But I do love the Constitution of the United States, and its particular genius for keeping government’s hands out of religious practice. My church might be the next one the government decides to attack. (As a matter of fact, the IRS has attempted to revoke the tax-exempt status of one of my denomination’s congregations, following a sermon preached by its priest during the 2004 election cycle—so that’s not very far-fetched.) That’s why the first amendment prohibits government establishment of religion and promotes its free exercise.

But, like all rights, there are limits. Just because the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun (or several), it doesn’t allow me to own a nuclear weapon. And just because I can believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world last Tuesday, I don’t have the right to beat my children for not eating their meatballs (or whatever constitutes a sin in the FSM Church).

These are the horns on which this dilemma sits: government’s role is “to promote the general welfare” of the nation, so it has a compelling need to protect the safety, health and well-being of its most vulnerable citizens, while guarding against undue infringement of adult citizens’ right to believe stupid things. In a case where it can be clearly established that a vulnerable member of a religious group, whether a child or an adult of child-like capacity is endangered, government must act to protect that person.

Unfortunately, government too often uses a hammer to solve problems more easily repaired by a screwdriver, and thus the spectacle of Eldorado. Polygamy is not the western, Christian standard. But it exists throughout the world, in various societies, and has endured for millennia. So, it’s hard to make the case that a polygamist group is of itself an abusive social construct. So Texas and federal law enforcement agents are trying to prove that children have been sexually and physically abused by FLDS adults.

That’s going to be hard to prove, since by most accounts, the FLDS members are not cooperating. They are not likely to turn on each other. Cultists, especially under siege, tend to identify even closer with their group and interpret government interference as proof that they are being persecuted “for righteousness’ sake.”

As strange and repellent as the FLDS beliefs may be, this is not going to break their hold on their followers’ minds. It’s only going to convince them that the government is only intent on destroying them for their doctrines.

Funny thing is, they may turn out to be right.

The Two GOP's of South Carolina

In state where the opposition is not only ineffective, but darn near moribund, some people think we live in a one-party state. But that's not true. There are, in actuality, two (maybe three) different GOP's that govern South Carolina. The first, pragmatic, pro-business, deficit conscious, and unafraid to think differently about serious issues. The second, reactionary, anti-growth, anti-tax, anti-thought.

From the Upstate, comes a glimpse into the two very different South Carolina Republican Parties. In response to constituent questions about the whether or not South Carolina will seize an historic occasion to address a serious public health issue, create a powerful economic stimulus and reduce the number of children who get addicted to cigarettes, are these responses. (Note: the personal information has been deleted.]

From: SENATE RULES COMMITTEE MAILBOX [mailto:SRU@scsenate.org]

Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:18 PM

To: REDACTED

Subject: Re: Cig Tax

DEAR [Redacted]:

Thanks for your email and comments about the tobacco tax. I am supportive of increasing it and am hopeful that we can move a plan through the Senate that will be successful. The Finance Committee was split 12-11 in its vote to send the bill to the floor with the proceeds earmarked to Medicaid. Yes, we can earmark dollars to cover onlychildren through the CHIPS program. However, it will take a two-thirds vote to pass it since the Governor has made it clear that he will only sign a bill that is revenue neutral. I shared with some of my colleagues this morning that we should hold up this week on taking upthe bill and see if we can put together something that we can be reasonably certain will gather a two-thirds vote. Otherwise, once the debate begins it will likely consume the rest of the session if a solid plan isn't developed and we might still be at an impasse on the issue.

Thanks again for being in touch. Hope you're doing well and [redacted].

Take care,
Larry [Martin, R, Senate District 2, Pickens County]

***********************
From: SENATE BANKING & INSURANCE COMMITTEE MAILBOX [mailto:SBI@scsenate.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:01 AM

To:[Redacted]

Subject: Re: Tobacco Tax for Healthcare

Dear [Redacted],

Thank you for your input regarding the cigarette tax increase. My problem with the tax credit proposal presented to the full Senate Finance Committee funded by $160 million from a cigarette tax increase is that it would not create the incentives necessary for people to be able to buy insurance. The total incentive was only $475 per person per year for a husband and wife at 250% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Insurance in South Carolina for a couple might cost $7,000. The total incentive of less than $1,000 for 250% FPL would not come close enough to giving them enough tax credit to purchase insurance. I brought this out during debate, and no one could answer this essential issue. Because assignment rights were also included, I began to question what would happen to the money that belonged to a qualified individual if no insurance had been purchased. Would the money then flow to providers who would simply grab the assigned money and provide no better services than the uninsured currently receive in our health care system? The assignment to a provider would not necessarily translate into better service. It would provide more money for the provider, but there is no benefit at all to the uninsured and would not give them the better hospital coverage that insurance would provide. Therefore, in my mind, the entire proposal was flawed. This proposal was voted down in Committee.

You may know that I have been working in Senate Banking and Insurance on S. 1129 called SC HealthNet and was devised to a large degree by Scott Richardson, Director of the Department of Insurance. This bill would provide a no frills insurance policy capped at $150,000 and approximately half the cost of regular insurance.

The cigarette tax proposal that passed the Finance Committee by a vote of 12-11 would use the tax to obtain Federal-matching funds in order to expand Medicaid programs by increasing the levels for adults from 50% to 100% FPL and increasing children from 150% to 200% FPL. Again, I questioned the fiscal impact of this proposal. Eight years ago when the State increased its Medicaid coverage for adults and children the strain to the budget was unexpectedly high. The Director of the DHHS confirmed there would be a much broader fiscal impact than the cigarette tax and Federal-matching funds would cover. Therefore I voted against this proposal as well. Given the downturn in the economy such a step would be foolhardy.

I am in favor of a proposal that would give a tax credit to people in need or a general tax credit to the public in exchange for a cigarette tax increase. Senator John Courson will introduce this type of amendment on the floor when we take up this bill.

Cordially,
David L. Thomas [R, Senate District 8, Greenville County]

***************************
Senator Martin represents the first GOP, Senator Thomas the second.

As the two GOP's struggle, they are, for all practical purposes, two different political parties, not just two wings of the same party. The cigarette tax is just one of the issues above which they are wrestling for the future of South Carolina. The winner takes all.

WWOD?

From Lark News, comes this story about the signs and wonders happening on the Obama campaign trail.

AUSTIN — Ginny McCallum, 43, who has been confined to a wheelchair for much of her adult life, came to hear presidential candidate Barack Obama speak at the University of Texas. Afterward she found herself in a wheelchair access breezeway as Obama and his entourage exited the arena. The candidate spotted her, came over, grabbed her hand and pulled her up. She found herself standing for the first time in eleven years. "He smiled at me and said, ‘Yes, you can,’" she says. "I was so stunned I didn’t know what to do."

McCallum is among hundreds of people who say they have been healed by the Democratic candidate, in one of the most surprising and little-acknowledged aspects of his campaign. Reporters have shied away from the story, chalking it up to "Obama-mania" and people’s feelings of elation.

"We don’t talk about it a lot, but yeah, it does happen," says one staffer who says he has seen multiple people healed on a rope line. "We don’t know exactly how or why it’s happening, and the Senator won’t talk about it. He usually insists that people keep it quiet and just report it to their pastor or priest."

Greeting supporters after a rousing speech in Houston, Obama stepped into the dense crowd and spontaneously began touching people: a legally blind woman, a man deaf in one ear, a cancer sufferer and a lame man.

"Yes, you can," Obama said as he laid hands on afflicted bodies.

The people’s reactions were so joyous as to be almost frightening. They jumped and shouted and wept. Before they could thank or embrace the candidate he was well down the rope line healing others. Their excitement was lost in the general din of the crowd.

Aides acknowledge that the phenomenon is occurring with greater frequency. "His power goes beyond simple inspiration," says one aide. "There is something developing here that I’m not sure any of us fully understands."

They say Obama has told them privately that his time has not yet come, so it would be inappropriate to talk about the healings right now. He says he will wait until the convention to speak publicly about the "special calling" he believes he has to lead the country. They do expect him to start alluding to "the providential nature of what is happening on the campaign trail" in an upcoming address, mostly because word is getting around. People have begun bringing relatives by the score to campaign events in hopes of a healing touch.

"It’s not the speeches that are drawing people anymore, as good as they are," says a senior staff member. "It’s people wanting to get better, and wanting their friends and relatives to get better. It’s the belief that there’s something more here."

****************************************

Sorry, Senator. I just couldn't resist. It is April Fools Day, after all.