6 Degrees of Sacramento

Okay, so, it’s been a while since my last post. But that doesn’t mean the little hamster wheels haven’t continued to churn. They’ve been churning mostly about corporate America, which is my excuse for not having posted recently (and hopefully, I’m brewing up a good post on this, at least it’s all there in my head). They’ve been churning on KJ and Fargo, and that, friends, is enough to drive me to drink right there. They’ve been churning on the economy.

And the little f*ckers are churning on religion, polygamy, and child abuse at top speed.

I’ve actually been saving up one of my favorite Cary Tennis (columnist for Salon.com) pieces for a while, planning to write about left-coast liberalism (LCL) and his interesting take on our beliefs about racism and other social no-nos…but I’m co-opting some words of wisdom because they just freaking work with this topic, too.

And how can you miss it? The prairie-skirt-clad women of the poetically named Yearning for Zion Ranch (aka the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), aghast at the government raid on their compound, the separation of them from their children (and underage marriage fodder)?

I know my liberal street cred is going to take a huge hit with this one, but…well, who really cares? It’s been dubious since I turned 30 anyway. I’ve been asking myself some questions that are not necessarily unique, but which certainly don’t have many answers, about these people. And I’m having a hard time with it. Does anyone else get a whiff of a burning pyre for the witch hunt? Does anyone else see certain parallels with society-at-large’s treatment of gay marriage?

Wait…before you freak out…allow me to explain.

First off, obviously, freedom of religion is a big issue. I’m not a card-carrying member of any religion, but I acknowledge that I must accept the choices others believe in, even when they are anathema to me. I expect the same in return, which I’ve observed is a courtesy rarely extended by the religious types (but that’s for another blog). Nonetheless, in my belief system, I am finding little ground to condemn a group because they believe in polygamy. Heck, there are tribal cultures around the world where polygamy is standard practice. Just because an unmarried, offspring-less, overeducated, middle-class woman in the U.S. doesn’t think it’s all that groovy, doesn’t mean it should be banned for everyone, yes? We can agree on that, can’t we? Maybe. Okay, now replace “polygamy” with any other buzzword of the day, starting with “gay marriage.” Is my point becoming clearer?

Granted, the polygamy issue might make for scintillating news, but it’s the underlying issues that are truly the concern. The church and the law being in conflict would be the primary issue here. U.S. society (rightfully, IMHO) sets an age of consent. The YFZ cult believes it is not answerable to U.S. law on this (although it’s apparently pleased to take advantage of that freedom of religion thing). Next, we have hundreds of women claiming single motherhood, and the state-funded benefits that come with that status–which then in turn supports the cult. Hmmm…if I were the taxpayers of Utah, Arizona, and Texas, I’d probably be a little pissed, too. And, frankly, estimates say there are tens of thousands of polygamists living quietly–all around the country–and pulling the same scam. I can’t imagine the YFZers willing to pony up their tax dollars to support lifestyles like mine; although they seem to believe they’re entitled to pubic support for theirs. In fact, it’s pretty easy to imagine what life would be like if their belief system was mainstream and mine was the “renegade splinter cult.” Certainly, they’d see my lifestyle as sinful, unworthy, and probably a few other choice negatives. I mean, holy shades of Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret!

And, of course, there are the incontrovertible “ick” factors: There’s a reason why most 14-year-olds aren’t interested in 60-year-old men, and there’s also a reason why incest is frowned on pretty much universally throughout human history and society (with some notable ooky exceptions, of course). Not to gloss over this–because I think the ick factor here is high–I just think, enough said on this point.

Finally, and this is my LCL side talking, any group (religious or otherwise) that bases its power and durability on the subjugation of women and children, including what is essentially institutionalized ignorance, has some ’splaining to do. Society, at least here, has made great strides toward recognizing the value of education; however, any good dictator or cult leader knows that educating one’s population generally tends to erode one’s authority over them.

And, I think, after pondering this and consulting the hamsters…that’s where the line should be: You are free to practice your religion, as per the Constitution, but you cannot (a) abuse others to continue said religion, (b) break the laws of the land that is providing you with the safe place to pursue your beliefs, and (c) expect the folks who don’t share your beliefs to cough up the dough to support you, just because you somehow think you’re entitled.

The flip side of this, though, is a little more difficult: If a group adheres to a, b, and c, doesn’t that mean that they should be allowed their place in society, unmolested and unjudged?

And that’s where Cary comes in…Tennis’ article, which dealt with racism (http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/01/03/racist_friend/), notes the following:

“If you take an imaginative leap to the 12th century, or the 18th century, or the 1930s, you will notice how radically beliefs change. We who are now alive think we know what is right and correct, as did the Spanish in the Inquisition and the Protestants in the Reformation and the Maoists in the Cultural Revolution; it is the privilege of those on top to think they know what is right and correct. It is a nice privilege indeed. Doubting ourselves is hard.”

I swear–that paragraph should be taped to the bathroom mirror of the judge, prosecutor, and all 5 billion defense attorneys working this case. (And for good measure, it probably needs to be taped to the mirror of each and every person claiming to be a leader today–whether they’re a religious leader, CEO, fundamentalist of any ilk, politician…oh, crap…nearly started to rant for a sec.)

Anyway, to quote another portion of the same article by Tennis:

I just think lots of us are pretty dumb, and we’re not all that virtuous either, and big deal. I’m not so impressed with our own assumed air of virtue, we liberal coastal elites. I don’t think we’re all that morally superior to the racists and sexists we can so easily pick out of the crowd and condemn. I think in fact that our frequent presumption of moral superiority is a deep character flaw that blinds us both to the vast virtue around us and to our vast capacity for growth. And more than that: Our air of superiority bores me. It bores me how we talk. It bores me how seriously we take the liberal taboos, how easily we are stopped at the borders of good taste.

And, yes, I agree, especially with “…our frequent presumption of moral superiority is a deep character flaw…”–and it’s not just in the way we look at the YFZ people; it’s in the way we look at other races, other religions, other sexual orientations, other cultures. That air of superiority? I see it every day. I sometimes am guilty of contributing to it, frankly. And it is boring. It is banal. And it is narrowminded. Not only that, but this narrowing of our ideals–and the rejection of those who hold other ideals–is a frightening prospect. It’s too easy to tell ourselves it’s okay, because the superior ideals are our own. But what if the tables are turned (hmm…historical precedent, anyone?)?

I hardly ever hear sentiments like Tennis’s spoken–but I think they deserve to be. And I think if people actually stepped outside their little bubbles of faux moral outrage toward those who don’t share their “righteous” beliefs, they’d be in for a treat.

Speaking of treats, the hamsters are asking for more cheese.