Reporter favors Christian felon
Mac Diva
There is a reason reporters need to maintain journalistic objectivity -- focusing on the facts of a situation instead of allowing their own beliefs to color what they are observing. Succumbing to such influences results in stories that do not accurately reflect what has occurred. I was reminded of that while reading a recent article about the Edwin Baxter case. Baxter is the man recently sentenced to prison after a conviction for cutting his eight-year-old son's penis with a hunting knife. He says God wanted him to circumcise the boy and his four other sons.
The Columbian reports.
Baxter and his 30-year-old wife have nine children in their two-bedroom home. His wife, Tammy, is pregnant and due in February.
. . .On Sept. 3, Baxter called his son into the bathroom and had him lay in what witnesses described as a dirty bathtub. Baxter used a hunting knife to slice into his son's foreskin. He called 911 when his son began bleeding profusely.
[Superior Court Judge James] Rulli said Baxter inflicted not only physical damage to his son, who received stitches, but probably also psychological damage.
On Dec. 7, a jury convicted Baxter of assault of a child in the second degree.
The Baxters previously resided in a survivalist compound in Idaho. They reject contemporary expectations in regard to the roles of men, women and children. Tammy Baxter has given birth to most of her children at home. The youngsters have rarely been allowed to attend school. Girls are required to wear dresses, boys trousers. Edwin Baxter had earlier encounters with child welfare workers and legal officials in regard to the children's chronic truancy and domestic abuse of his wife. The eleven-person clan lived in a two-bedroom rental cottage in rural Washington. They may have relocated to Washington to avoid authorities in Idaho. The wife again went on the run with the children to prevent child welfare and medical personnel from examining the boy injured in the assault. They have since returned to Ridgefield.
The situation seems clear. Baxter, who a mental health professional described as "mildy delusional," believed he could obtain God's approval by circumcising his sons. Pragmatic considerations such as his lack of medical training, the absence of a sterile environment and implements, and, the ages of the boys, were not considered. Baxter assaulted one of the children. The intent required for the crime -- mens rea -- is that he intend to cause bodily harm. It is not necessary that he subjectively believe his act to be harmful. Baxter's rationalization, that he was acting under orders from God, does not absolve him of responsibility. Indeed, if such a 'defense' were acceptable, it would give any defendant who claimed his religion moved him to commit an offense carte blanche.
Wendy Owen, writing for the Oregonian, doesn't get it. She visited the Baxter family and spoke with some of their relatives and friends. The result is a sympathetic portrayal that misses the point of the prosecution.
During his trial, Baxter, 33, said he was simply following Scripture through a God-commanded ritual performed innumerable times in history. But in the courtroom and among some public opinion, he has been branded a reckless fanatic, and spiritual leaders say his behavior follows a pattern of those who consider their acts to be in accordance with God's law -- despite being outside of the state's law.
. . .During his sentencing, Baxter acknowledged making a mistake, but at his trial he told the judge he was following God's laws.
"I felt it was an act of obedience that was spoken from the mouth of the self-existent creator," he said. "It breaks my heart to think . . . this state thinks it's child abuse when I was doing what other godly men . . . did."
Baxter was referring to Abraham and Joshua, who in the Old Testament were directed to ensure all males were circumcised.
Paragraphs of Owen's article are devoted to 'from the mouths of babes' support for Baxter.
Tammy Baxter said the boy has been checked by a doctor and is doing well, and the 8-year-old said he isn't mad at his father.
"I like him," he said shyly. Cuddled against his mother for support, he added, "I want him to come back home."
She intends to have all the boys circumcised by a doctor.
Meanwhile, the family misses their father.
His 9-year-old daughter summed up their feelings with a colorful crayon drawing. It depicts her, her siblings and her mother standing in row next to their house with tears rolling down their faces, watching police lead their father to a black-and-white squad car.
"We whant daddy and my daddy whants us," she wrote in red, purple and blue letters.
It never seems to cross Owen's mind that minor children are hardly in a position to understand the moral and legal aspects of Baxter's behavior. Instead, one is given the impression that an uppity government with no respect for religion has interfered in a situation that was fine the way it was. The article never mentions Baxter's previous conflicts with social services agencies and the law. Owen incorrectly states that he was not found to have mental health issues. Not only did an expert say Baxter is delusional, there was a finding of narcissism, a personality disorder that often leads to antisocial behavior.
I find myself thinking about previous sympathetic portrayals of persons of the far Right who come into conflict with the law. Readers in the Pacific Northwest will recall the McGuckins and the Christines. Nationally, Randy Weaver's defiance of the federal government at Ruby Ridge is a well-known example. Despite having instigated the conflict and slain a federal officer during the episode, Weaver, a ne'er-do-well white supremacist, eventually won a sizable legal settlement from a favorable jury. I suspect that people like Baxter and Weaver are portrayed positively by some reporters because they are seen as holding the 'traditional' values those reporters can relate to. Furthermore, they are not the Other -- foreign, nonwhite or non-Christian.
Perhaps Wendy Owen does not realize that bias crept into her portrayal of the Baxters. If she shares their fundamentalist beliefs to an extent, that is understandable, though not forgiveable. But, she does have a duty to be accurate. She failed in stating both the findings in regard to Baxter's mental health, and, in presenting a coherent account of why he was convicted. Her article is an example of the kinds of mistakes made when reporters surrender their journalistic objectivity.
Reasonably related
Brian and Ruth Christine recently lost appeals of their prison sentences. They say religious motivations led them to take their children from state custody at gunpoint. Their convictions are for robbery, custodial interference and auto theft. The Mail-Tribune has the .
ROSEBURG — A judge has refused to reduce the prison sentence of a woman serving seven-and-a-half years in prison for helping her husband take their children at gunpoint from state child welfare workers at a freeway rest stop and flee to Montana.
Douglas County Circuit Judge William Lasswell ruled Wednesday there was no legal basis to reduce the sentence of Ruth Christine, who was convicted in 2002 of six counts of robbery, custodial interference and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
The judge came to the same conclusion last month on a motion from Christine’s husband, Brian, who was convicted on the same counts and is serving twelve-and-a-half years because he was the one who used the gun.
Read the rest.
Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 5, '05
The Columbian and the Seattle Times report that Baxter turned down a plea deal that would have given him credit for time served and released him from jail. However in a cursory review of the Oregonian articles on Baxter I find no reference to a plea offer (someone please correct me if I am wrong). In fact in a prior article - - the O quotes family members talking about making the family "destitute" because their sole supporter is in prison - with absolutely no mention of the fact that Baxter could have taken a plea deal.
Jan 5, '05
What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that adults are subjecting children to having parts of their sexual organs cut off to satisfy their own desires or beliefs. The penis belongs to the boy and not to anyone else to do with what they like. It is outrageous that this is still acceptable in light of all of the research that has shown that it permanently damages sexual sensation and function. The fact that the mother is going to have the rest of the boys penises surgically altered and will easily find a doctor who will be paid to do it is the most disturbing part of this story. There is a law in this country that protects girls from being subjected to any forms of circumcision including nicking the genitals with a needle to get a drop of blood. Meanwhile they can tie down baby boys, most of the time without any anesthesia, and crudely cut off half or more of their penile skin. It's the responsibility of doctors who sold this surgery to this country and who make 400 million dollars a year from it to step up to the plate and call it what it is- male genital mutilation- and tell the truth to end it.
Jan 5, '05
If good Christians want to go around cutting off each others penises, let 'em go. These people should not propagate.
Jan 5, '05
Auggie, I also read that Baxter was offered a plea bargain that would have let him off with time served -- days or weeks. That seems to be a kind of favoritism, too. But, not being the sharpest pencil in the box, Baxter rejected the deal. It is very unlikely his conviction will be overturned on appeal. What is not sinking in with him and the Christines is that their subjective intent doesn't matter. The law assumes people intend the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
Brian, I have mixed feelings about the no circumcision movement trying to hijack a situation like this. I can see why y'all are tempted. But, there is a significant difference between a circumcision by a would-be Biblical patriach wielding a hunting knife in a filthy bath tub and a circumcision by a physician in an appropriate environment. Furthermore, I have not seen any data confirmining that most, or many, men who were circumcised as babies or children regret the operation. If you have objective data supporting that position, I would be interested in reading it.
Anne, the Baxters have had nine children, starting when the wife was 19. She is 30. The tenth is due in February. Ironically, I suspect Ed Baxter's greatest regret may turn out to be that he will not be able to do his yearly 'duty' of siring a child while in prison.
Jan 5, '05
"What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that adults are subjecting children to having parts of their sexual organs cut off to satisfy their own desires or beliefs"
What religion is it that condones female genital mutilation?
There are lots of reasons to be thankful for our Constitutional separation of church and state -- and this story is one of them.
I first started practicing law in a small rural Oregon community. Fresh out of law school and wanting trial experience I did a few years on the "indigent" defense appointment panel. I was amazed at the numbers of CSD cases where the parents were justifying their abuses of children - sexual and otherwise - on their "Bibilical" teachings. Even more amazing was when I was appointed to represent a 10 year old girl (from a family with 4 children); defense counsel for the other children were visibly irritated when I did not "go along" with the proposed deal -- which would have had kids back with parents -- out where a caseworker might drive by once a month and no jail time.
Throughout the parents were unrepentent and resentful.
Scary stuff.
7:23 p.m.
Jan 5, '05
What's weird to me is how the whole Christian overlay to this story--that people can actually use religion in a developed country to justify child abuse--makes the issue somehow palatable to people. If Hindus or Muslims or pagans on some remote island were doing this, people would cluck cluck and talk about what barbarians they were.
Jan 5, '05
Isn't female genital mutilation done for cultural-religious reasons? Granted, it is way more invasive than circumcision, but Americans get pretty worked up about how barbaric THAT is...
1:01 a.m.
Jan 6, '05
Furthermore, I have not seen any data confirmining that most, or many, men who were circumcised as babies or children regret the operation.
I want to know how I'm supposed to even know whether or not I regret it, since it's not like I have one of each kind and can make some sort of comparison.
Jan 6, '05
In defense of circumcision:
The vast majority of circumcisions produce no noticeable sexual defect (as b!X points out, I don't know the difference so who cares?) Male circumcision is far less damaging than most forms of female genital mutilation, but in the case of those cultures that cut only the clitoral hood, I see it less as a human rights violation than as a normal act of cultural marking. When we get to the level of clitoridectomy and infibulation (which is the removal of the entire clitoris, all of the labia minora and the cutting of the labia majora so they can be sewn together with only a small hole to allow for sexual intercourse/urination/menstruation and must be performed again after each child birth) well, now we've certainly crossed into human rights violation territory. And, incidentally, there is less widespread mutilation of penises in Africa as well. Please check out Amnsesty International's FGM page for more information. But male circumcision is widely practised and does not infer the same kind of male control over the female body that FGM does, nor does it do as much physical damage.
Furthermore, we expect parents to make all kind of medical, and non-medical, decisions for their children. The boy's kidneys are also his own, but if they were failing and the parents were Christian Scientists, he would not be treated. Parents can also force their children to be vegans, to have their ears pierced, to go to bed at 7:30 and all kinds of things that children may not like and that may violate their autonomy, but we recognize that children do not have the intellectual and moral capacity to make all decisions. Circumsicion is no different.
This isn't a defense of Baxter, though. Applying Biblical medical standards is barbaric. His wife has the right idea.
And why the hell weren't the children circumcised at birth?
Jan 6, '05
I want to know how I'm supposed to even know whether or not I regret it, since it's not like I have one of each kind and can make some sort of comparison.
Well, B!X, if you did, your lifelong celebrity would be assured-:).
Actually, I have heard of people with double genitals. Supposedly, it can occur in cases where identical twins fail to fully separate, producing a person with two sets of genitals, as well as other extra parts. I've seen some pictures online, but can't say if they are really of the phenomenon.
Joshua, the circumcision insight was an 'Eureka!' It struck Baxter one night while he was reading the Bible -- when his eldest was 13. I did some more reading on why that might happen. 'Salvation' seems to be the key. Apparently, some people interpret the Bible to say that a man can gain salvation by making the sacrifice of his son(s) foreskin(s) to God. (That's right -- not living a good life, atoning for sins, etc. -- sacrificing foreskins.) That is likely what Baxter thought. 'Collect those foreskins and its angels and harp music down the road for me.' Since he is his own church, there was no one to question his interpretation. Even scarier is that the Bible also speaks favorably of a patriach being willing to sacrifice his son's life.
Jan 6, '05
Well, the Covenant clearly made the circumcision a part of the salvation. It just strikes me as odd that someone would choose not to circumcise his children at birth in the United States (where circumcision is still very common) only to decide it was a good idea later. No accounting for the tastes of the odd. And of course, I agree with you on the Bible as moral-teacher. The entire saga of Abraham (Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, Isaaac . . .) is one of the most visceral displays of all the worst impulses of humanity. And we're supposed to see this guy as a brave and great leader? Please.
Jan 8, '05
Another Anne writes>>If good Christians want to go around cutting off each others penises, let 'em go. These people should not propagate.<<
Yikes! I think it needs to be said -- the religious, social/economic or cultural/racial background of a child's family is no excuse for condoning acts of assault against him/her.
As for that last sentence, wow. Why not be a little clearer? Eugenics for all religious nut-balls? (And, defined as such, by who? Yikes, I say, yikes.)
I think this crime, and the whole family saga, is heinous, and extraordinarily sad in what it says about the lives so many of our children lead.
But it's important not to respond with a dangerous slip-slide into hate of whole populations, into hate of their offspring, (unto the sons of the sons of the sons?) into hate that defines children and abused women as some, sub-human, other.
That way, the pit.
Btw - I’m reading “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer right now. If you are interested in similar issues to this thread, I recommend this book. Or, even if you are not. If you’ve read other stuff by him, you’ll know what I mean. Krakauer brings great writing and a keen understanding of “extremes” to his analysis of people who do things most of us can not imagine ourselves doing, whether it be climbing Everest, or committing child rape under the guise of “Godliness”
Jan 8, '05
I would like to add that I do appreciate Mac Diva's post. I have been increasingly uncomfortable recently with the "Christianization" of the news, whether on the pages of the O, or on the television.
Not to mention, in the Dems pontificating on the last, lost, election...
I would welcome a focused discussion of this issue.
Feb 1, '05
Why was Baxter's argument not LOUDLY REBUKED as heresy... the Bible CLEARLY states that CHRIST'S blood shed for our sins and no other is what matters. We do not slaughter chickens, goats, doves or children... we do not cut our child to seal the OLD covenant with his penis blood (Genesis 17) through Christ we were promised a NEW COVENANT (Hebrews 8:13)... the ONLY blood of any relevance to Christian salvation is Christ's blood, and the only way to have the salvation blessing from that is through BAPTISM. There is NO QUESTIONING THIS- circumcision is NOTHING to Christians (Galations 6:15)
Baxter's whole defense of his christian belief is IRRELEVANT- because it was a FALSE BELIEF! I can't beleive that in a court where they swear on a BIBLE to tell the truth... such lies about the scripture would be tolerated!
Even if we were allowed to sexually abuse our children on the basis of a religion- this is not even what the religion says. Circumcision is as Christian an act as if Baxter said that God wanted him to shoot a chihaua out of a spud gun... it's NOT grounded in scripture (not contextually!). Allowing Baxter's defense to stand unchallenged is a Christian tragedy of ignorance of their own scripture and tolerance of false teaching. I hope to God that the doctors who Mrs. Baxter takes her sons to have at least read more than the first 20 pages of their Bibles, and do not exploit her ignorance at her sons' expense.
<h2>The rest of the Christians of the world know this, it's time that Americans stop arrogantly hosting this vague idea that their circumcision is something having to do with God. Circumcision is about as Christian as Frosty the snowman.</h2>