By now, everybody knows that the main effect of the raid on the Fundamentalist LDS compound in Texas has been to flood the social service system with hundreds of underage people requiring foster care, since their natural parents -- whose clothing makes the Amish look like Madonna's stage cast -- have been declared forever incompetent. What we are seeing is a historical extension of the "clear and present danger" concept, by which the belief system of a group is held, _by definition_ and with no further evidence required, to constitute sufficient cause for the breakup of said group and its member families. In fact, I'm trying to think of any precedents for this in either American history or world history, and I frankly cannot. Now, you're going to say, "Well, but don't you see, these innocent, young girls were about to be farmed out to a bunch of dirty old men, who would force them to bear children and live in a hotbed of pioneer-style degeneracy." To which I respond, if law enforcement were based primarily on intent, or thought, or possibility, or suspicion, rather than act, we could justify rounding up everybody in the U.S. And that is precisely the point. Start with the weak, the powerless, the disenfranchised. Have a test case or two. Firebomb the Branch Davidians and see how people react. Oh, that was a bit harsh? OK, next time we'll just arrest everyone. But you see the recurring theme. Being "different" in a non-approved way can be hazardous to your health -- not just in the dogmatic, rigid, up-tight "old days", but right now today.
Let's look at one of the many news stories that have come out of this episode so far. Now we have a "court-appointed child psychiatrist" -- and since this is a family blog I won't use the word I usually use to describe those people -- saying that "the children... were in danger of growing up with under-developed brains". Oh, well in that case let's waste no more time, and empty out the inner city neighborhoods, and put all those kids in foster care as well. And don't forget to destroy all TV sets while you're at it. This is one of those arguments that can be used against anyone, any time. It can be used against home schoolers, against religious people, against people who live in the country, or the city... and yes, against you.
To go on -- the FLDS kids face "an inability to develop healthy relationships or to make their own decisions". Well, let's see, they live in a close-knit community where cooperation is extremely important. But that apparently isn't good enough. Now, of course the community is hierarchical -- but what community isn't? These are just words that get mouthed -- but if they are mouthed by the proper "authorities" they acquire the force of law.
Try this: "In many ways, he [the psychiatrist] said, the environment the children live in is healthy, the mothers appear to be loving, the boys are happy... but there are parts of what they do that are destructive." So health and loving mothers just don't cut it. And if the boys are happy, what about the girls, who apparently live in fear, almost from the cradle, of that middle-of-the-night knock on the door that tells them they are about to be dragged off as a sacrifice to Moloch? "There are parts of what they do that are destructive" could be a paraphrase from authors like Richard Dawkins, who consider religious upbringing to be the most destructive and evil force on the face of the earth. And were "all the children... in equal danger"? Well, no one knows. But hey, why take chances? Better to arrest 'em all, and let God -- or rather social services -- sort them out.
Bottom line -- most of the arguments being used by the prosecution in this case amount to no more than blatant prejudice. They are essentially saying, "We don't like you, so you have to be stopped." Those who think they are so secure -- so far from the ravenous maw of the machine -- should think again. Could any of these words and phrases -- or ones of similar vagueness -- be used against you or your family? Not sure? I hope you don't find out too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great article, thanks! It's no surprise to see a psychiatrist voicing these crazy ideas of "child abuse" considering the weird things they discuss at their meetings, such as this one from G. Brock Chisholm (at the International Congress on Mental Health and World Citizenship, London 1948.)
"...the family is now one of the major obstacles to improved mental health, and hence should be weakened, if possible, so as to free individuals and especially children from the coercion of family life."
And although undermining families is ridiculous enough, it seems to be part of an even crazier social objective as shown in an earlier statement he made (William Alanson White Memorial Lecture, October 23, 1945, Washington, DC.)
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.”
Could it be that he was taken seriously?
Post a Comment