The polygamy trials have started in B.C. On Tuesday April 18, Winston Blackmore and James Oler were arraigned in court in Cranbrook, on charges of polygamy.
Polygamy is illegal in Canada. Section 293 of the Criminal Code explicitly prohibits it: “Everyone who…practises or enters into … (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, … is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”
The law is 127 years old.
The prosecution will argue that there is no doubt about Blackmore and Oler’s actions. Blackmore has boasted about having 27 wives, some as young as 15, and 147 children. Almost the entire student body at the school in the community of Bountiful, near the U.S. border in southern B.C., consists of Blackmore’s children and grandchildren.
As an illustration of the convoluted relationships in polygamous communities, Winston Blackmore’s sister-in-law (sister to his first wife) is also his stepmother (married at 15 to Blackmore’s father). Both women are half-sisters to James Oler, which makes Oler both Blackmore’s brother –in-law and his uncle.
So there’s ample evidence that the two broke Canadian law.
Matters of precedence
The defence will claim that polygamy was a legitimate expression of their religious faith. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution specifically identifies religion as the first of its “fundamental freedoms” for all citizens: “Everyone has… freedom of conscience and religion…”
That will be the crux of the case – does freedom of religion take precedence over the laws of the land?
The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that laws against polygamy do not violate Charter rights.
The preamble to the Charter itself states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”
And further down, the Charter adds another limitation: “These rights … are subject to
any laws or practices of general application in force in a province…”
Further, I would argue, governments have historically subordinated religious laws to their own legal systems. The Ten Commandments state unequivocally: “Thou shalt not kill.” But when nations go to war, they have no hesitation about sending their citizens to break that commandment.
Indeed, pacifists who claim religious exemption typically get punished. Remember Mohammed Ali?
Voluntary adherence
I would contend further that a religion cannot and should not exempt its followers from obeying the laws of the land. The reason is simple – religion is voluntary; the law is not.
Laws deal with what you cannot do. Again, the Ten Commandments offer classic formulas: “Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness.”
Laws – in general -- prohibit actions that will harm the community. But no government, not even a dictator, can legislate goodness. Or kindness. Or generosity. As soon as you make generosity mandatory, it is no longer generosity.
The behaviour expected by any religion has to be voluntary to be meaningful.
Religious convictions may well bring one into conflict with the laws of a state. But religion offers no “Get out of jail free” cards. If you choose to break a country’s laws, you must accept the consequences. Gandhi did. Martin Luther King Jr. and his civil rights marchers did. The student standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square did.
Jesus himself never advocated breaking laws. Rather, he urged his followers to go beyond the literal letter of the law. To carry a soldier’s pack two miles instead of one. To avoid even looking a woman with lust. To provide healing on the Sabbath.
When a questioner tried to trip him up, he replied, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
What’s a religion?
But I doubt if the prosecution will use biblical arguments against Blackmore and Oler. Although it would be poetic justice to convict them with their own scriptures.
Their arguments will surely be limited to legal issues.
I can’t see how the court could acquit Blackmore and Oler. If religious convictions are granted precedence over civil and criminal law, anyone could invent their own religion. Which might authorize ignoring speed limits. Driving on the wrong side of the road. Committing ritual murder. Pouring fentanyl into water supplies to poison unbelieving communities.
At that point, courts would have to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion.
And that’s an even thornier problem than polygamy.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Some interesting responses to last week’s column about the crucifixion.
Isabel Gibson noted that she had always read "crucifixion" and " resurrection" as an inseparable pair. “Thanks for the new perspective,” she wrote.
“A very good 'take' on the meaning of the cross,” wrote Helen Reid.
Tom Watson wasn’t sure he agreed: “You contend that it was Jesus' crucifixion, not his resurrection, that drew people to the Christian faith. I don't want to argue against that but I do need to ask when that died out in the Christian church, at least in the Canadian context.
“A church on the outskirts of the city where I live has no cross affixed in its worship space. That, apparently, is the case in some churches in the U.S. as well.
“My experience across the last 60 plus years has been that churches are noticeably full on Easter Sunday and, comparatively speaking, noticeably empty on Good Friday.”
Cliff Boldt was one of those attending church last Sunday. “This story has merit,” he wrote. “I like it and will contemplate it in my pew this morning.”
Steve Roney agreed that “the crucifixion is at least as theologically significant as the resurrection.”
Steve thought he remembered my objecting to the crucifix in Catholic churches, and arguing that the cross should be only be shown without Jesus on it. [I don’t remember saying so, but my memory is no longer perfect.] “Given that the crucifixion was an essential event, and without it the resurrection could not happen, why would we not commemorate it?”
Bob Rollwagen observed, “Jesus on the Cross was a public event. Given history and how government functioned then, you are correct. He did shame his captors and he did appeal to the masses.
“Society does not like to elevate such horrific actions. By moving to the resurrection, they have moved on to the positive potential of such a strong and dedicated person’s efforts to change society. They did it in a way that was normal from their perspective at that time. A student of history can sometimes see what happens to a human social or corporate entity when it does not update, modernize, or keep up with knowledge and understanding of their own times.”
Laurna Tallman: “I cannot begin to tell you how much I needed to hear this message this morning.” Laurna described a family tragedy, which I won’t go into. “I suspect shame has a lot to do with why [our sons] haven't asked us for help sooner. Whatever else I do, I must see to it that I do not add to that burden.”
A reader identified only as D. Martin thought I had deliberately chosen a woman’s story of abuse, and objected, “Sexual abuse is not gender specific. Please, next time you write about sexual abuse, address the whole issue of victims of sexual abuse and not a myopic gender specific view of it. The difference is that the media are silent about sexual abuse by women. Studies have shown that boys (and men) suffer from being raped or coerced into sex just as women do. Next time give equal treatment to all victims of sexual abuse.”
As a matter of interest, I did get a letter from a man abused as a boy. But I chose not to publish the details of his experience, just as I chose not to go into the details of the woman’s long-ago harassment in my column.
June Blau liked Peter Scott’s letter last week, in which he argued that the word “God” carries too much baggage with it: “Amen, Peter Scott!” June wrote.
And finally, D. Martyn (not the D. Martin above) expressed general commendation for these columns: “I enjoy reading your columns. I fell away from the church. I saw the politics, things I didn't feel were right. Your letters are like a sermon that refreshes my faith every week, letting me see things and think things with an open mind.”
Thank YOU for that re-assurance.
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com.
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is up and running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.ca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net