International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 3 2022 44
the courts” (p. 402). However, given the delicate nature
of parental and religious rights within the United States,
Guiora (2010) recommended that strong intelligence
must be collected to ensure that law enforcement and
the courts can effectively address the issue.
The line between State power to protect children from
physical harm and parental and religious rights is a fine
one. As Dworkin (1984) noted,
To some extent, the argument in favor
of a political right must depend on which
of these theories about desirable goals has
been accepted it must depend, that is, on what
general background justification for political
decisions the right in question proposes to
trump. (p. 153)
When looking at State authority and control,
therefore, one must consider the rationale for a
state’s insertion of control into the private lives of
the people living within its borders. As Dworkin
went on to explain in “Rights As Trumps” (1984),
We need rights, as a distinct element in
political theory, only when some decision that
injures some people nevertheless finds prima-
facie support in the claim that it will make the
community as a whole better off on
some plausible account of where the
community’s general welfare lies. (p. 166)
The State’s authoritative boundary in this regard
considers the overall welfare of the community.
However, religious freedom becomes most contentious
in those areas that are on the border between people’s
innate rights and the collective good. In some cases,
such as vaccination, in which public health is at stake,
the State can more easily justify society’s greater good
because illness could spread to vulnerable populations.
However, in cases that relate to preventing physical
abuse of children, the link to collective good is
weaker since the real emphasis is on protection, or
perhaps control, of individual children’s bodies. This
difficulty seems to have resulted in sporadic attempts at
enforcement rather than consistent policy.
Twelve Tribes
Authorities in both the United States and Europe have
attempted to enforce child abuse and child labor laws
that the Twelve Tribes are accused of violating. In these
cases, the group has claimed State overreach.
The first case to end with a defeat for child-welfare
officials was that of the Island Pond, Vermont Raid in
1984. The State became aware of accusations of severe
and prolonged beating of children in the community
through evidence in a child-custody case. Those claims
included beatings that left bruising and bleeding, with
some beatings having lasted for hours (Kent, 2010, p.
35–41). In the custody case, the judge gave custody to
the nonmember parent because of the evidence of abuse
within the group. However, after the State raided the
community and took away 112 children on a 72-hour
hold to look for signs of abuse, the same judge ruled
that the State had acted improperly without specific
accusations of abuse against each child (District Court
of Vermont, 1984). The judge did not rule whether
there was widespread abuse in the community rather,
he ruled that specific victims and locations (a specific
building) were not listed. Thus, the State did not
examine the children, and no further action was taken
against the Island Pond community.
Palmer argued in 2010 that, since the judge ruled in
their favor in the Island Pond Case, the Twelve Tribes’
relationship with the State was more positive because
the group saw that it could push back legally with a State
mechanism. However, the rhetoric the Twelve Tribes
used points to both spiritual and legal consequences.
For instance, the Twelve Tribes Child Training Manual
Part II states that
If the child is taken away from the Body or
parents a curse will come to the one or ones,
even the institution which takes the dedicated
to God child away. No dedicated child could be
taken away from the Body by his own consent
or the consent of the parents who dedicated
the child to God, for they would not consent
to it. (Twelve Tribes, 2014a, p. 18)
States have been inconsistent in their efforts to exert
authority over the Twelve Tribes, and many State efforts
have been sparked by media attention and controversy.

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0003 45
For example, in Germany, a television program with
a video of small children struck with thin, tree-branch
rods within the Klosterzimmern community led to
the removal of 40 children and incarceration of two
adults (Connolly, 2013). Although there had been
previous reports of beatings in the school and general
community, it was soon after journalists confronted
authorities on tape with the videos that they initiated
action to remove the children (Allgemeine, 2017). One
teacher was sentenced to 2 years in prison without
parole in June 2016, marking the first time a member of
the Twelve Tribes was sentenced to prison in Germany
(Allgemeine, 2017). The removal of the children set off
lengthy court battles in both German and European
courts.
Quiverfull
The Quiverfull movement does not conflict with
government actors as much as the Twelve Tribes
activities do, even though some of the core beliefs of
Quiverfull are similar to the conflict points between the
Twelve Tribes and the State. As discussed previously,
Quiverfull methods of child discipline are not very
different from those of the Twelve Tribes. Both groups
emphasize using the rod, and both see leaving marks
on a child as being problematic only if child-welfare
workers notice the marks. However, unlike the Twelve
Tribes, whose lifestyle involves communal living in
readily identifiable communities, Quiverfull families
are spread throughout the United States.
When individual cases of child abuse do come to the
State’s attention, authorities have focused on individual
families and do not link the abuse to any particular
religious group or movement. Occasionally, after
severe abuse and neglect cases, State governments
have attempted to strengthen child protection for
homeschooled children through yearly medical exams,
notification of homeschooling, or testing. However,
these interventions frequently encounter resistance
by groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the
Home School Legal Defense Association (Heritage
Foundation, 2021). These groups raise money among
fundamentalist and homeschooling groups, partially
by disseminating stories about families having their
children removed by State workers. In addition to
legal advice, many of these groups provide advice on
asserting parental rights (Klicka, 2000 Permoser, J. M.,
&Stoeckl, K. (2021)). The push has resulted in very
weak monitoring of homeschool children over time in
many US states. In addition, to circumvent State policy,
the Quiverfull movement has sought to partner with
the conservative community to gain political influence.
Conclusion
Both the Twelve Tribes and Quiverfull can maintain
transnational links through inexpensive, convenient
communication and travel across borders. The Twelve
Tribes in particular embraces a transnational lifestyle
with frequent moves across spaces.
Quiverfull members embrace less of a transnational
lifestyle because they tend to have a deeper connection
to their nation than do members of the Twelve Tribes,
even if that attachment is to the past or an idealized
past. One way they have looked for power outside the
State is with regional and international organizations.
As discussed, both movements have similar
attitudes toward the State, but their attitudes toward
globalization and international organizations differ.
US Quiverfull families take a more patriotic view
and believe that pressuring the U.S. government can
result in it becoming the proper kind of State that
will protect them from the New World Order, which
otherwise signifies a movement to a threatening world
government.
While the Quiverfull movement tends to view
international organizations as potential sources of
oppression, the Twelve Tribes, which operates as
a transnational group, applies pressure through
international and regional organizations taking a case-
by-case approach. For example, the Twelve Tribes have
attempted to use the European Court of Human Rights
to control the State’s actions. Four families from the
Twelve Tribes brought a case to the European Court of
Human Rights. The families argued that the German
action in seizing their children violated European
rules to respect family and private life. However, the
Court found that the actions were necessary to protect
the children from abuse and were therefore justified
(Allgemeine, 2017).
When greater identity is tied to the group over that of
the State, as in both Quiverfull and the Twelve Tribes,