NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-08-polygamy_N.htm

Their high crime was that their religion allowed 13 year olds to marry 50 year olds. The only problem was they were forced marriages.

Looks like the other Mormon fundies are not even supporting these guys.

I can understand the problem with forced marriages. I can understand people going to jail for rape.

But to destroy over 400 families just because you don't like their religious way of life?

Many of us our cheering on the fact that no pedi is safe. But now it looks more and more like that is not what brought this raid on.

The "16 year old" victim is starting to look more and more like a fictitious person used as a ruse to trample religious rights.

Now they are demanding to send armed thugs inside a temple to defile it?

This means we should beware those who wave "get the pedos" flag. They may have ulterior motives.

I am mixed on this. It is good to punish wrong doers. But it is not good to use it as excuse to trample the constitution.
To protect one groups constitutional rights they violate another group's constitutional rights.

:s

I am mixed on this. It is good to punish wrong doers. But it is not good to use it as excuse to trample the constitution.
To protect one groups constitutional rights they violate another group's constitutional rights.

:s

"God told me it's okay to rape kids" doesn't constitute any kind of right. That's basically what it boils down to here. They can bulldoze the whole compound as far as I'm concerned. Anyone living there who is over 18 should be charged as an accessory to rape, or whatever applies.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-08-polygamy_N.htm

Their high crime was that their religion allowed 13 year olds to marry 50 year olds. The only problem was they were forced marriages.

... so you're fine with 13 year olds marrying 50 year olds if it's consensual?

The children cannot consent to this because they are not legal age, so the government has every right to break up 400 families and raid the compound. You can't use religion as a shield to be a pedophile.

... so you're fine with 13 year olds marrying 50 year olds if it's consensual?

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

...

No.

Just no.

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

Government is also required to make sure no one's right is violated, and since children cannot fully understand the concept of marriage or what it means to have an adult relationship, they cannot consent to it, and thereforth these forced marriage infringed on the rights of the children.

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

No it isn't. Not when they're breaking the law.

"God told me it's okay to rape kids" doesn't constitute any kind of right. That's basically what it boils down to here. They can bulldoze the whole compound as far as I'm concerned. Anyone living there who is over 18 should be charged as an accessory to rape, or whatever applies.

Except that the men were "indoctrinated to believe it was ok too." Remember it is in the religion's teachings.

Except that the men were "indoctrinated to believe it was ok too." Remember it is in the religion's teachings.

So, people should be able to get away with murder as long as their religion says it's ok?

Except that the men were "indoctrinated to believe it was ok too." Remember it is in the religion's teachings.

That makes no difference whatsoever. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for anyone, religious or no.

...

No.

Just no.

so you think religious persecution by the government is ok?

so you think religious persecution by the government is ok?

They're not being persecuted because of their religion, they are being persecuted because a minor has entered into a contract where the minor has no legal authority to enter into. They raid the compound because adults were taking advantage of minors by force marriage and most likely sex, which is against the law!

This should be fun.

The children cannot consent to this because they are not legal age, so the government has every right to break up 400 families and raid the compound. You can't use religion as a shield to be a pedophile.

That is the problem. In our society, those girls cannot consent. But in their society they could. It's like the US invading Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia allows girls to be married at 13 and allows 13 year olds to do it with 80 year olds.

It is also important to note that these children are being traumatized not by the men of their faith, but by the state itself.

I should totally convert to the cult of Kali. I can go around killing people and taking their stuff and by this guy's logic no one can do anything to me.

so you think religious persecution by the government is ok?

Maybe I won't bother with this one.

That is the problem. In our society, those girls cannot consent. But in their society they could. It's like the US invading Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia allows girls to be married at 13 and allows 13 year olds to do it with 80 year olds.

It is also important to note that these children are being traumatized not by the men of their faith, but by the state itself.

Show me one 13 year old that knows what it means to be married, and what it means to have an adult relationship. You can't because no 13 year old does, thereforth they cannot consent to a marriage with an adult, because they are not on the same thinking level as an adult.

I can't believe you're actually defending pedophiles, my opinion of you just went straight down the toilet.

No it isn't. Not when they're breaking the law.

There are drugs which are illegal to be possessed or used, yet exceptions are definately made for religion. If marijuana use is part of your religion, you are allowed to own, possess and use marijuana. There was a few US Supreme Court decisions that have declared this to be so.

That is the problem. In our society, those girls cannot consent. But in their society they could. It's like the US invading Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia allows girls to be married at 13 and allows 13 year olds to do it with 80 year olds.

It is also important to note that these children are being traumatized not by the men of their faith, but by the state itself.

They live in our society. If they wanted to rape their kids, they should've found a place where that was legal. It isn't legal here, and they knew it.

There are drugs which are illegal to be possessed or used, yet exceptions are definately made for religion. If marijuana use is part of your religion, you are allowed to own, possess and use marijuana. There was a few US Supreme Court decisions that have declared this to be so.

Actually, it only applies to peyote, and that's only because of treaties. Sorry, try again.

So, people should be able to get away with murder as long as their religion says it's ok?

Eh. You do know that that is a valid defense? Something about not being in the right frame of mind.

Eh. You do know that that is a valid defense? Something about not being in the right frame of mind.

Yea, I think I'll wait till one of our resident lawyers back you up on that.

They're not being persecuted because of their religion, they are being persecuted because a minor has entered into a contract where the minor has no legal authority to enter into. They raid the compound because adults were taking advantage of minors by force marriage and most likely sex, which is against the law!

Against the law according to the standards of our society. Not according to the standards of their society. You have to remember there are cultural differences here as well as legal differences.

This culture goes back a long time and has a history. Our culture is no better than theres. According to your argument we should be sending our police to raid the nations of Africa, the middle east, southeast Asia, central asia and anywhere else where 13 year olds marry 50 year olds. Do you know why we don't? Becuase it would not work. Our values are not universal. half of the world does not agree that 13 year olds cannot make their own decisions. Would you have us declare war on the whole of planet earth over pedophilia?

Show me one 13 year old that knows what it means to be married, and what it means to have an adult relationship. You can't because no 13 year old does, thereforth they cannot consent to a marriage with an adult, because they are not on the same thinking level as an adult.

I can't believe you're actually defending pedophiles, my opinion of you just went straight down the toilet.

defending pedophiles? I'm defending religious freedom.
I'm pointing out that this case is example of conflict between different cultures with very different values.
You dodged my question: would you be support the invasion and destruction of whole countries who laws and whose cultures permit 13 year olds to be married to older men?

Name one adult who knows really knows what it means to be married. Most American adults have false idea of what marriage is supposed to be.

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

The US government is under no obligation whatsoever to accommodate any religion whatsoever. On the flip side, it is not allowed to create laws to oppress them either.

However, that doesn't mean you can start a blood cult that requires human sacrifices either, because then you'd be breaking federal law.

The Supreme Court has long held that a restriction on religious groups to practice certain forms of worship is constitutional provided that the restriction 1) is not made to discriminate that group in particular and 2) that it serves a legitimate public interest.

Preventing the abuse that occurs with pedophilia and misogynistic polygamy not only serves a legitimate public interest, but it is also something that all are equally prevented from doing. Whether we're athiests or Christians, we can't have sexual relations with minors.

It's not discriminatory.

-snip-

Ok I am going to make this simple for you, so simple that even someone with Downs can understand this.

1. The compound was not a separate country
2. Syria, African countries, they are separate countries, so they have their own rules and regulations within their borders.
3. Because the compound is not a separate country, they fall within US jurisdiction, including pedophilia laws.
4. They broke those laws under the USA system, and thereforth must be arranged on charges and stand trial.

Let's ask the Catholic Church about this who thought, according to their faith, that when a pedophile priest confessed his sins it was enough. He was absolved and sent to 'pedo priest rehab' and then sent to a community that doesn't know him and will trust him with their kids. The problem is that it's not just a sin, it's a felony.

The same applies here. Religious Freedom doesn't trump the law. The law may provide exceptions for religious purposes (such as some small church in the southwest that is allowed to use mescaline), but that's the key; legal exceptions. This Fundy Mormon Harem Brigade has no such legal exception. Should they? That's for the courts to decide, not the police.

... so you're fine with 13 year olds marrying 50 year olds if it's consensual?

if 2 people love each other, it shouldnt matter, even they those 2 ppl were brother and sister

Against the law according to the standards of our society. Not according to the standards of their society. You have to remember there are cultural differences here as well as legal differences.

There aren't any legal differences because forming your own religion doesn't give you the right to make laws. They live in our society and our society only.

This culture goes back a long time and has a history. Our culture is no better than theres. According to your argument we should be sending our police to raid the nations of Africa, the middle east, southeast Asia, central asia and anywhere else where 13 year olds marry 50 year olds. Do you know why we don't? Becuase it would not work. Our values are not universal. half of the world does not agree that 13 year olds cannot make their own decisions. Would you have us declare war on the whole of planet earth over pedophilia?

Name a country that doesn't have an age of consent law. There might be one, but it's not half the world. We don't enforce our laws in other countries because we don't have authority there. We have authority over Texas.

Except that the men were "indoctrinated to believe it was ok too." Remember it is in the religion's teachings.

Ignorance of the law is no defense for violating it. How about I start a cult that requires cutting up the heart (literally) of male Christian Americans with steak knives? Would you say it's alright too?


That is the problem. In our society, those girls cannot consent. But in their society they could. It's like the US invading Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia allows girls to be married at 13 and allows 13 year olds to do it with 80 year olds.


This does not work, because US law doesn't apply to Saudi Arabia. Unless you are claiming that these people declared secession from the United States, in which case, the government has every right to stomp them into the ground and charge them as rebels.

They live in our society. If they wanted to rape their kids, they should've found a place where that was legal. It isn't legal here, and they knew it.

You know, that is the best argument put forth in support of the raid. I'm sure that group will probably leave the US now or become more isolated and more repressed as has happend in the past.
Its scary that people have the attitude of "hey their culture contradicts ours, lets destroy them and wipe them out."

The US government is under no obligation whatsoever to accommodate any religion whatsoever. On the flip side, it is not allowed to create laws to oppress them either.

However, that doesn't mean you can start a blood cult that requires human sacrifices either, because then you'd be breaking federal law.

yet religions are allowed to sacrifice pets and other animals despite humane laws that are in place to prevent the murder of animals in inhumane ways.

Let's ask the Catholic Church about this who thought, according to their faith, that when a pedophile priest confessed his sins it was enough. He was absolved and sent to 'pedo priest rehab' and then sent to a community that doesn't know him and will trust him with their kids. The problem is that it's not just a sin, it's a felony.

The same applies here. Religious Freedom doesn't trump the law. The law may provide exceptions for religious purposes (such as some small church in the southwest that is allowed to use mescaline), but that's the key; legal exceptions. This Fundy Mormon Harem Brigade has no such legal exception. Should they? That's for the courts to decide, not the police.

LG onces again prove we can learn anything from a clown, even if we fear the clown.

Hey LG, when you were in the Navy, have you ever served on an aircraft carrier?

/hijack.

yet religions are allowed to sacrifice pets and other animals despite humane laws that are in place to prevent the murder of animals in inhumane ways.

Ok I know I am going to regret this, and I probably know the answer, but what religion sacrifices pets and other animals?

yet religions are allowed to sacrifice pets and other animals despite humane laws that are in place to prevent the murder of animals in inhumane ways.

Like? Which religions? Where are they? Have they actually had a free pass?

Prove all of that.

Ok I know I am going to regret this, and I probably know the answer, but what religion sacrifices pets and other animals?

Certain sects of vodun sacrifice chickens, but it's done in a completely humane way. Aside from those, no religion does so.

Certain sects of vodun sacrifice chickens, but it's done in a completely humane way. Aside from those, no religion does so.

You know he's going to say "SATANIST AND WITCHES!!!!111!!!" :rolleyes:

if 2 people love each other, it shouldnt matter, even they those 2 ppl were brother and sister

That's the other thing they are charged with. Incest. and having multiple wives. That is why I think this is not about the pedophilia but the religious doctrine.

LG onces again prove we can learn anything from a clown, even if we fear the clown.

Hey LG, when you were in the Navy, have you ever served on an aircraft carrier?

/hijack.

Yep. U.S.S. George Washington CVN-73 to be exact. *nod*

Yep. U.S.S. George Washington CVN-73 to be exact. *nod*

That is awesome. I love anything that has to do with aircrafts, and that includes aircraft carriers. :D

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-08-polygamy_N.htm

Their high crime was that their religion allowed 13 year olds to marry 50 year olds. The only problem was they were forced marriages.

Looks like the other Mormon fundies are not even supporting these guys.

I can understand the problem with forced marriages. I can understand people going to jail for rape.

But to destroy over 400 families just because you don't like their religious way of life?

Many of us our cheering on the fact that no pedi is safe. But now it looks more and more like that is not what brought this raid on.

The "16 year old" victim is starting to look more and more like a fictitious person used as a ruse to trample religious rights.

Now they are demanding to send armed thugs inside a temple to defile it?

This means we should beware those who wave "get the pedos" flag. They may have ulterior motives.

The crime is it is against Texas law to marry under age 16 even with parental consent. So anyone who married younger than that is breaking the law.

What concerns me is this:

girls spiritually married to much older men as soon as they reached puberty and boys groomed to perpetuate the cycle


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24014376

I am assuming, since the article I read stated that they were expected to start having children, they are calling puberty when the girls start having a period. That could be any age between 7-20...with the average being around 14.

I suspect the mystery girl who called didn't use her real name, but the information is real as to what was going on and the state was awarded custody of 416 children today based on abuse investigations that prove to be correct.

Whoever called, I am glad they did.

That's the other thing they are charged with. Incest. and having multiple wives. That is why I think this is not about the pedophilia but the religious doctrine.

Polygamy could be banned in the State of Texas, and once again the compound does fall under Texas law as well as US law.

Face it, this compound broke several laws, and they deserved to be disbanned, they have no religious or moral ground to exist and no religious or moral excuse to do what they did.

Yep. U.S.S. George Washington CVN-73 to be exact. *nod*

Yet, I see no evidence of your stay (http://mypage.siu.edu/stalides/cvn73sunny%20(2).jpg) there. No pie markings. No brightly colored toilet paper rolls over the island. Were you, Darth Clownicus, really there? Or were you there as a spy? :p

Ok I know I am going to regret this, and I probably know the answer, but what religion sacrifices pets and other animals?

Islam. On the festival of Eid Al Adha. You often see goats and things tied up next to people's houses near where I live in Arabia. Slaughtermen wander around offering to do goats for a couple of dollars and cows for a few dollars more.

It's all to celebrate the the occasion of Abraham/Ibrahim nearly sacrificing his kid on the altar because God told him to, then stopping at the last minute - owing, again, to God's command - and sacrificing a goat.

Just as well that he stopped and did a goat instead otherwise everyone would go around sacrificing their kids. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing :D

I should totally convert to the cult of Kali. I can go around killing people and taking their stuff and by this guy's logic no one can do anything to me.

I'd have thought you'd be happy with your own cult's practices... ;)

The Supreme Court has long held that a restriction on religious groups to practice certain forms of worship is constitutional provided that the restriction 1) is not made to discriminate that group in particular and 2) that it serves a legitimate public interest.

Preventing the abuse that occurs with pedophilia and misogynistic polygamy not only serves a legitimate public interest, but it is also something that all are equally prevented from doing. Whether we're athiests or Christians, we can't have sexual relations with minors.

It's not discriminatory.

That's the Lemon test.

The appropriate case law, in my educated layman's understanding, would be Reynolds v U.S..

In another case, Reynolds v U.S. (98 US 145 [1878]), the defendant, accused of bigamy in the Territory of Utah, argued that the Congress should not be allowed to regulate a religious act, that being bigamy. In particular, bigamy is not "malum in se" (or innately immoral), is not prohibited by the Ten Commandments, and is not prohibited in any of the teachings of the New Testament. Reynolds argued that over such a religious act, the Congress should have no power to legislate. Reynolds argued other, more technical and legal points, but the Court did address this prong of the argument.

The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

The Court noted that religion and government had often mixed in the years prior to the Constitution, causing concern among some. The debate culminated in Virginia, where a proposal to set rules and regulations for religious instructors was proposed and postponed - eventually, another bill in defiance of the first was proposed and passed, that being Jefferson's work which established religious freedom. The act included a definition of what religious freedom encompasses:

In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

The Court linked Jefferson's words in the Virginia Act referenced to his later words in the Danbury letter, and used the linkage to further its opinion that the Congress did, in fact, have the power to restrict bigamy in the Utah Territory:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

The Court concluded that to make religious rule or law superior to civil law would make each person "law unto himself" and render the government ineffectual and irrelevant.

Note that The 10th Circuit Court recently visited this subject inBronson v. Swensen. http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/189651

Let's ask the Catholic Church about this who thought, according to their faith, that when a pedophile priest confessed his sins it was enough. He was absolved and sent to 'pedo priest rehab' and then sent to a community that doesn't know him and will trust him with their kids. The problem is that it's not just a sin, it's a felony.

The same applies here. Religious Freedom doesn't trump the law. The law may provide exceptions for religious purposes (such as some small church in the southwest that is allowed to use mescaline), but that's the key; legal exceptions. This Fundy Mormon Harem Brigade has no such legal exception. Should they? That's for the courts to decide, not the police.

yet religions are allowed to sacrifice pets and other animals despite humane laws that are in place to prevent the murder of animals in inhumane ways.

Kind of. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah SOCUS ruled that a ban on a particular religion's animal sacrifices was unlawful. However, the 5th Circuit Court upheld a local general ban last year. (http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a9b2cbf9-141d-4ea8-830a-78450f674a5d)

Ok I know I am going to regret this, and I probably know the answer, but what religion sacrifices pets and other animals?

Several do so, such as Santeria, as mentioned above.

"Sacrifices is a part of Santeria, Animal as well as foods and cafe...money"
http://www.boricua.com/santeria.html

The wiki on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice) covers a lot more.

Like? Which religions? Where are they? Have they actually had a free pass?

Prove all of that.

See my above post.

Aside from those, no religion does so.

Untrue. See the following:

A discussion of the practice in Islam: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1124781357855&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Hajj_Umra/HajjE/HajjE

Animal sacrifice in Hinduism: http://www.bihartimes.com/Maneka/animalsacrifice.html

Untrue. See the following:

A discussion of the practice in Islam: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1124781357855&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Hajj_Umra/HajjE/HajjE

Animal sacrifice in Hinduism: http://www.bihartimes.com/Maneka/animalsacrifice.html

Don't those amount to ritual slaughter? There's nothing unlawful in slaughtering animals, so long as you're licensed if you're selling it. None of it amounts to religions being exempted from some law, since they aren't breaking any law.

Islam. On the festival of Eid Al Adha. You often see goats and things tied up next to people's houses near where I live in Arabia. Slaughtermen wander around offering to do goats for a couple of dollars and cows for a few dollars more.

It's all to celebrate the the occasion of Abraham/Ibrahim nearly sacrificing his kid on the altar because God told him to, then stopping at the last minute - owing, again, to God's command - and sacrificing a goat.

Just as well that he stopped and did a goat instead otherwise everyone would go around sacrificing their kids. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing :D

Bolded for emphasis. The question was not very specific, but the intent was for within the United States, since presumably, humane treatment laws on animals are in effect there.

Don't those amount to ritual slaughter?

I fail to see a distinction...

Bolded for emphasis. The question was not very specific, but the intent was for within the United States, since presumably, humane treatment laws on animals are in effect there.

Even in the US it is allowed, as I pointed out above.

Yet, I see no evidence of your stay (http://mypage.siu.edu/stalides/cvn73sunny%20(2).jpg) there. No pie markings. No brightly colored toilet paper rolls over the island. Were you, Darth Clownicus, really there? Or were you there as a spy? :p

Here's me steering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbIOM7U8xc

;) Not really

I fail to see a distinction...

Slaughtering animals is perfectly legal. My city ordinances let me slaughter animals in my garage - a legal activity. I could say a prayer as I did so, and perhaps invite a few friends, and you'd have ritual slaughter. All that is legal. If religions were given special exemptions to break the law (an idea the OP seems to be receptive to), that'd be precedent, at least, of that sort of thing being legally permissable. No one has provided any examples of that yet, beyond peyote use, which of course predates our country by centuries and is regulated.

Here's me steering: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbIOM7U8xc

;) Not really

Pfft, until you can make it do a capsizing barrel roll, that's nothing. :p

Slaughtering animals is perfectly legal. My city ordinances let me slaughter animals in my garage - a legal activity. I could say a prayer as I did so, and perhaps invite a few friends, and you'd have ritual slaughter. All that is legal. If religions were given special exemptions to break the law (an idea the OP seems to be receptive to), that'd be precedent, at least, of that sort of thing being legally permissable. No one has provided any examples of that yet, beyond peyote use, which of course predates our country by centuries and is regulated.

OK, I think I see what you're getting at here.

The statute in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah specifically outlawed animal sacrifices or ritual slaughter for religious purposes.

Petitioner church and its congregants practice the Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice as one of its principal forms of devotion. The animals are killed by cutting their carotid arteries, and are cooked and eaten following all Santeria rituals except healing and death rites. After the church leased land in respondent city and announced plans to establish a house of worship and other facilities there, the city council held an emergency public session and passed, among other enactments Resolution 87-66, which noted city residents' "concern" over religious practices inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety, and declared the city's "commitment" to prohibiting such practices; Ordinance 87-40, which incorporates the Florida animal cruelty laws and broadly punishes "[w]hoever . . . unnecessarily or cruelly . . . kills any animal," and has been interpreted to reach killings for religious reasons; Ordinance 87-52, which defines "sacrifice" as "to unnecessarily kill . . . an animal in a . . . ritual . . . not for the primary purpose of food consumption," and prohibits the "possess[ion], sacrifice, or slaughter" of an animal if it is killed in "any type of ritual" and there is an intent to use it for food, but exempts "any licensed [food] establishment" if the killing is otherwise permitted by law; Ordinance 87-71, which prohibits the sacrifice of animals, and defines "sacrifice" in the same manner as Ordinance 87-52; and Ordinance 87-72 which defines "slaughter" as "the killing of animals for food" and prohibits slaughter outside of areas zoned for slaughterhouses, but includes an exemption for "small numbers of hogs and/or cattle" when exempted by state law. Petitioners filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of their rights under, inter alia, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Although acknowledging that the foregoing ordinances are not religiously neutral, the District Court ruled for the city, concluding, among other things, that compelling governmental interests in preventing public health risks and cruelty to animals fully justified the absolute prohibition on ritual sacrifice accomplished by the ordinances, and that an exception to that prohibition for religious conduct would unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest, because any more narrow restrictions would [508 U.S. 520, 521] be unenforceable as a result of the Santeria religion's secret nature. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=508&page=520

Even in the US it is allowed, as I pointed out above.

But not against the law, since slaughter of animals is allowed, presuming that it is in compliance with local laws, and requires no special dispensation from the courts. Legal contracts with minors on the other hand, is clearly not.

But not against the law, since slaughter of animals is allowed, presuming that it is in compliance with local laws, and requires no special dispensation from the courts.

The SOCUS has decided animal sacrifice is acceptable but polygamy is not.

Legal contracts with minors on the other hand, is clearly not.

Not quite. Minors are allowed to enter into marriage contracts with parental consent in many US states. http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

That aside, yes.

yet religions are allowed to sacrifice pets and other animals despite humane laws that are in place to prevent the murder of animals in inhumane ways.

No legitimate Santaria or Vodoun practitioner would kill an animal for sacrifice in an inhumane way. Nor would some of the odder neopagan sects floating around.

That's the other thing they are charged with. Incest. and having multiple wives. That is why I think this is not about the pedophilia but the religious doctrine.

No, it's about YOUNG CHILDREN, specifically young girls, being forced into marriage and sex without an understanding of consent, much less consent. As I said in the other thread about this, I don't care if you're polygamist, polyandrous, or polyamorous, as long as it involves consenting adults, I DON"T CARE!!! But this incident clearly did not involve adults, breaking several laws of the great state of Texas, as well as a few federal statutes. The adults who stood by and allowed this are deeply sick, and need help.

the state should never submit to any religion, as well as no religion should ever be allowed influence in the government, what happens here on earth is our decision, what happens in the after life is the responsibility of what ever supposed deity is supposedly out there.

If one has a morality, and then allow it to be dismissed simply because someone else believes differently, then I feel one should reexamine themselves, since that's not a morality at all

I can't believe you're actually defending pedophiles, my opinion of you just went straight down the toilet.

Followed swiftly by mine of you. Paedophile != child molester/abuser.

Yep. U.S.S. George Washington CVN-73 to be exact. *nod*
Mar-Det U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69
That is awesome. I love anything that has to do with aircrafts, and that includes aircraft carriers. :D
Aircraft Carriers are very cool indeed.
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/threadjack.gif

Bolded for emphasis. The question was not very specific, but the intent was for within the United States, since presumably, humane treatment laws on animals are in effect there.

Didn't you lot have tha case there a few months back about the Vodoo priest and his sacrifical goats? Somebody got upset, and the courts told them that he had a religous right to do it?

Followed swiftly by mine of you. Paedophile != child molester/abuser.

Yes because it's the non-pedophiles who are after children, yea it's not the pedophiles who molest and abuse children, it's the non pedophiles. Not all pedophiles molest or abuse children, but all molester and abuser of children are pedophiles.

I guess some people must have slept through the first day of Civics 101. You know, that bit about how all citizens in the USA are equal under the law?

You have the same legal rights, and the same responsibilities, as all other citizens, regardless of your religious affiliation.

"Freedom of religion" does not mean that your religion frees you from following the law. No, you cannot rape somebody and then get away with it by claiming that your religion says it's okay to rape.

Though maybe it is a good strategy to claim that you raped that girl because a magical sky fairy told you to...after all, that's pretty clear evidence that you're batshit insane.

Yes because it's the non-pedophiles who are after children, yea it's not the pedophiles who molest and abuse children, it's the non pedophiles. Not all pedophiles molest or abuse children, but all molester and abuser of children are pedophiles.All abusers? Not really. Mayhap you should read up on what falls under "abuse". Not all of it is sexual.

Though maybe it is a good strategy to claim that you raped that girl because a magical sky fairy told you to...after all, that's pretty clear evidence that you're batshit insane.Or you're clever enough to know that plenty of your peers share sympathy with your brand of sky fairy.

Yes because it's the non-pedophiles who are after children, yea it's not the pedophiles who molest and abuse children, it's the non pedophiles. Not all pedophiles molest or abuse children, but all molester and abuser of children are pedophiles.

marrying a 13 year old is not pedophilia. its illegal but its not pedophilia.

marrying a 13 year old is not pedophilia. its illegal but its not pedophilia.

Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent children.


Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophiles)

As I understand it, marriage wasn't the only thing going on in the compound, there was also sexual activities. So I'm sorry but yes it is Pedophilia. You can force a 13 year old to marry because well let's face it, it's not that hard. I doubt you can force a 50 year old man into marriage.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophiles)

As I understand it, marriage wasn't the only thing going on in the compound, there was also sexual activities. So I'm sorry but yes it is Pedophilia. You can force a 13 year old to marry because well let's face it, it's not that hard. I doubt you can force a 50 year old man into marriage.Consummation of the marriage, yes. The actual act of marrying a young girl not so much.

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

So, if some minor Druidic sect decides to burn someone alive as a sacrifice to the Gods, you're ok with this?

So, if some minor Druidic sect decides to burn someone alive as a sacrifice to the Gods, you're ok with this?Or descendants of the Mexica wanting to engage in blood rituals involving the removal of hearts...

So, if some minor Druidic sect decides to burn someone alive as a sacrifice to the Gods, you're ok with this?
Of course not! See, if a minor Druidic sect wants to burn somebody alive, that's an example of a cult being evil. But if a minor Christian sect wants to sell underage girls into sex slavery, that's a religion being practiced, and it would be oppression if we tried to stop them.

Yes because it's the non-pedophiles who are after children, yea it's not the pedophiles who molest and abuse children, it's the non pedophiles. Not all pedophiles molest or abuse children, but all molester and abuser of children are pedophiles.
So stop demonising paedophiles by referring to child molesters and abusers as such. Also,
All abusers? Not really. Mayhap you should read up on what falls under "abuse". Not all of it is sexual.
this.
marrying a 13 year old is not pedophilia. its illegal but its not pedophilia.
And this.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophiles)

As I understand it, marriage wasn't the only thing going on in the compound, there was also sexual activities. So I'm sorry but yes it is Pedophilia. You can force a 13 year old to marry because well let's face it, it's not that hard. I doubt you can force a 50 year old man into marriage.

A 13 year old is not necessarily prepubescent, so it's not necessarily paedophillia.

A 13 year old is not necessarily prepubescent, so it's not necessarily paedophillia.

Naaa I can't agree with that. Okay I mean yes it is true, but a 13 year old is certianly not adult, with an adult mentality.

Naaa I can't agree with that. Okay I mean yes it is true, but a 13 year old is certianly not adult, with an adult mentality.It doesn't need to be pedophilia to be sexual abuse. Pedophilia merely specifies that the nature of attraction is linked to the prepubescent nature of the victim.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophiles)

As I understand it, marriage wasn't the only thing going on in the compound, there was also sexual activities. So I'm sorry but yes it is Pedophilia. You can force a 13 year old to marry because well let's face it, it's not that hard. I doubt you can force a 50 year old man into marriage.

do you know what prepubescent means?

the community rule is that she has to be of child bearing age. if they are feeding the children properly the average age of menarche is 12.

Naaa I can't agree with that. Okay I mean yes it is true, but a 13 year old is certianly not adult, with an adult mentality.

Learn what the word pre-pubescent means then try again. I'll give you a hint, there's something between being pre-pubescent and being an adult, it begins with a p.

Learn what the word pre-pubescent means then try again. I'll give you a hint, there's something between being pre-pubescent and being an adult, it begins with a p.
Playstation?

Playstation?

Real Gamers use PCs, you should know that.

Learn what the word pre-pubescent means then try again. I'll give you a hint, there's something between being pre-pubescent and being an adult, it begins with a p.

Playstation?

Real Gamers use PCs, you should know that.

neat :)

Learn what the word pre-pubescent means then try again. I'll give you a hint, there's something between being pre-pubescent and being an adult, it begins with a p.Parenthood?

its not like not calling them pedophiles makes it OK.

these men are swapping out their children with each other. you get mine, i get yours. as soon as they get their period they are eligible for "marriage" and are expected to get pregnant as soon as possible. the girls are kept ignorant and pregnant so that they have a very hard time escaping the sect.

i just hope that the texas authorities have all their ducks in a row so that charges stick and these girls can be rescued permanently.

Parenthood?

LMAO

You really are a sick fucker at times :p

Of course not! See, if a minor Druidic sect wants to burn somebody alive, that's an example of a cult being evil. But if a minor Christian sect wants to sell underage girls into sex slavery, that's a religion being practiced, and it would be oppression if we tried to stop them.

<3

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

No. Employment Division v. Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith).

Learn what the word pre-pubescent means then try again. I'll give you a hint, there's something between being pre-pubescent and being an adult, it begins with a p.

Umm is it pregnant? Seriously though, read my words before you want to call me thick.

Look you see where I said 'Okay I mean yes it is true...' What about that suggest that I do not know what prepubescent means?

Ok I know I am going to regret this, and I probably know the answer, but what religion sacrifices pets and other animals?

In Florida, last decade, there was a Santeria cult group. Part of Santeria is to sacrifice chickens and other animals. According to Florida's humane laws, it is illegal to sacrifice your pets. Florida charged the group with some stuff about animal abuse. The Santerians appealed and the US Supreme Court said that the state of Florida was wrong because the Santerians did have the right to engage in ritual animal sacrifice.

Is that how you spell santeria?

You know he's going to say "SATANIST AND WITCHES!!!!111!!!" :rolleyes:

eh. You do know that witches don't engage in sacrifices? Same with mainstream satanists.

Polygamy could be banned in the State of Texas, and once again the compound does fall under Texas law as well as US law.

Face it, this compound broke several laws, and they deserved to be disbanned, they have no religious or moral ground to exist and no religious or moral excuse to do what they did.

The law against polygamy is based on mainstream christian moralism. That is what it dates from. At least in the US that is what it is based on.

And no, the state does not have the authority to break up a religion. The US is not China where the Chinese military went and raided several buddhist temples in Tibet and is engaged in arresting monks and trying to break up the Tibetan brand of Buddhism.

The US laws against polygamy, if you look at them, are based on the Bible, not public safety, not ensuring fair and equal treatment. Heck they are not even an attempt to prevent domestic abuse. They are based on mainstream christian view that "thus says the Bible, polygamy is evil and thou shalt ban it."

The same with incest. Yes there are health problems with incest but if you look at the motivation for the laws against incest in the US, they are not based off of public health but against the old testament which says that "incest is an abomination to God, thou shalt ban it."

In Florida, last decade, there was a Santeria cult group. Part of Santeria is to sacrifice chickens and other animals. According to Florida's humane laws, it is illegal to sacrifice your pets. Florida charged the group with some stuff about animal abuse. The Santerians appealed and the US Supreme Court said that the state of Florida was wrong because the Santerians did have the right to engage in ritual animal sacrifice.

Is that how you spell santeria?Source?

Polygamy is against the law in many nations around the world. In fact, Utah didn't gain statehood until after the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints banned the practice of polygamy.

No, it's about YOUNG CHILDREN, specifically young girls, being forced into marriage and sex without an understanding of consent, much less consent. As I said in the other thread about this, I don't care if you're polygamist, polyandrous, or polyamorous, as long as it involves consenting adults, I DON"T CARE!!! But this incident clearly did not involve adults, breaking several laws of the great state of Texas, as well as a few federal statutes. The adults who stood by and allowed this are deeply sick, and need help.

The adults who stood by and allowed it include all the women who went with the children to the prison camp where the state is holding them.

You have to remember that the whole group, including all of the men, have been indoctrinated to believe this is right. The women and the children also believe what they were doing was right. They all recieved the same religious training. The only way to stop it, is not to imprison the men or break up 400 families.
The way you stop is by reeducating all of them. They don't think in secular terms. They think in the manner of their sects interpretation of the Bible. That is how it has to be addressed.
But you have to remember at the same time that it has to be a voluntary reeducation not that stuff going on in Red China right now where people are being forced to change their religious views at gun point.

This can done without violating the seperation of church and state if you first send in mainstream christian missionaries to point out the errors of how they've been reading the Bible. Then you can have the secularists go in and talk about the public health aspects.

the state should never submit to any religion, as well as no religion should ever be allowed influence in the government, what happens here on earth is our decision, what happens in the after life is the responsibility of what ever supposed deity is supposedly out there.

But you think it is ok for government to interfere in religion? The American concept of religious freedom is that the two cannot interfere with each other. Religion cannot interfere with state and state cannot interfere with religion.

marrying a 13 year old is not pedophilia. its illegal but its not pedophilia.

Maybe not, but sex with a 7 to 13 year old certainly is.

But you think it is ok for government to interfere in religion? The American concept of religious freedom is that the two cannot interfere with each other. Religion cannot interfere with state and state cannot interfere with religion.

Yes, yes it is okay for the government to interfere in religious activities, if those activities break the a law that was written independent of religion.

Maybe not, but sex with a 7 to 13 year old certainly is.

And this, precisely, is what was pervasive in this cult. Did you see Larry King talking to women who had gotten out of it before they moved to this "compound"? Very tragic stories.

do you know what prepubescent means?

the community rule is that she has to be of child bearing age. if they are feeding the children properly the average age of menarche is 12.

menarche??????

But you think it is ok for government to interfere in religion? The American concept of religious freedom is that the two cannot interfere with each other.
Um, wrong.

The American concept of religious freedom is that the government is supposed to stay out of peoples' private religious practices, so long as those practices do not violate the shared code of law which binds us all.

In other words, if your "religious practice" involves shooting people in the face, the state is not only permitted to interfere, it is REQUIRED to interfere.


Religion cannot interfere with state and state cannot interfere with religion.
Actually, you're wrong on both counts there.

Religion most certainly IS permitted to interfere with the state, and it ALWAYS has, for the entire history of the USA. Likewise, the state has ALWAYS limited the ways in which religious beliefs may be expressed, and this has been the case for the entire existence of this country. Religion and state have interacted for as long as this country has been around.

its not like not calling them pedophiles makes it OK.

these men are swapping out their children with each other. you get mine, i get yours. as soon as they get their period they are eligible for "marriage" and are expected to get pregnant as soon as possible. the girls are kept ignorant and pregnant so that they have a very hard time escaping the sect.

i just hope that the texas authorities have all their ducks in a row so that charges stick and these girls can be rescued permanently.

do you mean banned from going back to that particular religion????

That is the problem. In our society, those girls cannot consent. But in their society they could. It's like the US invading Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia allows girls to be married at 13 and allows 13 year olds to do it with 80 year olds.


:rolleyes:

No, it's not the same at all. Not in the least. These people are living within the boundaries of the United States. As such, they are subject to United States law. The United states does not have legal authority, in the least, over Saudi Arabia. As such, we cannot enforce our laws upon people within that country.

Look up Sovereignty.

menarche??????

the beginning of menstruation.

The law against polygamy is based on mainstream christian moralism. That is what it dates from. At least in the US that is what it is based on.

Actually, it's based on the fact that marriage is a civil ceremony that grants certain rights, and it is impossible for this to be extended to more than two people the way that it is written.

do you mean banned from going back to that particular religion????

Belief and actions are two different things. It is perfectly fine to *believe* that you should be able to marry a 13 year old. It is not perfectly alright, in this country, to marry a 13 year old, as it is against the law.

Religious freedom protects *beliefs*, not necessarily *actions*.

Maybe not, but sex with a 7 to 13 year old certainly is.Not necessarily. Puberty can start earlier than 13. It would still be sexual child abuse, but not pedophilia, in those cases.

Yes, yes it is okay for the government to interfere in religious activities, if those activities break the a law that was written independent of religion.

Yet the laws for which this cult was raided, were indeed, based entirely off an interpretation of the Christian Bible.

The laws against sodomy and polygamy are religious based. That is why the laws against sodomy have been struck down. On that basis, it is certain that in a future case, the laws against polygamy will also be struck down.

Remember they tried to say that sodomy could be banned because it violated the Bible. That didn't work so they then argued that sodomy was a threat to public health or that it was a form of abuse. The US Supreme Court did not accept either argument and said that you cannot ban sodomy.
Because such a ban involves the state forcing your beliefs on someone else.

These people committed rape, which is a crime our society has a vested interest in preventing, regardless of religious beliefs to the contrary. If it was just incest and/or polygamy, it would be a different story. In fact, if the men merely married the girls, but did not consummate the marriage until the girls were of legal age, it would be a different story. But rape is a violent crime, one with victims. The government was right to not only stop this, but to use force to do so.

Animal sacrifice is a tricky issue, one which I haven't thought about enough to form an opinion.

But you think it is ok for government to interfere in religion? The American concept of religious freedom is that the two cannot interfere with each other. Religion cannot interfere with state and state cannot interfere with religion.

See, that's where people seem to forget about things. Even though there is a separation between chuch and state, that no such separation can truly exist. We look at groups like the Branch Davidians, we look at them, point and cry "CULT!" But what isn't to stop say......a person like Yousef Islam to point at Christianity and cry "CULT!"

The country was founded on religious doctrine, and that every day we see examples of that. Look at American Currency. What do you see on it? "In God We Trust." Listen to our Pledge of Alliegence "One Nation, Under God."

menarche??????

do you mean banned from going back to that particular religion????

you could have looked it up.

i mean removed from the compound and not sent back. if they want to rejoin as adults, that is their business.

do you mean banned from going back to that particular religion????They're minors, and legally can't choose for themselves. Those old enough to legally choose have been given the option to leave and return, if they so choose. Most have not.

Um, wrong.

The American concept of religious freedom is that the government is supposed to stay out of peoples' private religious practices, so long as those practices do not violate the shared code of law which binds us all.

In other words, if your "religious practice" involves shooting people in the face, the state is not only permitted to interfere, it is REQUIRED to interfere.


Actually, you're wrong on both counts there.

Religion most certainly IS permitted to interfere with the state, and it ALWAYS has, for the entire history of the USA. Likewise, the state has ALWAYS limited the ways in which religious beliefs may be expressed, and this has been the case for the entire existence of this country. Religion and state have interacted for as long as this country has been around.


If that is the case, then there really is no such thing as seperation of church and state in America and our nation is based on lies.

Yet the laws for which this cult was raided, were indeed, based entirely off an interpretation of the Christian Bible. Child abuse and domestic violence laws are based entirely off an interpretation of the Christian bible? And how exactly would that make them illegitimate, if that was so?

Belief and actions are two different things. It is perfectly fine to *believe* that you should be able to marry a 13 year old. It is not perfectly alright, in this country, to marry a 13 year old, as it is against the law.

Religious freedom protects *beliefs*, not necessarily *actions*.

I'm sure the courts would have allowed a religious exemption for the marriages if certain criteria were met. However, the problem is with the forced sex

That is what the state should have limited its raid to, is the forced sex.

They could develop a compromise where the sect is allowed to continue its marriage practices, within the compound, as long as there is no sex until a certain age.

Of course, I don't think the state accepts spiritual marriages from any religion. Nor do I think it should. If they want the marriage to count, they should go and do the proper legal paperwork for it to count.

But you think it is ok for government to interfere in religion? The American concept of religious freedom is that the two cannot interfere with each other. Religion cannot interfere with state and state cannot interfere with religion.

Once again, the Government cannot interfere with *beliefs*, but actions most definitely. A person may believe whatever the hell they choose. Doesn't mean they can act on said beliefs.

For instance, a person may believe it is fully right to have sex with an eight year old. However, they cannot have sex with an eight year old. It doesn't matter if they have a political, religious, personal, or just a whim of a reason for believing it, they can still believe it all the hell they want.

As well, if one *does* have sex with an eight year old, why should religion automatically be a barrier against punishment? If a person's religion says it's okay, why should he not be punished, while another who does the same, but is not of the religion, not be punished? See where I'm going with this?

Beliefs=/actions. Actions can be outlawed, beliefs not.

Don't those amount to ritual slaughter?

That's the case in MOST animal sacrifices. Unless the sacrifice was an attempt to end a curse or an illness (in which case said curse or illness is often thought to have been transfered to the animal prior to it's sacrifice) the animal or animals in question are eaten by the worshipers (usually cooked as a stew).

So, if some minor Druidic sect decides to burn someone alive as a sacrifice to the Gods, you're ok with this?

If they get a willing volunteer over the age of 18, yes I am.

The country was founded on religious doctrine, and that every day we see examples of that. Look at American Currency. What do you see on it? "In God We Trust." Listen to our Pledge of Alliegence "One Nation, Under God."

Under God was added in 1954, in order to distinguish ourselves from the communists. In God We Trust was added in the late 1800s.

These people committed rape, which is a crime our society has a vested interest in preventing, regardless of religious beliefs to the contrary. If it was just incest and/or polygamy, it would be a different story. In fact, if the men merely married the girls, but did not consummate the marriage until the girls were of legal age, it would be a different story. But rape is a violent crime, one with victims. The government was right to not only stop this, but to use force to do so.

Animal sacrifice is a tricky issue, one which I haven't thought about enough to form an opinion.

But force was not used in this case which is unusual. Everyone in the cult is actually helping the authorities, including the men.

If the cult was really evil, if the men in the cult were really evil, wouldn't they be actively opposing the investigation? Wouldn't we be watching stories of a gun battle taking place instead of stories about the state negotiating peacefully and diplomatically with the group? The cult has apparently allowed the authorities to have access to everything except their sacred temple complex which, apparently, no nonbeliever is allowed to step inside of.

Kind of like Islam where nonbelievers are not allowed inside mosques, not even for law enforcement purposes.

Naaa I can't agree with that. Okay I mean yes it is true, but a 13 year old is certianly not adult, with an adult mentality.

No they aren't. There is however a separate term for attraction to children who while post pubescent are still underage. I just can't remember it right now.

But force was not used in this case which is unusual. Everyone in the cult is actually helping the authorities, including the men.

If the cult was really evil, if the men in the cult were really evil, wouldn't they be actively opposing the investigation? Wouldn't we be watching stories of a gun battle taking place instead of stories about the state negotiating peacefully and diplomatically with the group? The cult has apparently allowed the authorities to have access to everything except their sacred temple complex which, apparently, no nonbeliever is allowed to step inside of.

Kind of like Islam where nonbelievers are not allowed inside mosques, not even for law enforcement purposes.

First, since when are nonbelievers not allowed inside mosques? I've been in a mosque before. In Israel. With about 40 other Jews. And the imam giving us the lowdown on Islam.

Also, I thought they did use force. I'll get back to you later.

Animal sacrifice is a tricky issue, one which I haven't thought about enough to form an opinion.

Why?

Are you allowed to kill an animal for food? Yes, yes you are.

Should you be allowed to say a prayer or engage in a religious ritual while doing so? I see no reason why not.

you could have looked it up.

i mean removed from the compound and not sent back. if they want to rejoin as adults, that is their business.

But then you are causing more harm than you are preventing because you are taking them from the only thing they have known. You can't just go in and rip out the children from a community just because you don't like how the community lives.

There are a lot of nudist communities that have children. Are you going to raid them and seize the children too? Afterall, it is illegal to be nude around children so a law is being broken.

Look at the Arizona case from 1968. The children who were siezed in that raid and placed in permanent foster homes have been on television saying their lives were good before the raid but that the raid traumatized them all for life. The state's actions traumatized them for life.

The same thing, the same life long traumatization is happening all over again, this time in Texas.

Is not the point of enforcing the law to prevent harm. What if the enforcement is causing more harm than it is preventing?

See, that's where people seem to forget about things. Even though there is a separation between chuch and state, that no such separation can truly exist. We look at groups like the Branch Davidians, we look at them, point and cry "CULT!" But what isn't to stop say......a person like Yousef Islam to point at Christianity and cry "CULT!"

The country was founded on religious doctrine, and that every day we see examples of that. Look at American Currency. What do you see on it? "In God We Trust." Listen to our Pledge of Alliegence "One Nation, Under God."

Added in the 50s, as part of the anti commie hysteria. The basic founding principles of the US are "We don't want to pay taxes to you guys, and like our guns", plus a few extra doses of individual liberties.

If that is the case, then there really is no such thing as seperation of church and state in America and our nation is based on lies.

Nonsense, you just have the wrong conception of what it means. The point is that the church and the state cannot be combined, that one cannot establish a state church, and that the state cannot interfere with freedom of belief or persecute people for their religion. Unfortunately, in this case we have people being punished for their crimes, something quite different.

But force was not used in this case which is unusual. Everyone in the cult is actually helping the authorities, including the men.

If the cult was really evil, if the men in the cult were really evil, wouldn't they be actively opposing the investigation? Wouldn't we be watching stories of a gun battle taking place instead of stories about the state negotiating peacefully and diplomatically with the group? The cult has apparently allowed the authorities to have access to everything except their sacred temple complex which, apparently, no nonbeliever is allowed to step inside of.

Kind of like Islam where nonbelievers are not allowed inside mosques, not even for law enforcement purposes.Did they sport waxed mustaches and a black, swirling cloak? Did they cary a lit stick of dynamite and rub their hands in wicked anticipation? No? Then they could not have been evil.
Why?

Are you allowed to kill an animal for food? Yes, yes you are.

Should you be allowed to say a prayer or engage in a religious ritual while doing so? I see no reason why not.They eat the sacrificed animals afterwards?

But then you are causing more harm than you are preventing because you are taking them from the only thing they have known. You can't just go in and rip out the children from a community just because you don't like how the community lives. Of course not. There needs to be a justifiable reason, such as in this case.
There are a lot of nudist communities that have children. Are you going to raid them and seize the children too? Afterall, it is illegal to be nude around children so a law is being broken. No it isn't. I'd love for you to find a law that says otherwise.
Look at the Arizona case from 1968. The children who were siezed in that raid and placed in permanent foster homes have been on television saying their lives were good before the raid but that the raid traumatized them all for life. The state's actions traumatized them for life.Sources?
The same thing, the same life long traumatization is happening all over again, this time in Texas.

Is not the point of enforcing the law to prevent harm. What if the enforcement is causing more harm than it is preventing?What if child abuse is more harmful than removing the kids from their abusers?

Child abuse and domestic violence laws are based entirely off an interpretation of the Christian bible? And how exactly would that make them illegitimate, if that was so?

I was actually referring to the marriage of 13 year olds and the polygamy part. But either way, you can't have laws whose sole basis is the Bible.
The child abuse and domestic violence laws have non biblical foundations which is why they are enforceable.

The laws against marrying 13 year olds or against polygamy, have no secular basis. At least not in the US.

Child abuse and domestic violence laws are based entirely off an interpretation of the Christian bible? And how exactly would that make them illegitimate, if that was so?

I was actually referring to the marriage of 13 year olds and the polygamy part. But either way, you can't have laws whose sole basis is the Bible.
The child abuse and domestic violence laws have non biblical foundations which is why they are enforceable.

The laws against marrying 13 year olds or against polygamy, have no secular basis. At least not in the US.

Child abuse and domestic violence laws are based entirely off an interpretation of the Christian bible? And how exactly would that make them illegitimate, if that was so?

I was actually referring to the marriage of 13 year olds and the polygamy part. But either way, you can't have laws whose sole basis is the Bible.
The child abuse and domestic violence laws have non biblical foundations which is why they are enforceable.

The laws against marrying 13 year olds or against polygamy, have no secular basis. At least not in the US.

I was actually referring to the marriage of 13 year olds and the polygamy part. But either way, you can't have laws whose sole basis is the Bible.
The child abuse and domestic violence laws have non biblical foundations which is why they are enforceable.

The laws against marrying 13 year olds or against polygamy, have no secular basis. At least not in the US.Minors being limited in their legal capabilities because of their vulnerability as impressionable persons has no secular basis how exactly? And how is forcing a thirteen year old to marry an adult not child abuse?

I was actually referring to the marriage of 13 year olds and the polygamy part. But either way, you can't have laws whose sole basis is the Bible.
You know nothing about the Bible if you think it condemns either plural marriage or early marriage.
But then you are causing more harm than you are preventing
The harm that is being done to those young girls is unbelievably foul. I wish you had seen the Larry King last night: it was heartbreaking.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-08-polygamy_N.htm

Their high crime was that their religion allowed 13 year olds to marry 50 year olds. The only problem was they were forced marriages.

Looks like the other Mormon fundies are not even supporting these guys.

I can understand the problem with forced marriages. I can understand people going to jail for rape.

But to destroy over 400 families just because you don't like their religious way of life?

Many of us our cheering on the fact that no pedi is safe. But now it looks more and more like that is not what brought this raid on.

The "16 year old" victim is starting to look more and more like a fictitious person used as a ruse to trample religious rights.

Now they are demanding to send armed thugs inside a temple to defile it?

This means we should beware those who wave "get the pedos" flag. They may have ulterior motives.

You're absolutely right. I am always wary of any flag-wavers in general. Anyone who doesn't specify why such severe action is being taken is hoping to lead or incite a mob.

Its scary that people have the attitude of "hey their culture contradicts ours, lets destroy them and wipe them out."

My culture says I have a right to destroy cultures which practise child abuse. What right do you have to infringe upon my culture?

But then you are causing more harm than you are preventing because you are taking them from the only thing they have known. You can't just go in and rip out the children from a community just because you don't like how the community lives.

So its better for little girls to be raped than for them to not be raped?

There is no place for polygamous sects in the US.

BTW: it seems that the homeland of the FLDS is characterized by the world's highest incidence of fumarase deficiency, an extremely rare genetic condition which causes severe mental retardation. It's believed this is due to extensive inbreeding among minions of the FLDS. (see http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/ )

So next time you're tempted to talk about inbred hillbillies in West Virginia, change the location ;)

My question to the OP would be: Would you feel the same way about religions that practice human sacrifice (Though I know there aren't really any now)? If I were part of a religious community (Either an old one or one that was recently founded), would it be OK for me to sacrifice kids to my god?

I don't think religious freedom should be absolute. If one person's religious rights conflict with the rights of someone else, their rights should be disregarded. A cult that practices that kind of perversion deserves to be smashed.

Did they sport waxed mustaches and a black, swirling cloak? Did they cary a lit stick of dynamite and rub their hands in wicked anticipation? No? Then they could not have been evil.
They eat the sacrificed animals afterwards?

As i posted earlier in the thread, yes. Unless the sacrifice was part of a ritual to remove a curse or cure an illness. In those cases the curse/illness is thought to be transfered to the animal and you wouldn't want to eat it for fear of the curse/illness transferring to you.

There is no place for polygamous sects in the US.

Sure there is, as long as they involve willing adults and not forced children.

But then you are causing more harm than you are preventing because you are taking them from the only thing they have known. You can't just go in and rip out the children from a community just because you don't like how the community lives.

There are a lot of nudist communities that have children. Are you going to raid them and seize the children too? Afterall, it is illegal to be nude around children so a law is being broken.

Look at the Arizona case from 1968. The children who were siezed in that raid and placed in permanent foster homes have been on television saying their lives were good before the raid but that the raid traumatized them all for life. The state's actions traumatized them for life.

The same thing, the same life long traumatization is happening all over again, this time in Texas.

Is not the point of enforcing the law to prevent harm. What if the enforcement is causing more harm than it is preventing?

that is an unavoidable risk whenever you remove children from a home. thats why it is only done in egregious circumstances where the parents refuse to change their ways.

raping 14 year olds and forcing them to bear children is more than enough reason.

And no, the state does not have the authority to break up a religion. The US is not China where the Chinese military went and raided several buddhist temples in Tibet and is engaged in arresting monks and trying to break up the Tibetan brand of Buddhism.

I think we're all running out of ways to tell you this, but you're wrong. The state has exactly that authority if it's enforcing a generally applicable law that's neutrally applied. In this case, the generally applicable law is "don't have sex with 13-year-olds."

*rapes thread*

Rape apologists: now on NS General.

My culture says I have a right to destroy cultures which practise child abuse. What right do you have to infringe upon my culture?

I have been looking for a way to state this critique of moral relativism, and here it is. Thank you.

Goddamnit I hate it when religion is used as an excuse to break the law! >.<

These people are disgusting. Young girls are married off to men old enough to be their grandfathers, in many cases are blood related and are forced to bare children before their bodies are mature enough to handle that sort of stress. They have been accused of human trafficing across national borders to other communes by those who have escaped, and like any other cult, they are highly secretive, and HATE it when people run off and blab about what they are doing.

I have no opinion on polygamy itself. If men want a bunch of wives, or women want a bunch of husbands and everyone is happy with it, then do what you like.

However, sex with children is wrong. It's despicable. Children giving birth again and again at a young age isn't healthy. Trading people like livestock is dehumanizing. Religious tolerance shouldn't mean just shrugging our shoulders and looking the other way on the beliefs of every fucking nutbar here. There has to be boundaries, and those boundaries -should- be the goddamn law!

The "16 year old" victim is starting to look more and more like a fictitious person used as a ruse to trample religious rights.


The "Religious rights" is starting to look more and more like a loop hole that people use to justify any criminal act they want.

:rolleyes:

No, it's not the same at all. Not in the least. These people are living within the boundaries of the United States. As such, they are subject to United States law. The United states does not have legal authority, in the least, over Saudi Arabia. As such, we cannot enforce our laws upon people within that country.

Look up Sovereignty.

Except that in the case of pedophilia, the US courts have already ruled that it does not matter what country you do it in. If you do it at all, anywhere on planet earth, you are guilty of breaking United States laws and you will be punished upon return to the US.
They're referred to as long arm statutes. Don't believe it? Just ask the guys who went to Thailand and had sex with little girls while they were in Thailand. They never had sex with little girls in the USA. Only in Thailand. As soon as they returned to US territory they were arrested and convicted of child molestation because of what they did in Thailand. The prosecutors argued that child molesting was such a heinous crime that the US law prohibiting it applies all over planet earth.
So even if, say Britain, has an age of consent law of 16. If you are 20 years old and you go to Britain and have sex with a girl who is 16, when you return to the US you can be prosecuted for violating US laws against child molesting. Whereby you become victim to America's legal long arm statutes.

So with this sect, even if they left the US and went to another country to engage in their practices. They would still be prosecuted in the US for those practices. Even if they went to a country where the age of consent was actually 13.

If you notice, we don't allow very many people into the US from countries where the age of consent is 13.
Also, according to the immigration statutes, we have high restrictions on immigrants from countries where polygamy is legal. For example if you have more than one wife, you have to get a waiver to enter the United States.

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.Uh.....no.

Or maybe I'll start a religion requiring human sacrifice.

If killing is wrong, so is killing for religious resons.
If molestation is wrong, so is molesting for religion.

Of course not. There needs to be a justifiable reason, such as in this case.
No it isn't. I'd love for you to find a law that says otherwise.
Sources?
What if child abuse is more harmful than removing the kids from their abusers?

There seems to be a consensus among the states that prosecuting people for being in polygamous relationships violates the US Constitution:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8864530?source=rss

"authorities have said they will not prosecute polygamous relationships that involve adults - a position taken because such prosecutions would likely fail on constitutional grounds" why? because laws against polygamy are only off one group's extremist interpretation of the Bible.

"Jessop has called the massive investigation the girl's call triggered a "colossal mistake" because it smacks of the 1953 Short Creek Raid, in which Arizona authorities took approximately 263 women and children into custody in an effort to stamp out polygamy.

""First of all, they are all terrified they are going to hell if they talk to anybody," she said. "They've been taught their entire lives not to reveal who their mother is, who their father is. It's part of the culture of secrecy. And secrecy breeds isolation."

What say you to this? "many of the children at the ranch were sent there by parents in other states".

http://www.ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=800632

"Former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints predicted an uneasy adjustment to foster care. They are likely the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those taken by Arizona authorities 54 years ago in a similar raid.

That raid a half-century ago and the one this week pulled children of polygamist families from the only community and culture they'd ever known _ an event that decades later a former community member recalls as traumatizing.

``It was total misery for them,'' said Ben Bistline, now 72. He was 18 when authorities raided the remote community on the Arizona-Utah line, taking 200 children into custody as part of an effort to wipe out a ``nest of polygamy.''

Bistline was not rounded up in the 1953 raid, but the woman he married later in life was 15 when she and her seven siblings were shipped to Phoenix, pulled from the friends and family who constituted their whole world. Nearly two years past before they were allowed to return, he said. "


Many of them are still undergoing psychiatric treatment for the trauma caused to them.

The people defending the right of Jeffs' Psycho-Mormons to marry underage children and molest them right now would be the same ones screaming for a Waco-and-Ruby Ridge-style government whoopass had these been a sect of deviant Islam-splitoffs doing the exact same shit.

The people defending the right of Jeffs' Psycho-Mormons to marry underage children and molest them right now would be the same ones screaming for a Waco-and-Ruby Ridge-style government whoopass had these been a sect of deviant Islam-splitoffs doing the exact same shit.

Linky.

Linky.

What? You can't just read this thread and look over the posts spouting "Religious Tolerance" for the FCJCLS by UnitedStatesofAmerica?

Minors being limited in their legal capabilities because of their vulnerability as impressionable persons has no secular basis how exactly? And how is forcing a thirteen year old to marry an adult not child abuse?


How old are you exactly? A 13 year old has the same faculties of a 22 year old. Their brains function the same way. It is only when you get to the 8 and below age group that the manner in which the brain operates is truly different from an adult's.

Brain size has already been repeatedly proven not to amount to a hell of lot.

The only reason 13 year olds act tripidly or can easily be pressured is because they lack knowledge which adults have. Even adults, who lack the same knowledge, tend to be tripid and easily pressured into things they might not otherwise do.

Age does not equal maturity. A 25 year old does not have a mature mind and most are not even capable of "adult" decision making.

The only reason we restrict the rights of 13 year olds, is not because they are still children, but because they have not had time to access the information about how some stuff can hurt them. So we bar or restrict their access to things like alcohol, cigarrettes, driving, and yes even sex.
But as they get older and acquire more knowledge about how the world works, we gradually grant them more and more rights and responsibilities up until the mandatory enfranchisement age of 18.

Hence, if a 13 year old were to be well informed of the responsibilities of marriage and entered it voluntarily, there would be no laws against it. Marrying a 13 year old is not child abuse because it does not cause physical or mental or emotional harm. It is how the husband treats her that cause the harm and that is the real child abuse.

Marriage itself is just a neutral relationship that depends on how the two treat each other for its survival. If the man sexually abuses his wife, that can kill the marriage. But the marriage itself is not an act of abuse.

i suspect the fundimormons aren't nice people, but i've also noticed whenever the us government wants to do something really really repressive, its usually under the guise of saving the children(if it involves american citizens)or fighting the terrorists (if it involves furiners)

that is an unavoidable risk whenever you remove children from a home. thats why it is only done in egregious circumstances where the parents refuse to change their ways.

raping 14 year olds and forcing them to bear children is more than enough reason.

Suppose they were 25 year olds and they were being forced to bear children. Would you still support raiding the compound?

I think we're all running out of ways to tell you this, but you're wrong. The state has exactly that authority if it's enforcing a generally applicable law that's neutrally applied. In this case, the generally applicable law is "don't have sex with 13-year-olds."

No they don't. The state can punish people for rape. But they do not have the authority to ban a whole religion.

i suspect the fundimormons aren't nice people, but i've also noticed whenever the us government wants to do something really really repressive, its usually under the guise of saving the children(if it involves american citizens)or fighting the terrorists (if it involves furiners)

Since when has any fundi group been nice people? Any time you have a cult, you are going to have some kind of child abuse going on. I say child abuse as defined by mainstream standards.

It doesn't matter if it's a christian cult or a muslim cult and some wierd pagan cult. They all abuse their members. Otherwise, they wouldn't be cults.

What? You can't just read this thread and look over the posts spouting "Religious Tolerance" for the FCJCLS by UnitedStatesofAmerica?

Religious tolerance is in the constitution you and great granddady gave to me to run my affairs by. If you don't like it then you should abolish the constitution. Then I'll gladly send in the marines to kill all mormons and ban any other religion I dislike while I'm at it.

No they don't. The state can punish people for rape. But they do not have the authority to ban a whole religion.

These people violated the law. Their rights to practice their religion do not override the rights of those girls not to get raped. Hence, they are lawbreakers.

How old are you exactly? A 13 year old has the same faculties of a 22 year old. Their brains function the same way. It is only when you get to the 8 and below age group that the manner in which the brain operates is truly different from an adult's.

~snippage~ Science says you are wrong. The adolescent brain indeed works differently. The myelin sheath in the white matter doesn't finish coating the decision making forebrain until 18-20 years old. Many neurotransmitters responsible for judgement and impulse control are not in full swing yet. So the adolescent brain is different.

raping 14 year olds and forcing them to bear children is more than enough reason.
And they don't start raping them when they're 13 or 14. They start raping them when they're 5 to 7, so that by the time they're 13 or 14 they think this is "normal", or at least, that they have no right to do anything about it.

Bitchkitten, don't worry about him.

The only thing that can cure his neurosis is a 230 grain hollow point.

How old are you exactly? A 13 year old has the same faculties of a 22 year old. Their brains function the same way. It is only when you get to the 8 and below age group that the manner in which the brain operates is truly different from an adult's.




Um....

If high school psychology (from some 15 odd years ago) still serves, Piaget established that the capacity for primary abstract thought develops around fifteen or sixteen years of age. Approximately 40 odd percent of the population will develop secondary abstract thought processes somewhere between 18 and 25 years of age.

Until their brains and thought processes develop (which take teaching as well. they won't just happen in a vacuum), they are UNABLE to synthesize the basis of formal logic. They make their decisions based on concrete examples given to them, and are unable to truly reason abstractly or form multiple hypothesis for possible outcomes of a situation.


Sure. The brain may of a 12 year old function similarly to that of a 22 year old, but by no means is it the same. The law in regard to the safeguarding of minors is there for a reason, however abstract or arbitrary the reasons and justifications may be. Yes, while there may be some incredibly mature children, they still do not posses the mental faculties to function as adults--the law merely makes reasonable shields for the protection of children, mature or not.

Twisted people there. I'm just glad it didn't turn into a Waco type situation.

How old are you exactly? A 13 year old has the same faculties of a 22 year old. Their brains function the same way. It is only when you get to the 8 and below age group that the manner in which the brain operates is truly different from an adult's.

Wrong.


Brain size has already been repeatedly proven not to amount to a hell of lot.

Changes in brain size really aren't that significant, all told, when it comes to human development. In terms of the cerebral surface, the human brain is basically "adult sized" by 2 years of age. However, the normal human brain will not be neurochemically or structurally completed until about 20 years old.


The only reason 13 year olds act tripidly or can easily be pressured is because they lack knowledge which adults have.

Wrong. The brain of a 13 year old is neurochemically and structurally quite different from the brain of a 25 year old.

No, this does not mean that a 13 year old will always make bad choices. No, this does not mean that a 25 year old will always make good choices. But yes, it does mean that it would be profoundly silly to place the same expectations on the brain of a 13 year old that one places on the brain of a 25 year old.


Even adults, who lack the same knowledge, tend to be tripid and easily pressured into things they might not otherwise do.

Age does not equal maturity. A 25 year old does not have a mature mind and most are not even capable of "adult" decision making.

Don't confuse colloquial use of the word "maturity" with the scientific/neurological use of that term.

Neurologically speaking, a normal 25 year old human has a mature central nervous system, while a 13 year old does not. Whether or not the presence of a mature CNS actually leads to what we define as socially mature behavior is a whole other story.


The only reason we restrict the rights of 13 year olds, is not because they are still children, but because they have not had time to access the information about how some stuff can hurt them. So we bar or restrict their access to things like alcohol, cigarrettes, driving, and yes even sex.

Wrong.


But as they get older and acquire more knowledge about how the world works, we gradually grant them more and more rights and responsibilities up until the mandatory enfranchisement age of 18.

Wrong.


Hence, if a 13 year old were to be well informed of the responsibilities of marriage and entered it voluntarily, there would be no laws against it.

I'm sure there will always be people who pose arguments like the ones you have introduced, because there will always be people who would rather make false, uninformed assertions than actually do some reading. Fortunately, there are also a healthy number of folks who will acquaint themselves with fundamental facts BEFORE trying to push ill-conceived laws onto the books.


Marrying a 13 year old is not child abuse because it does not cause physical or mental or emotional harm. It is how the husband treats her that cause the harm and that is the real child abuse.

Very, very wrong, and also deeply sick and disturbing.


Marriage itself is just a neutral relationship that depends on how the two treat each other for its survival. If the man sexually abuses his wife, that can kill the marriage. But the marriage itself is not an act of abuse.
Marriage is not neutral. Perhaps in theory it could be, but it never has been. It is naive to claim that marital relationships in our culture are neutral, or that a marital relationship between an adult male and a female child could somehow magically be a neutral one.

Suppose they were 25 year olds and they were being forced to bear children. Would you still support raiding the compound?

If they were being FORCED? Yes.

If they were being FORCED? Yes.
I'm sorry, the correct answer was,

"If adult women were being raped and forced to bear pregnancies against their wishes, I would respect the religious freedoms of the rapists by choosing not to interfere. After all, I wouldn't want to seem like a BIGOT, now would I?"

Suppose they were 25 year olds and they were being forced to bear children. Would you still support raiding the compound?

Wait, did you seriously just ask whether we'd support a raid on a compound that forcibly impregnates women against their wishes?

What answer were you expecting exactly?

Wait, did you seriously just ask whether we'd support a raid on a compound that forcibly impregnates women against their wishes?

What answer were you expecting exactly?
Based on his previous line of argument, I'm guessing it works like this:

If you think forced pregnancy is lousy, and if you would support helping adult women who were being raped and forced to bear children, then clearly the age of the victims in this case has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Therefore, 13 year olds are able to give consent to sex just like adults are, and its only our silly cultural standards which prevent men from purchasing...I mean wooing...the child-brides they so often dream of.

Or something.

Based on his previous line of argument, I'm guessing it works like this:

If you think forced pregnancy is lousy, and if you would support helping adult women who were being raped and forced to bear children, then clearly the age of the victims in this case has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Therefore, 13 year olds are able to give consent to sex just like adults are, and its only our silly cultural standards which prevent men from purchasing...I mean wooing...the child-brides they so often dream of.

Or something.

Personally, I thought his line of argument was something along the lines of "HURF DE DURF". But then I read many posts that way.

"God told me it's okay to rape kids" doesn't constitute any kind of right. That's basically what it boils down to here. They can bulldoze the whole compound as far as I'm concerned. Anyone living there who is over 18 should be charged as an accessory to rape, or whatever applies.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f288/nodnyl10/objection.gif
Who says it is RAPE, who said it ISN'T Consensual, Even though they are KIDS, that are still HUMANS, and can make THEIR OWN decisions damnit. I don't know why people get SO upset about this load of bull.

P.S.: to the "Pedo" S*** YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS HALF OF YOU. You don't know WHAT it means until you visit 4chan.org, under the "Random" Board, AKA /b/

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f288/nodnyl10/objection.gif
Who says it is RAPE, who said it ISN'T Consensual, Even though they are KIDS, that are still HUMANS, and can make THEIR OWN decisions damnit. I don't know why people get SO upset about this load of bull.

P.S.: to the "Pedo" S*** YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS HALF OF YOU. You don't know WHAT it means until you visit 4chan.org, under the "Random" Board, AKA /b/

13 year olds cannot honestly and statistically be expected to consent to sex. Therefore, anyone having sex with them should be charged with rape.

Based on his previous line of argument, I'm guessing it works like this:

If you think forced pregnancy is lousy, and if you would support helping adult women who were being raped and forced to bear children, then clearly the age of the victims in this case has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Therefore, 13 year olds are able to give consent to sex just like adults are, and its only our silly cultural standards which prevent men from purchasing...I mean wooing...the child-brides they so often dream of.

Or something.

I suppose we'll chalk it up to him being incapable of reaching the understanding that a situation can have more than one thing wrong with it at any given time.

Who says it is RAPE, who said it ISN'T Consensual

They're children. As a matter of law, that makes it rape. Whether they wanted it or not.

P.S.: to the "Pedo" S*** YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS HALF OF YOU. You don't know WHAT it means until you visit 4chan.org, under the "Random" Board, AKA /b/

Well, we all know where you come from. Explains the posting style.

And the drool.....

They're children. As a matter of law, that makes it rape. Whether they wanted it or not.


Statutory rape.

The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is uniformly treated as a more serious crime.

Suppose they were 25 year olds and they were being forced to bear children. Would you still support raiding the compound?

yes. if the case can be made that its forced. (seems like a difficult case to make) but it would be up to the 25 year old adults as to whether or not they wanted to leave the sect.

And they don't start raping them when they're 13 or 14. They start raping them when they're 5 to 7, so that by the time they're 13 or 14 they think this is "normal", or at least, that they have no right to do anything about it.

if those allegations are true and can be proven, there should be dozens of adults going to prison.

Well, we all know where you come from. Explains the posting style.

And the drool.....

I'm guessing he got kicked off of /b/. Last I heard, they did not take kindly to pedophiles.

13 year olds cannot honestly and statistically be expected to consent to sex. Therefore, anyone having sex with them should be charged with rape.
pffff, I know a ton of kids at the age of 12 who've actualy had Consensual sex

They're children. As a matter of law, that makes it rape. Whether they wanted it or not.



Well, we all know where you come from. Explains the posting style.

And the drool.....
How would you know if your not a /b/ browser yourself?
And no, I'm not drooling, probly just you thinking of some 6 year olds...

Statutory rape.

I bolded the important part for you. It's still rape.

pffff, I know a ton of kids at the age of 12 who've actualy had Consensual sex


How would you know if your not a /b/ browser yourself?
And no, I'm not drooling, probly just you thinking of some 6 year olds...

Congradulations, n00b. You've been placed on my permanent ignore list.

I bolded the important part for you. It's still rape.

Oh, I'm not arguing that. It's rape - just a particular kind of rape.

Congradulations, n00b. You've been placed on my permanent ignore list.

heh, heheheheeh. Ignore list. Like I browse these forums much.

heh, heheheheeh. Ignore list. Like I browse these forums much.

shouldn't you actually be in SCHOOL right now?

if those allegations are true and can be proven, there should be dozens of adults going to prison.

Yes, I expect there will be.

No they don't. The state can punish people for rape. But they do not have the authority to ban a whole religion.

Don't be an idiot. They haven't banned a whole religion. They've enforced the law by taking children away from people who were molesting them.

Why are there lawyers who are willing to defend an organization of child rapists? This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

shouldn't you actually be in SCHOOL right now? Don't know what clock YOUR running, but I get out at 2, NOT 5

Why are there lawyers who are willing to defend an organization of child rapists? This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

It's not an Organization of Child RAPISTS. It's a Religion, heck, it's been a BELIEF, that's most likely been with us SINCE we first walked earth!

Yes, I expect there will be.

ive seen too many big time cases like this end up being unfounded to make the assumption in this case.

It's not an Organization of Child RAPISTS. It's a Religion
It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

Why are there lawyers who are willing to defend an organization of child rapists? This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

thats what lawyers DO.

ive seen too many big time cases like this end up being unfounded to make the assumption in this case.
I was watching some of the women who got out of this cult before they moved to this compound tell their life-stories. I did not doubt their honesty. Whether any of the current perpetrators will end up successfully prosecuted of course remains to be seen.

I have, of course, also seen false child-molestation accusations. Those cases are terrible, too.

It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

And for an extra $4.95, you'll receive this suction tool which can actually lift a bowling ball off the floor!

I was watching some of the women who got out of this cult before they moved to this compound tell their life-stories. I did not doubt their honesty. Whether any of the current perpetrators will end up successfully prosecuted of course remains to be seen.

I have, of course, also seen false child-molestation accusations. Those cases are terrible, too.

im hoping that the texas authorities have all their ducks in a row and, if true, these slimy bastards spend a good long time in jail.

Don't know what clock YOUR running, but I get out at 2, NOT 5

So you are, in fact, still in school, yes? What grade, out of interest?

It's not an Organization of Child RAPISTS. It's a Religion, heck, it's been a BELIEF, that's most likely been with us SINCE we first walked earth!

They're a breakaway sect of Mormons, which means the longest history they could reasonably trace is about 200 years. Practically speaking, it's probably about 70. That's all irrelevant though --- in the US, it doesn't matter if it's part of your religion, breaking the law is prohibited.

It depends on their religious faith. The government is required to accomodate different faiths.

Your arguments appear to be impervious to reason, facts, and law, but I'll have a go anyway.

As others have pointed out, you should read Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145), 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (specifically rejecting the argument that polygamy is protected by the First Amendment) and Employment Division v. Smith (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=494&invol=872), 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (holding that the First Amendment DOES NOT bar application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action).

It is also important to note that these children are being traumatized not by the men of their faith, but by the state itself.

And what evidence do you have that being rescued from servitude and rape is more traumatic than servitude and rape?

There are drugs which are illegal to be possessed or used, yet exceptions are definately made for religion. If marijuana use is part of your religion, you are allowed to own, possess and use marijuana. There was a few US Supreme Court decisions that have declared this to be so.

No, you are wrong here. See Employment Division v. Smith (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=494&invol=872), 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

Kind of. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah SOCUS ruled that a ban on a particular religion's animal sacrifices was unlawful. However, the 5th Circuit Court upheld a local general ban last year. (http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a9b2cbf9-141d-4ea8-830a-78450f674a5d)


The rest of your analysis is completely on point. Well done.

I'd just add that the law in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/520.html), 508 U.S. 520 (1993) was invalid precisely because it targeted a particular religion's practices and was not a neutral, generally applicable law.

In Florida, last decade, there was a Santeria cult group. Part of Santeria is to sacrifice chickens and other animals. According to Florida's humane laws, it is illegal to sacrifice your pets. Florida charged the group with some stuff about animal abuse. The Santerians appealed and the US Supreme Court said that the state of Florida was wrong because the Santerians did have the right to engage in ritual animal sacrifice.

No. That was not the holding, as I just explained above.

The adults who stood by and allowed it include all the women who went with the children to the prison camp where the state is holding them.

You have to remember that the whole group, including all of the men, have been indoctrinated to believe this is right. The women and the children also believe what they were doing was right. They all recieved the same religious training. The only way to stop it, is not to imprison the men or break up 400 families.
The way you stop is by reeducating all of them. They don't think in secular terms. They think in the manner of their sects interpretation of the Bible. That is how it has to be addressed.
But you have to remember at the same time that it has to be a voluntary reeducation not that stuff going on in Red China right now where people are being forced to change their religious views at gun point.

This can done without violating the seperation of church and state if you first send in mainstream christian missionaries to point out the errors of how they've been reading the Bible. Then you can have the secularists go in and talk about the public health aspects.

Um. You think enforcing a neutral, generally applicable law violates the separation of Church and State, but send in mainstream christian missionaries to proselytize does not. You would set the First Amendment on its head.

But you think it is ok for government to interfere in religion? The American concept of religious freedom is that the two cannot interfere with each other. Religion cannot interfere with state and state cannot interfere with religion.

That is such an oversimplification that it is false, as explained in the cases cited above.

Yet the laws for which this cult was raided, were indeed, based entirely off an interpretation of the Christian Bible.

The laws against sodomy and polygamy are religious based. That is why the laws against sodomy have been struck down. On that basis, it is certain that in a future case, the laws against polygamy will also be struck down.

Remember they tried to say that sodomy could be banned because it violated the Bible. That didn't work so they then argued that sodomy was a threat to public health or that it was a form of abuse. The US Supreme Court did not accept either argument and said that you cannot ban sodomy.
Because such a ban involves the state forcing your beliefs on someone else.

Your reading of Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is just as ridiculous as your reading of the First Amendment caselaw. [I]Lawrence had nothing to do with the First Amendment and was decided on the grounds of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether the law in question was religiously motivated or "forc[ed] your beliefs on someone else" had nothing to do with it.

If that is the case, then there really is no such thing as seperation of church and state in America and our nation is based on lies.

Bah. You simply don't understand what the separation of Church and State means. It is not a "get out of jail free" card for anyone whose crimes are alleged to be religiously motivated.

The country was founded on religious doctrine, and that every day we see examples of that. Look at American Currency. What do you see on it? "In God We Trust." Listen to our Pledge of Alliegence "One Nation, Under God."

This country was explicitly founded on the separation of Church and State, not on religious doctrine.

Pointing to two minor violations of the separation of Church and State is not evidence of the lack of such a principle, but rather that it is not followed as rigorously as it could be in all cases.



There seems to be a consensus among the states that prosecuting people for being in polygamous relationships violates the US Constitution:

Bullshit. What exactly is your basis for alleging this "consensus" that goes directly against Supreme Court precedent?

How old are you exactly? A 13 year old has the same faculties of a 22 year old. Their brains function the same way. It is only when you get to the 8 and below age group that the manner in which the brain operates is truly different from an adult's.

Bullshit again, as Bottle, Bitchkitten, and others have explained. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Hence, if a 13 year old were to be well informed of the responsibilities of marriage and entered it voluntarily, there would be no laws against it. Marrying a 13 year old is not child abuse because it does not cause physical or mental or emotional harm. It is how the husband treats her that cause the harm and that is the real child abuse.

Marriage itself is just a neutral relationship that depends on how the two treat each other for its survival. If the man sexually abuses his wife, that can kill the marriage. But the marriage itself is not an act of abuse.

Um. Even if your rather ridiculous notions of harm and marriage were correct, you seem to be ignoring the facts of the actual practices alleged by the individuals in this case. The young women were mistreated.


Who says it is RAPE, who said it ISN'T Consensual, Even though they are KIDS, that are still HUMANS, and can make THEIR OWN decisions damnit. I don't know why people get SO upset about this load of bull.

It is not consensual as a matter of law. It is therefore rape.

And, no, children cannot consent to sex -- particularly with adults.

Statutory rape.

A distinction without difference. In fact, most states treat "statutory" rape as simply one way of proving the lack of consent constituting rape.

Your arguments appear to be impervious to reason, facts, and law, but I'll have a go anyway.

As others have pointed out, you should read Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145), 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (specifically rejecting the argument that polygamy is protected by the First Amendment) and Employment Division v. Smith (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=494&invol=872), 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (holding that the First Amendment DOES NOT bar application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action).



And what evidence do you have that being rescued from servitude and rape is more traumatic than servitude and rape?



No, you are wrong here. See Employment Division v. Smith (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=494&invol=872), 494 U.S. 872 (1990).



The rest of your analysis is completely on point. Well done.

I'd just add that the law in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/520.html), 508 U.S. 520 (1993) was invalid precisely because it targeted a particular religion's practices and was not a neutral, generally applicable law.



No. That was not the holding, as I just explained above.



Um. You think enforcing a neutral, generally applicable law violates the separation of Church and State, but send in mainstream christian missionaries to proselytize does not. You would set the First Amendment on its head.



That is such an oversimplification that it is false, as explained in the cases cited above.



Your reading of Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is just as ridiculous as your reading of the First Amendment caselaw. [I]Lawrence had nothing to do with the First Amendment and was decided on the grounds of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether the law in question was religiously motivated or "forc[ed] your beliefs on someone else" had nothing to do with it.



Bah. You simply don't understand what the separation of Church and State means. It is not a "get out of jail free" card for anyone whose crimes are alleged to be religiously motivated.



This country was explicitly founded on the separation of Church and State, not on religious doctrine.

Pointing to two minor violations of the separation of Church and State is not evidence of the lack of such a principle, but rather that it is not followed as rigorously as it could be in all cases.





Bullshit. What exactly is your basis for alleging this "consensus" that goes directly against Supreme Court precedent?



Bullshit again, as Bottle, Bitchkitten, and others have explained. You simply don't know what you are talking about.



Um. Even if your rather ridiculous notions of harm and marriage were correct, you seem to be ignoring the facts of the actual practices alleged by the individuals in this case. The young women were mistreated.



It is not consensual as a matter of law. It is therefore rape.

And, no, children cannot consent to sex -- particularly with adults.



A distinction without difference. In fact, most states treat "statutory" rape as simply one way of proving the lack of consent constituting rape.

QFT

However, none of this is going to have any effect on the people you are responding to... :(

Don't worry guys, I made fun of my Mormon friend today.

So you are, in fact, still in school, yes? What grade, out of interest?
When I first posted, it was like, 3pm, after school. And I DO mind the question about the Grade, not giving out ANY personal Info. Besides my school's. They can go away...


They're a breakaway sect of Mormons, which means the longest history they could reasonably trace is about 200 years. Practically speaking, it's probably about 70. That's all irrelevant though --- in the US, it doesn't matter if it's part of your religion, breaking the law is prohibited.
It's not realy that I was talking about like, the Religion or w/e. It's the Idea of more then 1 wife, having a Child wife. Look at the early Periods of China!

I'm sorry, but these sects treat women like chattel. The women are slaves in everything but name, and they have no choice in the matter. They're under age, and they are thoroughly controlled by their fathers, who marry them off like bargaining chips.

These people violated the law. Their rights to practice their religion do not override the rights of those girls not to get raped. Hence, they are lawbreakers.

In the united states that is not grounds for banning or sacriliging the religion or its temples. It's grounds for arresting the people who committed the rape. Not for engaging in religious persecution.

The anti-pedophilia mob seems to be saying that pedophilia can be used by the government to legitimately ban religions. I am saying that under no circumstances can any religion be banned or prohibited in the US. Nor does the government have the power to restrict religious practices that result directly in physical or mental harm to a victim.

The ban on rape can be enforced because it meets the criteria, but the ban of a religion and the desecration of its temple do not meet that criteria.

The government must bend over backward, something they did in this case unlike with Waco, to accomodate a group's religious doctrine.

How about we send some SWAT to go smash in the churches in your nieghbor hood to smash the altar and overturn pews, and rip up pages of the bible and then smash holes in the walls of the church to look for an imaginary victim of priest abuse?

Then after we're done, we ban the christian religion and ban its members from ever again having children around.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-08-polygamy_N.htm

Their high crime was that their religion allowed 13 year olds to marry 50 year olds. The only problem was they were forced marriages.

Looks like the other Mormon fundies are not even supporting these guys.

I can understand the problem with forced marriages. I can understand people going to jail for rape.

But to destroy over 400 families just because you don't like their religious way of life?

Many of us our cheering on the fact that no pedi is safe. But now it looks more and more like that is not what brought this raid on.

The "16 year old" victim is starting to look more and more like a fictitious person used as a ruse to trample religious rights.

Now they are demanding to send armed thugs inside a temple to defile it?

This means we should beware those who wave "get the pedos" flag. They may have ulterior motives.

I say Yahoo! for taking care of the pedophiles. But attempting against a person´s (in the case, community) right to worship is attempting against one of the fundamental rights of all human beings. It´s sad.

pffff, I know a ton of kids at the age of 12 who've actualy had Consensual sex


How would you know if your not a /b/ browser yourself?
And no, I'm not drooling, probly just you thinking of some 6 year olds...

Knock it off.

In the united states that is not grounds for banning or sacriliging the religion or its temples. It's grounds for arresting the people who committed the rape. Not for engaging in religious persecution.


Let me put it this way. How about I sacrifice you to the goddess Kali? Or one of the Aztec ones. The tenets of the faith require regular human sacrifice. Let's put an addendum to it too. Only white male Christians can be sacrificed. Every member is required to sacrifice at least one white male Christian every other week.

I guess it shouldn't be illegal then. I'll go get my carving knife.

Science says you are wrong. The adolescent brain indeed works differently. The myelin sheath in the white matter doesn't finish coating the decision making forebrain until 18-20 years old. Many neurotransmitters responsible for judgement and impulse control are not in full swing yet. So the adolescent brain is different.

You are talking about the physical development which doesn't amount to very much when it comes to intelligence or ability to reason.

Wrong.


Changes in brain size really aren't that significant, all told, when it comes to human development. In terms of the cerebral surface, the human brain is basically "adult sized" by 2 years of age. However, the normal human brain will not be neurochemically or structurally completed until about 20 years old.


Wrong. The brain of a 13 year old is neurochemically and structurally quite different from the brain of a 25 year old.

No, this does not mean that a 13 year old will always make bad choices. No, this does not mean that a 25 year old will always make good choices. But yes, it does mean that it would be profoundly silly to place the same expectations on the brain of a 13 year old that one places on the brain of a 25 year old.


Don't confuse colloquial use of the word "maturity" with the scientific/neurological use of that term.

Neurologically speaking, a normal 25 year old human has a mature central nervous system, while a 13 year old does not. Whether or not the presence of a mature CNS actually leads to what we define as socially mature behavior is a whole other story.


Wrong.


Wrong.


I'm sure there will always be people who pose arguments like the ones you have introduced, because there will always be people who would rather make false, uninformed assertions than actually do some reading. Fortunately, there are also a healthy number of folks who will acquaint themselves with fundamental facts BEFORE trying to push ill-conceived laws onto the books.


Very, very wrong, and also deeply sick and disturbing.


Marriage is not neutral. Perhaps in theory it could be, but it never has been. It is naive to claim that marital relationships in our culture are neutral, or that a marital relationship between an adult male and a female child could somehow magically be a neutral one.

The physical development of the brain is uncomplete until around the age of 30. That is when development actually stops and the brain supposedly starts shrinking.
Social maturity was precisely what I was referring, not the physical maturity. Being physically mature whether in body or in brain does not make you any wiser intellectually or socially. Of course most 13 year old girls do lack social maturity. Hence a good reason why their rights are restricted. I also favor restricting the rights of 20 to 29 year olds who are unable to behavior or reason in a socially mature manner.

You are the one bringing up physical development as if it were the only thing that makes a person a person. There are nonphysical qualities that matter a lot more than the physical. One of them is called personality.

You think marriage is sick and disturbing?

Wait, did you seriously just ask whether we'd support a raid on a compound that forcibly impregnates women against their wishes?

What answer were you expecting exactly?

The one from redwulf was the correct one if you are willing to apply the rules equally and fairly.

I was asking if you would apply a different standard on the basis of the age of the victims. Redwulf said no, and Bottle seems to be saying yes but it's hard to tell.

So I'll repeat the question. If all the victims were 25 instead of 13, and they were being treated in the same manner as the 13 year olds in the San Angelo case, would you still support the state raiding the compound?

pfft, this just looks like an arguement with sensible people who acknowledge the state has a right to stop forced marriages with underaged girls and pedophile aplogists who insist that at least "in some circumstances" it is like "totally ok" to have sex with 13 yr old girls. What bullshit

pfft, this just looks like an arguement with sensible people who acknowledge the state has a right to stop forced marriages with underaged girls and pedophile aplogists who insist that at least "in some circumstances" it is like "totally ok" to have sex with 13 yr old girls. What bullshit

In Germany it is ok to have sex with 14 year olds.
If there is no relation of dependency of any kind.

In Germany it is ok to have sex with 14 year olds.
If there is no relation of dependency of any kind.

bastards should move there then, be a dream come true

I was asking if you would apply a different standard on the basis of the age of the victims.

...

If all the victims were 25 instead of 13, and they were being treated in the same manner as the 13 year olds in the San Angelo case, would you still support the state raiding the compound?

It would obviously (and I want to emphasize the word "obviously" here) depend on whether the 25-year-old women were participating consensually. If so, then no, they're adults and can make their own decisions. If not, then yes, the state has an obvious interest in preventing and punishing rape.

Here's the point you seem not to be comprehending: That distinction is utterly meaningless when it comes to 13 year olds. They are not capable of consenting to sex. Ever. Sex without consent is rape. Always. Am I getting through at all?

Am I getting through at all?

Apparently not.

Apparently not.

You're taking the fall for this one.

So I'll repeat the question. If all the victims were 25 instead of 13, and they were being treated in the same manner as the 13 year olds in the San Angelo case, would you still support the state raiding the compound?

Slavery is still slavery, regardless of age, gender or race. You don't get to break the laws claiming religious freedom. The San Angelo case is clearly gender biased slavery. They just don't use iron chains.

You're taking the fall for this one.

'Tis better to be guilty than impotent.

In the united states that is not grounds for banning or sacriliging the religion or its temples. It's grounds for arresting the people who committed the rape. Not for engaging in religious persecution.

The anti-pedophilia mob seems to be saying that pedophilia can be used by the government to legitimately ban religions. I am saying that under no circumstances can any religion be banned or prohibited in the US. Nor does the government have the power to restrict religious practices that result directly in physical or mental harm to a victim.

The ban on rape can be enforced because it meets the criteria, but the ban of a religion and the desecration of its temple do not meet that criteria.

The government must bend over backward, something they did in this case unlike with Waco, to accomodate a group's religious doctrine.

How about we send some SWAT to go smash in the churches in your nieghbor hood to smash the altar and overturn pews, and rip up pages of the bible and then smash holes in the walls of the church to look for an imaginary victim of priest abuse?

Then after we're done, we ban the christian religion and ban its members from ever again having children around.

The government is not banning this religion. It is not a crime to be a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We are merely arresting those members who are criminals, and searching their community for evidence. There is evidence that the child marriages were consummated in the church itself, which makes the church a crime scene.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f288/nodnyl10/objection.gif
Who says it is RAPE, who said it ISN'T Consensual, Even though they are KIDS, that are still HUMANS, and can make THEIR OWN decisions damnit. I don't know why people get SO upset about this load of bull.

P.S.: to the "Pedo" S*** YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS HALF OF YOU. You don't know WHAT it means until you visit 4chan.org, under the "Random" Board, AKA /b/

that's....just wrong.

if those allegations are true and can be proven, there should be dozens of adults going to prison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/11raid.html

The top floor of the temple was used for sexually consecrating the marriages.
But no charges will be filed because they are worried about violating civil and religious rights of the group.

Chalk up a victory for religious freedom.

pffff, I know a ton of kids at the age of 12 who've actualy had Consensual sex


How would you know if your not a /b/ browser yourself?
And no, I'm not drooling, probly just you thinking of some 6 year olds...

May I inquire how many 12 year olds you know who willingly and deliberately go around seeking to shack up with 50 year old men??? Let alone 18 year old men????

12 year olds with 12 year olds does happen but I have never heard of a 12 year old getting busy with a 50 year old. Except in the case of certain religious cults.

Oh, I'm not arguing that. It's rape - just a particular kind of rape.

a particular kind of rape? Talk about semantics. Rape is rape. All rape should have the same punishment: death.

Why are there lawyers who are willing to defend an organization of child rapists? This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

what lawyers????? Talking about those civil rights lawyers???? They're doing their job which is to defend people's civil rights regardless what we might think of those people.

Don't know what clock YOUR running, but I get out at 2, NOT 5



It's not an Organization of Child RAPISTS. It's a Religion, heck, it's been a BELIEF, that's most likely been with us SINCE we first walked earth!

wait... how old are you???

I was watching some of the women who got out of this cult before they moved to this compound tell their life-stories. I did not doubt their honesty. Whether any of the current perpetrators will end up successfully prosecuted of course remains to be seen.

I have, of course, also seen false child-molestation accusations. Those cases are terrible, too.

Such as the false accusation against and unjustified warrant for the arrest of the gentleman in Arizona in connection with the cause of the raid, despite the fact that Arizona authorities have proven that the gentleman has not been in Texas for 30 years. Texas issued the warrant anyway.
Nice one. eh.

The one from redwulf was the correct one if you are willing to apply the rules equally and fairly.

I was asking if you would apply a different standard on the basis of the age of the victims. Redwulf said no, and Bottle seems to be saying yes but it's hard to tell.


Realign your sarcasm detector, it's on the blink again.

I say Yahoo! for taking care of the pedophiles. But attempting against a person´s (in the case, community) right to worship is attempting against one of the fundamental rights of all human beings. It´s sad.

Unfortunately they desecrated a sacred site for nothing. They terrorized a whole community for nothing. Because no charges are being filed.

Is the state going to pay for the repairs for the temple???? They vandalized it so I believe they should have to pay to fix it.

Let me put it this way. How about I sacrifice you to the goddess Kali? Or one of the Aztec ones. The tenets of the faith require regular human sacrifice. Let's put an addendum to it too. Only white male Christians can be sacrificed. Every member is required to sacrifice at least one white male Christian every other week.

I guess it shouldn't be illegal then. I'll go get my carving knife.

As others have noted, it the act is violent you can outlaw it and the law would be enforceable. But you cannot ban a religion just because that religion teaches that human sacrifice is a required tenet. You can only ban the act of sacrifice, not the preaching of it.

In Germany it is ok to have sex with 14 year olds.
If there is no relation of dependency of any kind.

yes. but if you from the USA and you go to Germany and you have sex with 14 year old. When you return to the USA you can be prosecuted as a child molestor for having sex with the 14 year old even though you broke no laws in Germany where the act took place.

It would obviously (and I want to emphasize the word "obviously" here) depend on whether the 25-year-old women were participating consensually. If so, then no, they're adults and can make their own decisions. If not, then yes, the state has an obvious interest in preventing and punishing rape.

Here's the point you seem not to be comprehending: That distinction is utterly meaningless when it comes to 13 year olds. They are not capable of consenting to sex. Ever. Sex without consent is rape. Always. Am I getting through at all?

Says you according to your own preconcieved cultural notions. As confirmed by other posters, there are nations where 13 year olds are old enough to consent. The idea 13 year olds all being a bunch of retarded invalids unable to make their own decisions is not universally held by our fellows on planet earth. The US does not make up the majority of the world either in population
nor in geography.

The primary thing is that in the US we have chosen to declare that all 13 year olds are invalids. Supposedly you are an invalid until you turn 18 and on some issues 21. Using this reasoning we deprive 16 year olds of their right to vote. We deprive people under 18 of their right to protest issues that are important to them.

We americans have a long history of preaching religious liberty and civil rights while denying those same rights to whole groups of people on the basis of age, religion, race, even sexual orientation.

EDIT: I forgot gender.

The government is not banning this religion. It is not a crime to be a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We are merely arresting those members who are criminals, and searching their community for evidence. There is evidence that the child marriages were consummated in the church itself, which makes the church a crime scene.

Except that the only 2 people arrested were arrested not for child molesting or supporting child molesting. They were arrested for interfering with a lawful investigation.

Again, no charges are being filed in the case and no arrests are being made in connection with the child molestation accusations.

Still, I would have preferred some arrests so the courts could make some case history on the subject.

Realign your sarcasm detector, it's on the blink again.

Heh heh. that's why I said its hard to tell. We seemed to be talking apples and oranges.

<snip>Our culture is no better than theres. <snip>

hmmmm.... Relativism rears its ugly head.

As I understand it , the argument is as follows:

1. Adults were engaging in sexual intercourse with minors, but that's permitted by their religion without government interference.

2. The laws say that adults having sex with minors is illegal, but the religious wierdos claim the right to practice their religion.

3. The question then boils down to a question of government versus people, majority culture versus minority sect, and the question of the age of adulthood.

I have heard that this sect believes that they must father as many children as possible and live according to their teachings in order to become gods of their own universes. They need their wives from Earth to bear spirit children to populate their own 'earth' when they become gods. If true, that's pretty freaky, but it's not really my business to force them away from that belief.

If all religions and societies are equal and there can be no moral value differentiation between any groups, everything these wierdos did was OK. If it's the government's job to determine the age of consent, it has the power to enforce those determinations with any force necessary. I think the proper response lies somewhere short of the latter, but I don't feel comfortable with the former.

Are rights granted by government, or are rights inherent and government only tramples them? What is a crime? Is a crime defined as violating a statute or is a crime only committed when you violate the right of another human to life, liberty, or property? At what point does a child become an adult, and who has the authority to make that determination?

As others have noted, it the act is violent you can outlaw it and the law would be enforceable. But you cannot ban a religion just because that religion teaches that human sacrifice is a required tenet. You can only ban the act of sacrifice, not the preaching of it.

Right, so what's the problem here then? The sect has been found to be practicing illegal acts, and has been shut down pending apprehension of suspects and evidence gathering. It's hardly the state's fault that the majority of the sect has been found to be lawbreakers.

Right, so what's the problem here then? The sect has been found to be practicing illegal acts, and has been shut down pending apprehension of suspects and evidence gathering. It's hardly the state's fault that the majority of the sect has been found to be lawbreakers.

Well..... if the authorities had found that laws were broken, which they did, and that it did not matter what the religions preached, they would have pressed charges. Yet no charges were pressed in connection with the underage sex incidents which they do have evidence of. Why? Because the state, as required, is bending over backward to accomodate a group's sincerely held religious beliefs by granting them an exemption from prosecution.

Note: Non of the so called child molesters are going to be charged or arrested. And that 16 year old girl who made the call could still turn out to be some prank caller from Seattle Washington.

ABC News: Texas Authorities Defend Sect Raid
(http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4624191)

There's apparently a bed in the "temple" to skip straight to the "honeymoon" after the "wedding":

Doran said it was not until after the raid began that he learned that the sect was, in fact, marrying off underage girls at the compound and had a bed in its soaring limestone temple where the girls were required to immediately consummate their marriages. Also, investigators say a number of teenage girls there are pregnant.


And on the "husband" of the 16-year old whose phone call triggered the raid:

The man alleged to be the 16-year-old girl's husband, Dale Barlow, is a registered sex offender who pleaded no contest to having sex with a minor in Arizona.

You know, it's not a good thing when you can say the UnitedStatesofAmerica- condones and tolerates statutory rape with a straight face. Much as this is the equivalent of a Godwin, had this been a Muslim splinter group busted for the exact same thing, would we read USoA bringing up the Freedom of Religion card in defense? I'd say Hell No.

Many of us our cheering on the fact that no pedi is safe. But now it looks more and more like that is not what brought this raid on.

The "16 year old" victim is starting to look more and more like a fictitious person used as a ruse to trample religious rights.

Now they are demanding to send armed thugs inside a temple to defile it?

This means we should beware those who wave "get the pedos" flag. They may have ulterior motives.

Proof of this assertion, please. The article you linked makes no mention of your theory.

Certain sects of vodun sacrifice chickens, but it's done in a completely humane way. Aside from those, no religion does so.

There are some villages in Greece which practice animal sacrifice...it's not really canon, but it's tolerated. Santeria and other similar forms of religion also practice animal sacrifice.

There are, of course, a number of cults who practice animal sacrifice, but these are rarely even associated with a true religion. Historically, however, animal sacrifice (and human sacrifice) have both been used widely as a form of religious duty.

A list of age of consent worldwide can be found at: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

A number of countries do not appear to have an age of consent, and a number of countries list 13 (or lower) as their age of consent. Historically, it is only in recent times that the law has concerned itself with an age of consent. With better medical treatment and a much higher rate of conception and survival through childbirth, it is feasible to give girls a longer period of time before they're expected (at least within a societal expectation) to bear children. Certainly, before medicine was able to answer the need, it was probably more logical to breed young and often, as death of either the child or mother (or both) was relatively common, and survival of the child to adulthood and breeding age was another critical issue.

With all this being said, in the USA there is an age of consent, and within the state of Texas there is an age of consent. Freedom of religion carries groups only so far. When laws are broken, the religious freedom ends, especially when it violates the rights of members of that religion, or other members of the general public.

And, with that being said, I think this raid is probably a failure right from the start. These children have been indoctrinated into this religion from birth. Throughout their formative years, they have been taught only one way of life, and one religious viewpoint. Simply taking them and putting them into foster care will not solve the issue. For the majority, even extensive therapy and psychological care will not resolve the issue. These children will grow up to form or join groups exactly like the one they left, with the exception that they will be even more restrictive, in order to keep their ways private.

There is no easy solution to this problem, both directions lead to major problems which cannot be reconciled.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131379/?GT1=43002

Interesting newsweek article on the matter. The only one that actually goes into quiet some depth.

"no one has been arrested for the allegations of abuse or neglect."

The removal of the children isn't even permanent:

"taking 416 children during their six-day sweep of the complex into temporary state custody

I'm assuming that temporary means that most of the children will be returned except that ones who were forcibly raped.

What the case was about:

"Members of the group and their sympathizers have long argued that they are persecuted because of their religious beliefs."

Here's the thing that makes this religious persecution:

"Texas Rep. Harvey Hilderbran of Kerrville, alarmed by reports from Eldorado, the Utah attorney general and sect members who had fled the group, helped push new legislation into law in 2005 that raised the legal age of consent to marry in Texas from 14 to 16, that made it illegal for stepparents to marry their children and made officiates liable for performing illegal wedding ceremonies. "We didn't want to facilitate the things we knew they had been involved in before, including child abuse, sexual abuse, forced marriages, that were clearly detrimental to the safety and welfare of children,"

This law was directly aimed at restricting the practices of one religious group. Before 2005, the age of consent in Texas was 14. When the many of the 14 and 15 year olds were married to the men in the cult, the age of consent in Texas was 14. The law was changed because a legislator and some locals did not like the group's religious beliefs or practices. Clear cut religious persecution.

"." The early marriages are also a means of control. In some cases, girls who show independence and a precocious interest in boys become young brides in the group's belief that the new husband will exert a strong guiding hand."

Sounds like the marriages were more about imposing discipline than about sex crazed pedies out to prey violently on victims.

"They appeared to be loving, if incredibly naive, parents, who didn't know what crayons were used for." speaking of the parents.

"Pastor Andy Anderson of First Baptist Church, which temporarily housed some of the group. He and leaders of all the churches in town, which far outnumber restaurants, had been waiting for years for this chance to minister to them in Christ's name."

So the state took them to mainstream churches to be prosylitized.

""We have been trying very hard to be sensitive to the folks at the ranch … trying to be sensitive to their concerns about their holy places. So we have been much more diplomatic with them than we typically are when we are serving any other search warrant."
The police executing the raid recognized their own obligation to bend over backward to respect the groups religious rights.

""I knew these girls would be just terrified," she said. "They are being exposed for the first time to mainstream society."
It ok to terrify large groups of people just to get one pedi....

"it had become increasingly isolated and bizarre under Jeffs, who had already taken control by the time his father died in 2002. The new leader banned the color red and made members execute all their dogs, for instance. He started reassigning wives and children to men in better standing, sometimes casting the husbands out with no more explanation than "repent from afar."
It must be said that if the marriages were really sanctioned by the religion, Jeffs would not just arbitrarily go around cancelling marriages just so he could give the girls to richer men.

The article also says that authorities have found no evidence of violence any where on the compound.

"they had removed all the children at the ranch. Some in Eldorado predict that most will be returned to their parents"

Read that the children will be returned to their parents at the compound.

Well..... if the authorities had found that laws were broken, which they did, and that it did not matter what the religions preached, they would have pressed charges. Yet no charges were pressed in connection with the underage sex incidents which they do have evidence of. Why? Because the state, as required, is bending over backward to accomodate a group's sincerely held religious beliefs by granting them an exemption from prosecution.


The raid has acquired much evidence. Charges apparently will be leveled.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4624191


Note: Non of the so called child molesters are going to be charged or arrested. And that 16 year old girl who made the call could still turn out to be some prank caller from Seattle Washington.

You keep flinging that option as if you're hoping it is true. Is it because you actually want her to be fictitious? Your motives are suspect.

ABC News: Texas Authorities Defend Sect Raid
(http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4624191)

There's apparently a bed in the "temple" to skip straight to the "honeymoon" after the "wedding":




And on the "husband" of the 16-year old whose phone call triggered the raid:



You know, it's not a good thing when you can say the UnitedStatesofAmerica- condones and tolerates statutory rape with a straight face. Much as this is the equivalent of a Godwin, had this been a Muslim splinter group busted for the exact same thing, would we read USoA bringing up the Freedom of Religion card in defense? I'd say Hell No.
Your interpretation of events is way out in left field.

First of all, regarding the supposed husband of the complainent. Texas authorities admit they do not know who he is. But Arizona says that the man originally accused of the crime, has not been to Texas in 30 years. Not to mention he was on parole in Az for a while and reported every week to his parole officer. Hence any attempt to connect him to the scene of the crime fails.

Second of all, as stated in earlier posts, not just my own posts but those of other posters as well, the age of consent is not universal. In Texas the age of consent was 14 but then changed to 16 because the legislature did not like the preachings of this particular religious group.

Third, had this been a muslim cult, I would still be making the same arguments. Religious freedom applies to everyone of all religions.
In fact, some muslims in the US do have multiple wives despite the bans on polygamy. For some of them it is part of their religious faith. That is why the states are not going after them.

This case is not about statutory rape, it's about religious persecution and whether religious persecution is ever justified.

... so you're fine with 13 year olds marrying 50 year olds if it's consensual?

Yes.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-08-polygamy_N.htm

Their high crime was that their religion allowed 13 year olds to marry 50 year olds. The only problem was they were forced marriages.

Looks like the other Mormon fundies are not even supporting these guys.

I can understand the problem with forced marriages. I can understand people going to jail for rape.

But to destroy over 400 families just because you don't like their religious way of life?

Many of us our cheering on the fact that no pedi is safe. But now it looks more and more like that is not what brought this raid on.

The "16 year old" victim is starting to look more and more like a fictitious person used as a ruse to trample religious rights.

Now they are demanding to send armed thugs inside a temple to defile it?

This means we should beware those who wave "get the pedos" flag. They may have ulterior motives.

The caller may simply have chosen to remain anonymous. The feds came, the problem ended.

Fuck these incestuous mormons. Religious rights are one thing, but the first amendment does not give you an excuse to: 1. Be a child molester, and 2. Force people into marriages.

Allowing 50 year olds to marry 13 year olds is inexcusable. It is a high crime.

Yes.

Why stop at 13? 8 works too, I guess. Or is it an "if there's grass on the field: play ball" sort of thing?

:rolleyes:

No, it's not the same at all. Not in the least. These people are living within the boundaries of the United States. As such, they are subject to United States law. The United states does not have legal authority, in the least, over Saudi Arabia. As such, we cannot enforce our laws upon people within that country.

Look up Sovereignty.

Sovereignty? Fuck that, we're America!

USA!
USA!

Science says you are wrong. The adolescent brain indeed works differently. The myelin sheath in the white matter doesn't finish coating the decision making forebrain until 18-20 years old. Many neurotransmitters responsible for judgement and impulse control are not in full swing yet. So the adolescent brain is different.

What the hell is this? Take your facts and GTFO plox, knowledge is only going to get in the way of this debate. :P

They're children. As a matter of law, that makes it rape. Whether they wanted it or not.



Well, we all know where you come from. Explains the posting style.

And the drool.....

/b/ can be amusing.

snip

This is not 4chan. In case you haven't noticed, you're not anonymous on this board. While I myself enjoy being an asshole on the chans and related sites, posting in the /b/ style is a bit of stupid move here.

The fact that there is even a DEBATE on this is why i hate lefthearts..sorry in the case of anyone that defends these freaks..Leftardism. Religions are bad plain and simple. I dont know one religious leader who isnt scum and doesnt use their religion for their own ends. These sickos were marrying 13 year old girls FORCIBLY. Mormon polygamist colonies are SICK and twisted and need to be wiped out just as assuredly as the muslim communities that force cousins to marry cousins and even half sisters and brothers to marry. Arrest them all. Screw the constition. It was meant to protect law abiding citizens. Not sicko's who if they werent hiding behind their religion would be strung up by a mob.

Remember these are the same colonies where young men that arent the FAVOURED sons of the old men that run it are run out at gun point or even killed so the old men can have their way with the little girls.

The fact that there is even a DEBATE on this is why i hate lefthearts..sorry in the case of anyone that defends these freaks..Leftardism. Religions are bad plain and simple. I dont know one religious leader who isnt scum and doesnt use their religion for their own ends. These sickos were marrying 13 year old girls FORCIBLY. Mormon polygamist colonies are SICK and twisted and need to be wiped out just as assuredly as the muslim communities that force cousins to marry cousins and even half sisters and brothers to marry. Arrest them all.

Left? I'd say it's because of the religious right you have that problem in the first place ^^ And besides which, there isn't a functional left in the US and most of the people who declare themselves to be on the left has spoken out vehemently against this (since, you know, lefties like freedom and this clearly ain't freedom - quite the opposite).

Screw the constition. It was meant to protect law abiding citizens. Not sicko's who if they werent hiding behind their religion would be strung up by a mob.

Wrong, but it doesn't matter. The constitution of the US doesn't need to be broken to arrest these people and charge them with crimes.

These people have every right to belive whatever they want, but the rights of their fath end where the tip of the 50 year old's man-parts ends and the 13 year old's lady-parts begin. The US Government has always had a hard line stance on cults, well except for $cientology, and has done much to destroy them. It is important that we don't allow religious freedom to become a shield for pedarists, or any other group that wishes to break the law for religious purpouses.

Except that the only 2 people arrested were arrested not for child molesting or supporting child molesting. They were arrested for interfering with a lawful investigation.

Again, no charges are being filed in the case and no arrests are being made in connection with the child molestation accusations.

Still, I would have preferred some arrests so the courts could make some case history on the subject.

they wont arrest anyone on rape, bigamy, child abuse, etc charges until they review the results of the raid and interview the children and their mothers. they wont file charges until they are sure that they can convict whoever they charge. (sure in their own minds, reality depends on the actual court proceedings) its premature to think that there is something wrong because no one was arrested.

These people have every right to belive whatever they want, but the rights of their fath end where the tip of the 50 year old's man-parts ends and the 13 year old's lady-parts begin. The US Government has always had a hard line stance on cults, well except for $cientology, and has done much to destroy them. It is important that we don't allow religious freedom to become a shield for pedarists, or any other group that wishes to break the law for religious purpouses.What are you talking about? The United States is up to its ears in cults. You know this particular group of lunatics goes back generations right?

Says you according to your own preconcieved cultural notions. As confirmed by other posters, there are nations where 13 year olds are old enough to consent. The idea 13 year olds all being a bunch of retarded invalids unable to make their own decisions is not universally held by our fellows on planet earth. The US does not make up the majority of the world either in population
nor in geography.

<remaining irrelevant bullshit snipped>

So let me get this straight... your argument is "Some cultures are okay with raping children, and that's good enough for me!" Never mind that many of the countries you'd cite also lack, for example, basic date-rape laws.

Age of consent laws aren't some culturally elitist expression of our society's views, they're a recognition of scientific fact about child development. I'd love to see you find even one credible psychological or neurological theory that supports your outlook on consent from children.