Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

Holmes, I see that you actually managed to murky up the water and completely dodged the main point of this thread. I admit that this main point hasn't been said in a single clear cut sentence, but if you had read the thread you would have realized it.I haven't actually tried to argue against polygamy. And yet you support the government getting involved when the parents decided to marry their 13 and 14 year olds off to an abusive older man? Both situations are the same. Without actually exposing the kids to the outside world and personally ask them if they'd agree, whether this is about religious polygamy or faith healing, we may never know if these kids have the ability of informed consent.Madeline was never given a chance to voice her opinion. She was shut off from the world and indoctrinated by her parents. In the same token, these 13, 14, 15, and 16 year olds were shut off from the rest of the world and were only presented a single choice, to marry an older man who may or may not be abusive. In both of these cases, we may never know what the kids actually think after they've been informed of other options. Some will mention the spiritual requirements for this particular group. Unless it says they must be healed through the miraculous power of god against their will, or they will not enter heaven...Again, I haven't seen your argument actually addressing the inform issue at all.While I was in college, I did a big research project on the worst cases of child abuse in our nation's history in the 20th Century. There was one particular case where the authority discovered a 7 year old being raised from birth in a cage in his parents' basement. What was striking about this case was that the therapists noted that this little boy seemed to not mind being in the cage all the time. In fact, they noted that he was quite a pleasant boy. That is until he found out that other little boys weren't raised in a cage like he was. He stopped talking after that.The point is both children of faith healing jesus freaks and children of polygamist jesus freaks were never given any other option. This one case of this girl calling for help is a fluke. If you raise a child where you teach him/her that abuse is normal, I'm pretty sure you can get away with just about anything.If you can argue the parents' religious freedom to rely on faith healing for the spiritual well-being of the victim, why on Earth aren't you arguing for the parents' religious freedom to impose subserviance on their kids to their husbands for their spirtiual well-being? You are not being consistent with your argument here.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Hi Taz, please do not accuse me of murking up the water nor "dodging" the point of this thread. I posted two replies in an attempt to best answer your questions. I have till around midnight tonight to continue doing so.I have pretty firm concepts of morality and legal issues and am not afraid to discuss them, nor their implications... even if many will find them unpalatable. If you accurately read my posts you will see that I acknowledged an understanding of that in rather clear terms. However, since this case has been surrounded by issues of polygamy I began by addressing that issue first... then addressed what I stated was an assumption of your true issue: arranged marriages, particularly of minors. Actually I argued for no such support for the gov't (it was about involvement in rape, regardless of marriage), but no... marriage and health care are not the same and I explained why. When an emergency occurs then someone must make decisions for a minor, and that is the parent. It is presumptuous and ill-considered to have the gov't (a current leading majority) act in that role... as it argues that the state knows not only what is best, but what belief system the child holds.In the case of marriage there is no emergency. This is a voluntary and so unnecessary act.Put hopefully in a more clear way: with health care we are discussing selection and denial of intervention strategies (by others) when external situations arise, with marriage we are discussing the proactive pressuring of a child to engage in an activity with no immediate external demand to make such a choice.Thus there is a vast gulf between dealing with health care issues and marriage. If your issue is decisions being made by people, including children, outside the public eye, then we are discussing a totally different problem.If Madeline was never given a chance to voice her opinion, then I guess you have no right to speak for her either. As it stands, given that all of her siblings agreed, odds are that she did as well. You can call that indoctrination if you wish, but the reality is that it is simply growing up in a culture different from your own.In the case of marriage, there is no emergency where decisions must be made. It is a voluntary act and if there is a chance that it might effect someone's wellbeing it can come under greater scrutiny. As I tried to explain, I do not really care one way or the other if minors are allowed to marry, nor if the marriages are arranged. Since that is not current custom, nor legal institution, such groups will have to fight for such rights. But it won't destroy anyone, or the nation, if such marriages were granted.That said, if they occur, and their spouse's are abusive, then those spouses should be prosecuted just the same as any other abusive spouse. There is absolutely no concept in US law, that all children must be raised with the exact same concept of morality or social considerations, beyond legal concepts that people have rights which cannot be crossed by others including the gov't.The children of methodists must not be "equally informed" of Buddhist meditation possibilities, nor viking sacrificial rites.It seems that you are most upset that children might actually exist who think different than you, or how you want to raise your own, because they have not been "indoctrinated" with or exposed to your beliefs. I don't see any legal nor moral reason that they must. Yes, and psychiatrists' offices are filled with people who are unhappy with the unique characteristics of their upbringing... religious or other. I'm not sure how that anecdote addresses the fact that many people are happy with the way they were raised and can live that way.If anything, it would seem to argue that when someone is happy with their life, perhaps it is wise not to confront them with possibilities which will make them unhappy. Is there information on how this was explained to the child? If you are arguing that all children should be given the option of marrying older people when they are young, I might believe your argument. Aren't you in fact saying that regardless of if they were given the choice or not, you are upset that they should be allowed to do so at all?I have already stated that I myself do not agree that under US law, children can be forced into marriages, nor if in a marriage forced to have sex. If what one person calls "abuse" is considered normal by another, then it is normal and not abuse to that other. There is a vast difference between finding something normal, and tolerance of a situation that is very painful and one wants to escape but sees little chance of doing so. If your position is that most of the marriages in that sect involve kids who feel that everything is normal, and are fine with it (ala the kid in the cage) then I see no real problem.My thought is that most kids being forced to have sex against their will actually do not enjoy it and want to escape it. Hence there should be investigations. Otherwise it is consensual, even if the result of a totally different belief system than your own. You seem to have mangled my position across both threads. Remember that in the other one I made the point of saying faith healing is not primarily a 1st amendment issue... though it does play a secondary role. Also, I made clear back then, and have repeated here, that there is a difference between choosing health care options when faced with an emergency (i.e. they did not choose to face an emergency), versus choosing to force a child to do something out of the clear blue.On the issue of spiritual health, is there any religious concept in this sect that the polygamous marriage be completed by a certain age, and against the will of the child?Oh yes, and I should note on the "subservience" issue that parents teach subservience to children all the time. I see no particular problem with teaching subservience to a spouse. Of course there are limits to subservience. If someone feels they are threatened, or really do not want to do something, then they have the right not to do it regardless of the general duty to obey. If they'd simply rather not do something, but are willing to agree because doing it is less upsetting than not (a choice people make every day) then I see no problem with that.This was not a case of mere subservience. The accusations appear to be rape, pure and simple.Edited by Silent H, : clarityEdited by Silent H, : subserve

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I found myself waking around 4-5am. I thought it was because I had an idea, but maybe I was woken by the earthquake. In any case, the fog of alcohol had lifted, revealing what seems to me the core of confusion between us on this topic... which is to say why we seem to be speaking past each other.Since I couldn't get back to sleep, and it still keeps nagging me, I decided to take some time this morning to write it down.When you discuss my position you seem to be saying that since I accept the ability of parents to act in a way which leads to the graphic death of their child, the same principle must also allow for them to do something with less graphic results (even if they are unpalatable).However, this is to impose a totally different moral and legal philosophy upon my own. Yours is based on consequences (a teleology), whereas mine (at least regarding laws) is based on rules derived from rights (a deontology). Let's examine this difference by restating your question to me in this thread, then showing through an analogous situation why your question cannot be answered in a Yes/No fashion based on teleological extrapolations.More specifically, you asked if I agree with the actions taken by the Texas police with regard to the sect. You argue that it seems inconsistent for me not to side with the sect since I have argued that religious "sects" should not be prosecuted when they use faith-healing instead of modern medicine, and that leads to a much worse scenario such as the graphic and prolonged death of a diabetic child.But that question is not nearly as simple as it appears to be on its face, as I tried to explain in my first two posts. It is analogous to having been challenged with the following question...Would I agree with the detainment and interrogation of prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq at GITMO, since I have argued in support of going after our enemies to the point of armed conflict which involves much worse activity such as killing (including innocent civilians).Well for me there are so many facets, that I can no longer say thumbs up or down. Yes I am in support of detention and interrogation of prisoners and I don't care if they are at GITMO. However, the nature of their detention and interrogation is in serious question, as well as if Iraqis should be there (as my support for armed conflict never included Iraq). What's more... and this is the most critical portion... it is irrelevant that warfare causes much worse suffering (including numbers of sufferers)than any interrogative technique, when evaluating the legality of those techniques.Let me expand on that last point. International laws are not based on teleological concerns, but rather deontological issues of rights of the individual. Thus, whether a war is legal to pursue against an enemy, which grants one the right to kill, is not made based on the results of the war. Further, once an enemy is captured during war, a whole new set of rules apply to the situation which preclude activities far less brutal than were allowed against the same person during war. You may find this ironic, or perhaps inconsistent, but that is only when viewed through a teleological (results based) system. It has an internal consistency based on rights within particular settings.So taking it back to the sect situation. Protecting the "rights" of parents with regard to choosing which health care options are right for their child, is a different "setting" than how spouses are chosen. There is less reason, or necessity, for parental involvement in the latter... indeed the situation involves much more than just the child... which means there is less reason to protect parental control in that situation. Especially when we are discussing marriage, which is a social function (and ends up a state function), the parents are patently involving more concerned parties than just themselves and their child. The state then has arguably more rights to step in.Yes the results of poor health care choices (according to our standards) may be more gruesome, but that is irrelevant to why parents have less legal protection when selecting spouses for their children.I hope that clarifies my position, and why it seems to come to funny conclusions according to your view. Rights to me have little or nothing to do with degree of results, but rather the setting.And to restate my position on this matter... In general I do not care if states allow polygamy, arranged marriages, nor minors to marry (this last being a reality from the inception of the US and still true in some states). With regard to arranged marriages, the parents might want to do the arranging, but the ceremony will still have to have the child agree. And once married, no spouse can ever demand sex (or anything else) from the other. All of this said, since polygamy, arranged marriages, and (in many states) marrying minors is not common practice nor part of law, people wishing to do so need to push their case to make it legal. That's how it's always been done.In this specific case, the sect in question was running afoul of several laws. This means they were open to prosecution, even if I think the laws should eventually be repealed to some degree (perhaps based on their case). Then again, there was rape and physical coercion being committed, which is a punishable offense, regardless of allowing such marriages to exist. The allegations were of rape which more than anything else, certainly demand investigation and prosecution.However, paralleling our "war on terror" the gov't far exceeded its legal boundaries in rounding up all of their children en masse. That is guilt by association, as well as collective punishment. In its zealousness, many families and patently innocent children have been harmed. Intriguingly none of these families can even face their accuser, as it is an anonymous phone caller who did not even mention them by name.Children have often been used as the keys to remove rights. This is turning into a horrific example, though a real legal issue which needs to be pursued lies at its core. Another witch hunt, another shame.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This is a legal argument. And I will repeat something I said upthread:Either one agrees with the Warren Court or one does not.
Either one agrees that the state has a compelling interest in limiting Free Exercise or one does not.If it is your contention that the state has a compelling interest in curtailing Free Exercise, then I suggest you explain why the state has a greater interest in limiting marital practices than it does in limiting parental medical care.Because ... the state doesn't have to license the marriage in order to prosecute the offenders according to the Utah Supreme Court. So. Should a 13 y.o. agree to marry a 54 y.o., it's OK? Let's drop down out of the philosophical clouds you like to prance about on and talk practical reality here.These girls are home-schooled (or attend private schools on the compound).These girls have no contact with outsiders whatsoever.These girls have no access to the internet. Nor are they allowed to watch TV or listen to the radio.Should a girl manage to escape, the local PD enforces sect policies. Page not found - GClub V2 SBOBETG8Hell. Even the cops have plural wives. In addition, the FLDS has its OWN POLICE FORCE. The local Sheriff enforces sect policies too. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/...03909353_polygamy28.html Page not found - GClub V2 SBOBETG8FLDS controls the City Council. http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy547.htmlIn 2007, the Utah AG said he will not prosecute polygamists. No one has been prosecuted for polygamy in over 50 years. The Governor refuses to interfere. The Persistence of Polygamy - The New York TimesThe State Legislature will do nothing to interfere with FLDS. How do you suggest the state monitor "rape" and "physical coercion" of these girls, given what I've outlined above?

Hello molbio, I have already explained in the previous thread as well as this one, that I am not making a 1st amendment argument... though it may come in as a secondary issue. Until you read and understand my argument, your criticisms don't really mean much.As to your point on free exercise, I believe that in some very specific conditions the state does have an interest in protecting one or more rights, over the right to free exercise of religion. I pretty well explained that very thing in the post to which you are replying. Though I would repeat again, it is not the 1st amendment I was discussing as the prime "right" coming into play. Parents have a right to be prime care givers as well as shapers of their children's beliefs and lives while they are minors.I would suggest rereading my last post to understand the "setting" difference between marriage and healthcare. The most obvious difference is that in the former, there are more players than just the parents and their child, and marriage is to actively seek societal (and legal) recognition for an act. I have no position on if it is ok. That is a moral statement. Do I believe it is possible? Yes. Do I believe it is possible such that there is no harm involved to the 13 yo? Yes, both historical and cultural analysis bear that point out.Do I believe it is legal? I'm not quite sure if any states have 13 anymore. I know some used to. When George Washington was looking for a wife, there was a joke at the time that he was looking for any 13 yo he could get... presumably because he'd exhausted everyone above that age in his quest. If I remember right Jerry Lee Lewis did marry his cousin who was 13 at the time... maybe his state still has it that way?Could it be legal again? Sure, any state has that ability. I won't be asking for it because I don't like marriage in the first place, much less to a 13yo, but I won't be blocking someone else's drive for such rights.Now your turn. Prove that such a thing is not ok. I mean, I don't care if you feel it isn't ok. I wouldn't argue you are wrong to feel that. But there is no absolute rule one way or the other. I addressed the OP at both philosophical and practical levels. You wish to focus on a specific practical issue, which I stated to Taz is a separate issue. For space I did not go into it, as it is a problem for all sorts of different laws and has no particular connection with the overall topic.In a nutshell, what you are discussing is the problem of communities which isolate themselves so as to secure their own system of laws, separate from the rest of their state and nation. That is an interesting question and one that has the further complication (which you are suggesting) that essentially criminal enterprises can gain power and protect their own operations from positions at local and state levels.As interesting as that is, discussions of this are totally off topic here. All I can say (which would have any bearing on this case) is that the gov't has the right to weed out bad faith members of its legal system. If it becomes apparent that an organization is using its dominance to abuse the people under its control (for whatever reason), an investigation and prosecution makes sense.Then again, cultures do have the ability to grow in power and so choose not to enforce certain laws, or to interpret them in their own way. As long as they are not defying the majority within their jurisdiction, nor acting for personal gain, then that is simply a power grab to broaden their rights. This would be similar to actions taken by those who wanted to end slavery, or broaden gay rights.Should I view police who refused to enforce laws and regulations against gays as corrupt? How about when SF decided to hand out marriage contracts in defiance of state law?So on the practical level, this can get a bit sticky. In the case of Jeffs in specific, I think there is pretty good evidence that he was running a criminal organization, rather than a church. While some may have been trying to broaden rights for the polygamist community, some were protecting abuse within their jurisdiction, and profiting from such.Your quotes showed a mix of a rise in power both to broaden rights as well as to conduct illicit activity. Cleaning house as some of your cites suggested, as well as becoming more active in investigations using agents outside of the specified community.What I would not suggest is a crackdown on polygamy in general, nor taking the children away from all polygamous parents.Intriguingly there is much abuse of children by non-polygamous parents. If there was a tip that in a particular city many kids were being abused by non-polygamous parents, would the gov't take all of them away? Or how about all children of Islamic parents (an example in an earlier post) should a certain community be suggested of having indoctrinated some kids to be suicide bombers?AbE: I suppose I should add that I am against "big brother" solutions in general. I would rather suffer people doing what they will, than the gov't having free access to my life just for "my protection." I would hope most parents, including polygamous ones are not going to be considered potential abusers that must be monitored at all times. I am also supportive of groups that wish privacy to live their own lives, and so police themselves, for example the Amish.Edited by Silent H, : AbE big brother stuff

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Nope. There's just the parents and the child and the prophet. No societal recognition. And certainly no legal recognition.I repeat.Why does the state have a greater interest in limiting marital rights than in limiting healthcare rights?Bear in mind ... there is NO LEGAL RECOGNITION nor is any sought in these spiritual marriages. No, it isn't OT. And your suggestion that it is smells of "I haven't any answer so I will avoid the question." The fact remains: This is a question of Free Exercise.There aren't any other polygamist groups lobbying for marriage rights in this country. Just this one. What a load of horse apples.To be enslaved is a violation of one's human rights on its face. As is discrimination against a person based on his or her genetic make-up (aka sexual orientation).A magic underwear wearing cult that pimps out its 13 year old girls to a bunch of pervy old men while banishing its boys so the old men don't have any competition is an entirely different matter. The lost boys, thrown out of US sect so that older men can marry more wives | World news | The Guardian Yeah. Not so much.Utah has done squat. Don't even start with the red herrings. This is EXACTLY what needs to happen. I haven't anything against polygamy.I do have a problem, however, with this cult.Here's the thing. This cult operates much like Jonestown. Isolated and brainwashed people are managed by wingnuts who claim to have a direct line to god.Boots on the ground time, H.How do you suggest that the authorities keep tabs on these girls?They don't go to school.
They don't have ANY access to the outside world.
They are pimped out the minute they start to bleed.Let's hear some real-world solutions.Not some ivory tower bulls***.

Added for clarification:You are not opposed to children marrying old pervs.When another religious sect other than FLDS claims the right to marry little girls here in this country, what will you say then? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080415/od_nm/girl_dc The New York Times > Magazine > Slide Show > Photos: Child Brides The bride was 7 — Chicago TribuneIt's not just the FLDS.
It's a cross cultural problem.What say you when these folks claim the right to marry 8 y.o.'s here?

Ahhhh, a bit of bad luck gives me more time to spend at EvC. Well I'll take it! I'm answering your last two replies in this one post... To start with there is a spouse. If there wasn't I'm not sure what all the hubbub would be about. Second there is a community. The marriage (even if spiritual) is recognized by the community. Third, the results of that marriage... say kids... will end up being an issue for the state.I'm sure if they could get full legal recognition they would get full legal recognition. They don't seek it for gee I wonder what reason? Hmmmmmm. And so you have already been answered. Yes it is OT because it is not singular to this kind of case. There are many different isolated communities and criminal orgs where this same situation occurs. The OP appears to be about rights, not practical problems faced by law enforcement personnel.Given that I went on to answer your question anyway, and you state the above, smacks of a person looking to make themselves seem right by flinging mud. Well if it was solely free exercise then I think they have a weak case. That is why I have described what else is involved. I'm sorry that you cannot speak to the other issue and so want to pull it back to free exercise.On the point of no other polygamist groups lobbying for such rights. With the rise in secular polyamory my thought is you will likely see more of it in the future. There are also marriages from outside the nation where petitioners have sought such recognition. As a point of legal fact, the Netherlands became the first western nation to allow a polygamous marriage just a couple years back.And FYI, they were not religious. It was a guy and two ladies that just happened to love each other. Desiring more than one long term sexual partner at a time is not a sexual orientation? There are also cases of discrimination based on differing religious and moral principles... such as what happened to communists.Polygamous people do have the right to challenge the system, including by blocking laws by putting people in place who will not enforce them. This has happened with abortion, gay rights, and medical marijuana.You can't simply pick and choose who gets to use that tactic based on who you personally like. Oh yeah it's discrimination when YOU make the call. Nice. You are correct that the above situation is a whole other matter. I have said as much from the first post I made in this thread, to the last. The organization Jeffs ran appears to largely be a criminal enterprise, operated under the guise of a church.I am sure there may be many well meaning people within his community, and they have the right to grow in power, but he and others within it were preying on these people based on their positions of power.How many times do I have to say that an investigation was warranted, before you understand that's what I said? Wow, a criminal enterprise actually fights an investigation? Guess we'll just have to nuke em all and let your secular God sort em out.Sheesh, my answer remains the same. When an entrenched criminal organization does what one might expect... fight an investigation... one continues to press the investigation, perhaps shifting to the federal level. That was not a red-herring to point out that a group of people are being treated in a way we would not accept for most other groups of people. Don't try to dodge a valid point. What a stunning breakdown of the situation. I'm convinced! That does not appear to be the case, given your posts to stiles. Again, I have agreed in large part with this kind of assessment. Jonestown is a very nice analogy. I have said that an investigation was warranted. Whoa, whatta crazy man I am. When a person calls to complain, you launch an investigation. When it is an anonymous source, you tread softly. As it may turn out, which it is seeming to be the case here, that it was a false claim to the police (the suspected tipster has now apparently been arrested for that).If there is some suspicion of wrongdoing, without any complaints, police may always do some routine checks to make sure things are on the up and up. If feds suspect that local and state officials are compromised, then they can do the checking.I'm not going to apologize for the fact that in a free society some things will happen that people do not like, in fact some real harm will be done... and only THEN does law enforcement get involved. That is largely how it works in a free society.There's a great line in the movie Touch of Evil, where a ruthless detective laments how hard it is for law enforcement to do its work. Heston replies "Of course a police man's job is tough, it has to be tough! A police man's job is only easy in a police state... That's the whole point!"The potential that children (or anyone else) may be harmed, because people live an isolated lifestyle, should not be used to unlock the gates of our civil rights. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about marrying pervs... unless by that you mean people who are willing to marry someone younger than you would like? In that case, yeah, just as I am not opposed to black pervs marrying innocent white women, or two pervs marrying people of the same sex.If a group of people, religious or other, want to lower the age limit for marriage in a state, why should I care? I mean I don't like marriage, but if it is acceptable to the parents and the child, I don't really care.It was pretty low in the past (may still be in some states) and it didn't cause people to explode or go insane. Snooze. What does getting married have to do with whether a person would then be able to be a teacher? This is a complete non-issue according to what I set out. Coerced by family and culture. Lost generation. What fucking bigotry. Children grow up to be parents, they are not aliens which stay forever young and scarred. There are no lost generations, as there is a culture, hence there is no current lost generation.People can make any different way of life sound shitty and traumatic, including miscegenation and homosexuality. In their own culture in their own nation they certainly have that right. Within our nation, which has more protections for the individual, they may try to retain many of their practices, but it will take some adjustment on both sides. That said, they will be patently unable to force a child to marry against her will, stay in a marriage against her will, force her not to work as she wants, nor force her to have sex against her will.And if you go to their nations you may have to stop having sex outside of marriage, wearing revealing clothes, or having sex with members of the same gender.That's how it works.In any case, as to the general answer I think you want to pretend you have to drag out of me... it would not bother me if such things occurred in the US (within the limits I stated). Why should it? How will that reduce my or any one else's freedom?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

The husband approves. The husband is not the state. The FLDS approves. The FLDS is not the state. The same is true of wingnut parents who leave dead and/or injured children. No, you most certainly hasn't. See above. IOW, yes, you are correct MBG. No. And sexual orientation IS off-topic. It isn't Jeffs. FLDS (and its heinous practices) are over 100 y.o. What investigation? That's my point. Utah has done squat. For obvious reasons.It took TEXAS to step into the fray. And it "only" took them 5 years.And you're damn skippy FLDS is fighting Texas. And losing. The results of the latest court battle? All the kids remain in state custody and all are going to be genetically tested. Jesus H. Christ on an effing crutch. "I like chocolate." "No, you don't." That's it? You wait on a phone call from someone inside "a criminal organization"? You really ought to join the FBI or CIA or something. Let your pedophilia flag fly, H.

You have 24 hours to reconsider.

If you think throwing labels is going to upset me, or make me renounce my position, you are sadly mistaken.That I might support any particular group's ability to practice their beliefs does not mean I like, nor ascribe to such beliefs... or hold such tastes. The same is true when I attack false claims, or advance accurate claims, regarding the beliefs and practices of any particular group.As it stands this thread is an offshoot of another about faith-healing. Since I would allow that I must believe or practice faith-healing? This particular thread is about a religion, and marriages practices... so I must be religious and enjoy marriage? Oh yeah McCarthy, I must be a communist because I think people have the right to be such. Snooze.The tactic of smearing someone as being X when they go to defend those who are X, was supposed to be outmoded decades ago. Don't get all medieval on this topic. In the case of medical decisions, there is the family and the sick child. The three of them must decide whether to intervene in the process of an illness using modern science or not. There is no one else involved.In the case of marriage, there is not an emergency such that the decision must be made now, it involves the active participation of an outside party (the spouse)... creating lasting rights and expectations for the child with respect to that outside party... as well as being done for social recognition of those rights and expectations in the community. Finally the relationship may very well contain elements for which they will want state recognition (property, children).If you cannot see the difference between those situations, on those factors alone, then there isn't much point continuing. You are correct on the point that the only major group pushing for polygamous marriage in the US at this time is religious. However, my points regarding how that might change and how that has already changed in another nation stand. I would agree that sexual orientation is OT, rather ironic coming from you I'd say. But I was not trying to address sexual orientation. You have now attempted to dodge the same point twice. There are legitimate efforts made by social minorities to gain rights via undercutting or interpreting laws differently based on having placed friendly elements in office, or other positions of power.The polygamists have the same right to use those same tactics.Then again, that is also a mechanism for abuse by criminal organizations. This particular case is likely a combination of both kinds of groups using the same mechanisms. I'm positing Jeffs as the head of the current movement. I'm open to other people being included. That said, it is unlikely they are all in on the criminal enterprise being run by Jeffs (or whoever). It is also not accurate to slander the entire FLDS over their entire existence. Look, you can show how this organization has been successfully getting around investigative efforts for years. That does not argue that any other thing should have been done, except perhaps having had better investigations or outside investigators.In this particular case we are all losing. The genetic testing issue is completely tertiary to the question of abuse, so I'm not sure why you bring that up as some sort of victory. The main point is that the court is allowing the state to round up children en masse from a minority group, based on anonymous (and now apparently false) accusations made against no particular individuals within that minority group, and against the current assessment by a psychiatrist that no evidence of problems have been found. What's more it is also against the assessment foster care will result in real problems for the children. Heck, most of the kids that were picked up aren't even within the age range where the accusations indicate they'd be facing potential harm.This is a bad decision all around. If you want to gloat over it, be my guest. Bad decisions happen all the time. I'll gloat over having stood up for rights and freedom. That's a bit rarer. No, I also said if there is suspicion that something funny is going on, or that local investigators have been compromised, you may engage in preliminary investigations... probes.Otherwise, yes you let people live and wait for someone to say that something bad has happened.Its called living in a free country. Check into that sometime.Edited by Silent H, : facts tooEdited by Silent H, : tighter

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

In this particular case, it is more than just 'faith'. It is breaking the law. I mean, with your position, someone can start a faith on breaking a specific law, and quite well get away with it, because it's
'religious freedom'.

Not to be mean or anything, but you never read any of my previous posts have you? From the first post in this thread, to the last post in this thread, and now this very same post I will restate... let me try in caps to see if anyone will read it...IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT APPEARS THAT A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE WAS USING THE CLOAK OF A CHURCH COMMUNITY TO CARRY OUT ILLEGAL ACTS. THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE TO CARRY OUT AN INVESTIGATION!!!!The only caveat I made was that I am sure some, perhaps many, of the people in that community were acting according to their faith. The FDLS has been around a long time. The point is that some within it, Mr Jeffs is a very good example, were using it as a front for patently illegal acts.The only criticism I gave about what law enforcement has done, is their choice of how to conduct their investigation, including the abduction of all children from that community... which (on top of being an illegal act of collective punishment) will arguably cause more harm to more innocent children than what they were going in to stop. Actually anyone CAN start a religion based around breaking a specific law. The problem is that there are many different rights and they all have to be balanced. Free exercise does not trump all others. Nor does it allow for ignoring legal expectations necessary for operating a nation they are a part of (taxes, traffic laws, etc).I have also stated this, both in the previous thread and I believe this one as well.Again, I mean no offense but I have said this, and I find myself having to answer these accusations repeatedly, despite my stated position. What's up with that?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I don't completely disagree with you, but I don't completely agree either.First, there's no reason that any organization, church, religious, whatever should have any right to disregard any law made by the land. Last I heard, Pedophilia is illegal and that means to EVERYONE!! This is supposed to be a land that recognizes and protects the rights of everyone, even children. I don't think these cult men would be wanting very badly allowing a child to reach legal age when they already have 10 wives to satisfy their needs.This is not the same as making a decision of whether or not to vaccinate a child based on either religious beliefs or on a thoroughly and thoughfully investigated informed decision.People are prosecuted all the time for child pornography, child exploitation and statutory rape. I recall one young man being incarcerated for allowing a 14 year old seduce him and give him a BJ. He made a bad decision by relenting because he was caught in a moment of weakness. That young man (18) I believe had his entire life ruined because of it.Warren Jeffs in is no way weak willed. When he runs a communist state within a state that is supposed to be democratic and is supposed to be a land of laws protecting the rights of the vulnerable and weak from these types of perpetrators, there's no reason this should have gone on as long as it did.With all due respect, these girls are better off being taken out while their still young and can rebound from this and be re-educated and introduced to society. The older women have been so ingrained and just like the lost boys out there, will find it extremely hard to adjust to life outside the compound and may even prefer taking their own lives before being subjected to it.It's a sad state and my heart goes out to all those who were and still are affected by it. Many young girls die everyday because their little bodies, despite hitting puberty are too under-developed to carry a child to term and those who do have more chance of having a still-birth or other problems.I'm glad something is finally being done and I hope they continue to investigate others who practice the same things and subject their youth to the same problems.

Hello godservant, yes we appear to have a mix and match on this issue. I'll respond in a way to provoke some thoughts on where we differ.But first, we clearly do agree that Jeffs is a perpetrator, and not in any way a victim. From all accounts I have read he didn't even practice the faith he claimed to be using as his shield. He was a Jim Jones type, setting up a system to feed his whims, nothing else. He and his cronies deserve to do some time. Is that true? Slavery, prohibition, anti-miscegenation, and anti-homosexual laws were all ended by such groups and/or activity.How does a minority gain rights for itself, except by fighting for the disregarding of an unjust law... even if it is the law of the land? Sometimes the majority can be very very very wrong. Well you heard wrong. And please please please do not accuse me of being such, just because I'm about to set you straight on the facts.Pedophilia is a desire and so far it is quite legal to be a person who has such thoughts and desires. Just as it was legal to be homosexual years back, even if homosexual acts were illegal. There is a difference between desire and action.More importantly the age range for legal sexual activity varies across states and nations. What acts these people in specific are engaging in has been legal (and indeed may still be legal) in some states. At the very least it was legal not fifty years ago in some states. It has been recent efforts by certain groups to arbitrarily increase the age of consent, which has made the beliefs and activities of the FLDS (as a culture I am not discussing specific people like Jeffs) still more criminal.Interestingly they were originally prosecuted, and pushed across the nation, not because of the age at which they married, but because they were polygamists. I will point out the irony that strict age of consent laws, as they are currently written and employed, patently do NOT protect the rights of children. While some claim that they do, no evidence or argument has been advanced what rights are being protected. There is only an allusion to their right to "safety".Ah yes, just as homosexuals were being protected from themselves.I am not claiming that children are all lust crazed beings, nor that there is no reason to have laws which restrict the sexual behavior of children. It is simply the current cookie cutter AoC laws which I find anachronistic and unscientific, as well as useless and un-protective for anyone. Why? I think this is the point where we seriously disagree. How is brainwashing children to believe in what you believe going to "help" them in any way?Most of these people happen to like the way they live. And there is no evidence that most of these people are damaged in some way. They simply live and enjoy a life very different than the one you do. There is no concept that people have to dislike what you dislike, or enjoy what you enjoy. Nor that such extreme disagreements on the right way to live mean the other person is being harmed.What does a happy person need to rebound from? I agree, so how does this help anyone. And I'm not sure such damage will not occur with the younger children as well. Ok, is there evidence that FLDS members are dying at greater rates? Also, how does this argue for destruction of a culture, rather than for different sexual techniques, better birth control, or more medical intervention to reduce the complications of pregnancy?If youthful pregnancy were a norm, then complications would be seen as something to be treated, not as an argument for how wrong it is. As I said, I agree with this investigation. Jeffs appears to be a predator, who has set up a system to protect and feed his activity. I agree that within the US, children (as much as anyone else) have a right not to be raped (by people of any age, including other children).That said, I don't think minorities should suffer from collective punishment. If you attended a church, perhaps one with views unpopular to much of the nation, would you agree that your children should be taken from your house (when you have not broken any laws) based on anonymous phone calls, making general accusations of crimes committed by unnamed members of your church?This is something I don't see anyone dealing with in this thread. Forget the issue of polygamy and child sexuality for a moment. Would you want your kids taken from you, by the state, "just in case"? Especially based on anonymous statements, which don't make direct accusations (or give any such evidence) about you in particular?Come on people. Talk about laws. How about those protecting us from collective punishment, and unseen accusers?Edited by Silent H, : clarification

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard