Lewistown News-Argus

Guest Column

4/30/08

Texas showdown: balancing child welfare, religious freedom

By CHARLES C. HAYNES
First Amendment Center

Texas officials are trying hard to keep the focus on child abuse – and away from religion – in the custody battle involving 437 children seized from a polygamist religious sect this month.

If only it were so simple.

Like it or not, this conflict is about far more than the issue of older men having sex with under-age girls in violation of Texas law. It’s also about religion – specifically the religious culture of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS).

Defenders of the church argue that the raid was an overreaction to one telephone call (that may have been a hoax) and was motivated by long-standing animus toward the FLDS community. The state counters that dramatic measures are justified when evidence points to children trapped in a religious culture that promotes child abuse.

The only way to sort out the truth, and determine the fate of the children, will be to put the FLDS way of life on trial.
Polygamists get little public sympathy – despite the positive spin on HBO’s “Big Love.” But polygamy and under-age marriage are only part of a larger public concern about the psychological and physical harm children may suffer from being raised in what appears to be an insular, authoritarian environment.

Ordinarily, I bristle when someone labels a religious group a “cult” – a term that, in popular parlance, is often used to describe “a religion I don’t like.” Adherents of faiths considered mainstream today – Catholics and Mormons, among others – were derided as “cult members” in the 19th century.

FLDS, however, has all of the marks of a more academic definition of cult: isolated from the world, secretive and beholden to a charismatic leader who exercises absolute power and authority.

Under the First Amendment, of course, cults, sects, and a wide range of religious movements, new and old, are protected in the practice of their faith, no matter how unpopular or isolated from society. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some limits on religious practice (starting with polygamy in 1878), such cases are rare.

But religious freedom ends when child abuse begins. Adults, for example, may have a right to refuse life-saving health care, including blood transfusions, for themselves – but not for their children.

Defining “abuse,” however, is itself subject to abuse, sometimes creating a slippery legal slope that gives people license to persecute unpopular religious groups.

In the early 1800s, the presence of children in Shaker communities led some states to pass laws restricting the rights of Shaker parents, including giving the state power to “rescue children” by awarding custody to the parent who was not a Believer.

More recently, in the 1960s, law enforcement sometimes looked the other way when “de-programmers” snatched young people from new religious movements at the instigation of fearful parents.

Today, Texas officials are employing a sweeping definition of “child abuse” by removing 437 children from their FLDS families. Now the state must justify its actions by arguing that all of the children were harmed or potentially harmed by life in the church culture. As Tom Vick of the Texas Bar Association (who is rounding up lawyers for the children) puts it: “If it’s a dangerous situation for one child, it’s a dangerous situation for all.”

This is a high bar, far more difficult than a limited investigation into specific allegations of under-age marriage. A victory for the state could mean that none of the children can be safely returned to the church. That could well spell the end of the FLDS community, at least above ground.

That’s why Texas should proceed with caution from here on. The outcome of this case could create new grounds for intervention when the government decides an unpopular religious group is inherently detrimental to child welfare.
Temporarily removing the children may have been justified in this case – that’s what the courts will need to determine. But the ultimate decision about the children’s fate should be based on whether there is clear evidence of systematic sexual abuse rather than on general condemnation of the beliefs of FLDS followers or prejudice against their way of life.

Barring such abuse, these children belong with their parents. Being raised in an unconventional religious system may appall or offend outsiders, but it is not by definition abusive. As much as Texas officials may not want to deal with it, this case is not only about child welfare – it’s also about religious freedom.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A market based currency or a manipulated currency?

by LELAND P. CADE

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson visited Billings in August of 2007.
During a presentation at MSU-Billings, Paulson said, “We’d like their (China) currency to have a market base. That’s why we are pushing them so hard.”
“Market base,” meaning let the currency market determine what their currency is worth on a daily basis, just like copper and wheat.
The implication of Paulson’s remark…that otherwise, currencies are “market based” and that otherwise, the market is free and not manipulated.
Pause for intermission…and gaze into the blue sky. Here is a very brief look at manipulations going on around the world on a daily basis.
Japan: A story in the Wall Street Journal of March 31, 2004, states regarding Japan, “...the Bank of Japan, which intervenes on behalf of Japan’s Ministry of Finance, was covertly buying dollars (called “intervention”) yesterday to keep the dollar above 105.50 yen” Three to four trillion yen was involved in the purchase. Covert? If possible in secret? Our currency - market based? Or manipulation based?
India: In August, India took steps to restrict the inflow of foreign cash in an effort “…to help weaken the rupee and bring relief to exporters and the country’s huge, profitable outsourcing industry, where earnings have been hit by the rupee’s sharp appreciation….” Our currency - market based? Or manipulation based?
China: For quite a number of years, China (and others) has had its yuan anchored to our dollar at about eight yuan to one of our dollars. This manipulation has guaranteed China that their prices will be low and our prices will be high. That anchor is the subject of several bills in Congress as our trade deficit continues to grow…and explode. Our currency - market based? Or manipulation based?
U. S.: Financial analyst Joe Nicholson says that as the Fed watches global interest rates and the price of gold rise, the Fed “…will very likely continue quietly expanding (manipulate) bank reserves to mitigate damage to the (U.S. economic) system and spur liquidity (printing more money to keep the economy going - read that “inflation”).
Intervention, restricting flow, anchors or “pegs,” interest rates, altering bank reserves are only five of numerous ways to manipulate currencies. The act of China anchoring its currency to our dollar is perhaps the most public of manipulation schemes.
Now Mr. Paulson, would you please clear this up for me and others who may be reasoning-impaired. Are currencies around the world market based or manipulation based?
And a question for those looking forward to retirement: is this deceptive, manipulated, unpredictable situation a firm foundation for retirement?
(Leland Cade was editor of Montana Farmer-Stockman for 21 years and retired in 1987. He now lives in Billings. During the period 1950-1966, he was a county extension agent in McCone and Chouteau counties and in Alaska. “Our Paper Money” by Leland P. Cade; phone 1-406-656-3722; Email lcade@imt.net)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4/9/08

More warfare coming on hunting access front

(Editor’s Note: The following column appeared in last Sunday’s edition of the Billings Gazette. It is reprinted here with the permission of the Gazette’s editor. The letter below deals with the same topic, and there is also a related story on the front page of today’s paper).

by MARK HENCKEL
The Billings Gazette

It’s looking like the upcoming season could be an ugly one for hunters across Montana. And if it is ugly, don’t expect any relief when the 2009 Montana Legislature convenes in Helena in January.

At the center of it all is hunter access - the hottest and most divisive topic in hunting these days. It’s a spitting contest with resident hunters squaring off against outfitters. And it’s all happening because of the last spitting contest when the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission adopted more restrictive elk archery regulations for Central and Eastern Montana.

On one side you have Kurt Kephart, of Billings, and a group called PublicWildlife.Org, which is seeking to put three initiatives on the November election ballot to shore up hunters’ rights within Montana.

On the other side you have outfitters Mark and Deanna Robbins of Roy and Toby Dahl of Roundup and landowner Don Proue of Roundup who have formed United Property Owners of Montana, Inc. The group is looking to sign up farmers and ranchers to lock out nonpaying hunters across the state.

Both sides are still in what you’d call the formative stages of their campaigns. Both sides have Web sites that are in some stage of construction. Both sides appear to be flexing their muscles and spreading the word to see what kind of support they’ll get.

Kephart has his three ballot initiatives going through the review process with the state of Montana. They are currently at the attorney general’s office. The exact wording of them is still under revision by the state, but so far, they are:

• An act increasing public access to wildlife for the purpose of pursuing and harvesting wild fish and wild game owned by the citizens of the state of Montana by providing that no person directly or indirectly inhibit public fishing or hunting of such wildlife by buying, selling, trading, bartering, or offering to buy, sell, trade, or barter for access to land.

• This proposed amendment adds a provision to Article 9, Section 7 of the Constitution of the state of Montana declaring that the people of the state of Montana and all of its citizens together and collectively own the wild fish and wild game animals of this state. Accordingly, any law adopted affecting this right shall not conflict with it and corporate or commercial interests must take a secondary interest to that right.

• This initiative allows nonprofit corporations to conduct lotteries for the purpose of acquiring or enhancing access to land and wildlife for the benefit of all Montana’s citizens. The nonprofit must be established to do business in Montana, and acquire a permit from the Department of Justice. It cannot spend more than 18.5 percent on administrative expenses. Lotteries may be conducted on an annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly or bi-weekly basis. Nonprofits must provide an accounting to the department. The department is given the authority to regulate the lotteries and adopt rules for conducting lotteries.

The attorney general’s office is expected to have these worked out in final form by April 28. PublicWildlife.Org then has until June 12 to get enough signatures, from enough Montana voters, in enough legislative districts to put them on the ballot.

Kephart maintains these are not private land issues. Instead, they are public wildlife issues. When outfitting and fee hunting block public access to public fish and wildlife, the fish and wildlife become private property and that’s what he’s seeking to prevent.

But United Property Owners of Montana, Inc., views the measure as an attack on private property rights and is battling that while trying to show its discontent with the FWP Commission’s action that put elk archery and antelope archery hunting on a limited number of permits. By putting a limit on permit numbers, nonresident hunters may be limited to 10 percent of the available permits in a hunting district.

On its Web site, the group states, “Any attempt by a federal or state agency to erode or diminish private property rights must be rejected by the people.... The FWP has openly stated that they believe the unlimited archery permits are encouraging the leasing and sale of private land for hunting. FWP wants to take away the certainty of a guaranteed license so that sportsmen are not willing to contract with the private landowner for access, and to devalue your land so it does not sell for the recreational opportunity.”

In an e-mail sent out in the wake of a meeting held in Roundup in early March, the group also stated, “United Property Owners of Montana, Inc., would like to know if you are willing to further support this effort to protect our private property rights. We are asking for confirmation of your support by the following means:

• Will you be willing to participate in a sign campaign that would have you posting protest signs on your gate?

• Will you be willing to make a commitment of your acres to a potential lockout of the general public hunter this fall?

It listed www.unitedpropertyownersofmt.com as its Web site with Robbins, Dahl and Proue as the group’s steering committee.

Put it all together and the prospects for a peaceful fall of hunting are not good. But in the meantime, all anyone can do is keep watch on the situation and prepare for what looks like more warfare on the hunting access front.

Mark Henckel is the outdoor editor of The Billings Gazette. Contact him at 633-2598 or at henckel@billingsgazette.com.