NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

I was referring more to the busts of the 70s. It is true that since then, the leftist government has been blinded to the existance and threat cults represent.

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.

Pray tell, what's wrong with a little light-hearted posting? I could see it being an asshole if any of my post had been made with the slightest bit of seriousness.

I mean seriously, even an admitted /b/tard is defending the pedophiles. What the hell does that say about the atmosphere in this thread?

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

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



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.

No where in the article you linked to does it say that charges are being leveled against anyone. Nor does it say that charges will be leveled.

The article was about why they didn't do the raid earlier. Nice try.

Yes.

why would a 50 year old want to marry a 13 year old?????

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?

As far back as 1890 at least. That's older than your grandma and it would make them a legit religious group.

How about we go around vandalizing mainstream christian churches? I don't like what they teach. I don't like the fact they practice what they teach.

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.

I'm not arguing rape. I'm arguing that American values against marrying 13 year old girls is not a universal value. This is not about science. It's about social cultural realities. And most of them do have laws against date rape. Every nation has a law that bans rape.

Age of consent is not necessarily elitist but it is very very much dependent on culture.

And no they are not based on science. US laws on age of consent predate science and were based on American christian moral views. Just because science is now revealing how the brain develops, does not change the fact that US AOC laws were originally based off of religious moral views.

US laws on age of consent predate science and were based on American christian moral views.
Why do you say "christian"? Christianity was among those cultures which had no particular problem with marrying off girls young; there is nothing in the Bible against it. It is arch-Christians (beyond the pale of mainstream Christianity because they are more, rather than less, like the archaic Christianity), rather, who try to preserve this (to my mind, primitive and savage) custom of forcing girls into marriages as soon as they hit puberty.

And no they are not based on science. US laws on age of consent predate science and were based on American christian moral views. Just because science is now revealing how the brain develops, does not change the fact that US AOC laws were originally based off of religious moral views.

Absolutely not. As others have mentioned, Christianity has traditionally had few scruples about marrying off youngsters. America's age of consent laws are based on Enlightenment ideals of personal autonomy and respect for human dignity. They were not based on Christian values of female submission to men.

As far back as 1890 at least. That's older than your grandma and it would make them a legit religious group.

How about we go around vandalizing mainstream christian churches? I don't like what they teach. I don't like the fact they practice what they teach.

And if they're breaking the law, the government can and will do exactly the same thing they did here. Unfortunately for you, they aren't, and these guys were. Just give it up, seriously.

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.

You know what's the funniest thing about this? It's a right-winger who is defending this cult on the forum, and the forum leftists are generally out for blood in this case.

So tone down your "them vs. us" rhetoric.

I am not Shao-Kal, but I am his girlfriend, and I wanted to speak, so he's letting me type this part.

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.

It must be so wonderful to be psychic. To know everything about everyone.

Time for a splash of cold water in your face.

I'm 25 now. I've never been married, and I don't want to get married, so I cannot speak of that except to say that most adults I know are not mature enough to get married. Look at the 50% divorce rate in this country.

When it comes to teenagers being ready for 'adult relationships', though, you really don't seem to know know what you're talking about. I started having sex at 13, and I was mature enough to know what I was doing. I was the one who decided when to have sex, and I was usually the one who initiated sex with my partners, whom were almost all adult men. I was responsible. I made sure that protection was used and all.

And you know what? I turned out just fine. I'm wasn't scarred for life or anything. I don't have a moment's regret.

I support this case though. Most teens really aren't ready for marriage, and I find the whole idea of arranged marriages to be sick.

I turning this over to the right person. Bye.

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

Shao-Kal here. Now that that is taken care of, I would like to ask all who posted in this thread to do something for me. Break out a dictionary and look up the prefix 'ped-', please.

The prefix Ped is from the Greek, and is in reference to children. Hence, a child's doctor is a pediatrician. 'Ped' referencing child, and the suffix 'iatrician' refering to medicine and medical care.

The suffix 'phile' in pedophile is used to decribe a tendency towards or a liking for. Therefore, pedophilia is a sexual tendency towards children.

Let us stop for a minute and define child. In the eyes of most people, a child refers to a human being before adolecence and, therfore, before the onset of puberty.

Since we are dealing with girls who most definately do NOT fall into the pre-pubescent range, then the definition of pedophile is incorrect.

The correct definition, by the way, is Ephebopilia or hebephilia. The suffix Hebe comes from a the Greek, a reference to the goddess Hebe, goddess of youth (i.e. adolecents). It is from her Roman equivalent, Juventis, that we get the term juvenile, a reference to teenagers as well.

So, the CORRECT terms are ephebophiles or hebephiles. And up until relatively recently in the 20th century, teenage marriages were common and socially acceptable.

However, I would agree that, today, most teenagers are genuinely mature enough to consent to marriage, and I do not object to this raid.

By the way, I do not know if it has been clarified or not already, as I have not read the thread in it's entirety, but I wanted to point out that marijuana usage IS allowed for religious reasons. Ask any Rastafarian. The Supreme Court declared their use of pot, as per their religious demands, to be legal.

As far back as 1890 at least. That's older than your grandma and it would make them a legit religious group.

The Thuggees go back even further, and are considered a dangerous cult - and rightly so.

Why do you say "christian"? Christianity was among those cultures which had no particular problem with marrying off girls young; there is nothing in the Bible against it. It is arch-Christians (beyond the pale of mainstream Christianity because they are more, rather than less, like the archaic Christianity), rather, who try to preserve this (to my mind, primitive and savage) custom of forcing girls into marriages as soon as they hit puberty.

I say christian in the modern sense, not the first century ad sense. Mainstream christianity claims that the Bible bans polygamy. As you have rightfully noted, there is no such ban in the Bible.
In fact, the scripture passage that is used by mainstream christians preaching a biblical ban on polygamy, actually refers to leaders of the church such as priests, deacons, elders, etc. It says if you are a christian and you are a leader you can have only one wife. It no where says that all christians are banned from having more than one wife.
Unfortunately, while the US was supposed to have seperation of church and state, the mainstream christians made their misinterpretation of the Bible into actual law where it remains today. Not just on polygamy mind you, but also on Sodomy, adultery, abortion, etc. Some of these laws are only now being struck down as unconstitutional in one way or another.
The sodomy, adultery, and abortion laws have all been struck down whether as a violation of privacy or as a violation of individual freedom they all violated the seperation of church and state.

Polygamy laws will soon follow laws against abortion and adultery into the scrap heap of history.
Because they are unconstitutional.

On a side note, when the sect gets their kids back, it would be prudent for them to leave US territory if they want to continue practicing their faith without being persecuted.

Absolutely not. As others have mentioned, Christianity has traditionally had few scruples about marrying off youngsters. America's age of consent laws are based on Enlightenment ideals of personal autonomy and respect for human dignity. They were not based on Christian values of female submission to men.

You might want to read up the biographies of the men who wrote the age of consent laws. The laws were passed to enforce religious morality. These men knew nothing of enlightenment because the vast majority were not even well educated. The most they'd had was an elementary school education.

And if they're breaking the law, the government can and will do exactly the same thing they did here. Unfortunately for you, they aren't, and these guys were. Just give it up, seriously.

Hmmm. They had many chances to do that with the Catholic Church priest abuse scandals. I know of no Catholic churches that were busted into or vandalized by authorities.
Why? Might it have something to do with Catholicism being considered mainstream and the FLDS church being considered occultic?

You know what's the funniest thing about this? It's a right-winger who is defending this cult on the forum, and the forum leftists are generally out for blood in this case.

So tone down your "them vs. us" rhetoric.

Funny thing is I'm attracting hits from the left and the right. LOL.


The right because they are morally outraged. And they think the Bible bans marriage for 13 year olds.
The left because they think polygamy is 100% oppressive of women 100% of the time. And also they believe that underage marriage is oppressive child abuse.

They have different reasons for opposing the same stuff in this instance. Of course, I tend to believe the left has more valid reasons for its opposition.

Hmmm. They had many chances to do that with the Catholic Church priest abuse scandals. I know of no Catholic churches that were busted into or vandalized by authorities.
Why? Might it have something to do with Catholicism being considered mainstream and the FLDS church being considered occultic?

Oh, for FUCK'S SAKE!!! No one live in a Catholic church! Most Catholics don't break the law by systemically forcing children into sexual activity. Most Catholics don't live in armed compounds where escape is difficult, if not impossible. Most Catholics have a choice of who they're going to marry, and when. If children are essentially being held hostage and being forced to marry and/or become sexually active against their will by large groups of Catholics, I haven't heard of it. Let's try to compare apples to apples, instead of saying they taste exactly like oranges, m'kay?

I am not Shao-Kal, but I am his girlfriend, and I wanted to speak, so he's letting me type this part.

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.

It must be so wonderful to be psychic. To know everything about everyone.

Time for a splash of cold water in your face.

I'm 25 now. I've never been married, and I don't want to get married, so I cannot speak of that except to say that most adults I know are not mature enough to get married. Look at the 50% divorce rate in this country.

When it comes to teenagers being ready for 'adult relationships', though, you really don't seem to know know what you're talking about. I started having sex at 13, and I was mature enough to know what I was doing. I was the one who decided when to have sex, and I was usually the one who initiated sex with my partners, whom were almost all adult men. I was responsible. I made sure that protection was used and all.

And you know what? I turned out just fine. I'm wasn't scarred for life or anything. I don't have a moment's regret for anything.

I don't agree with most prosecutions of so-called statutory rape. I feel it is usually motivated out of the fear of sexuality that is so common to this country.

I support this case though. I find the whole idea of arranged marriages to be sick, and I believe in prosecuting the church for these action.

I'm turning this over to the right person. Bye.

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

Shao-Kal here. Now that that is taken care of, I would like to ask all who posted in this thread to do something for me. Break out a dictionary and look up the prefix 'ped-', please.

The prefix Ped is from the Greek, and is in reference to children. Hence, a child's doctor is a pediatrician. 'Ped' referencing child, and the suffix 'iatrician' refering to medicine and medical care.

The suffix 'phile' in pedophile is used to decribe a tendency towards or a liking for. Therefore, pedophilia is a sexual tendency towards children.

Let us stop for a minute and define child. In the eyes of most people, a child refers to a human being before adolecence and, therfore, before the onset of puberty.

Since we are dealing with girls who most definately do NOT fall into the pre-pubescent range, then the definition of pedophile is incorrect.

The correct definition, by the way, is Ephebopilia or hebephilia. The suffix Hebe comes from a the Greek, a reference to the goddess Hebe, goddess of youth (i.e. adolecents). It is from her Roman equivalent, Juventis, that we get the term juvenile, a reference to teenagers as well.

So, the CORRECT terms are ephebophiles or hebephiles. And up until relatively recently in the 20th century, teenage marriages were common and socially acceptable.

However, I would agree that, today, most teenagers are genuinely not mature enough to consent to marriage (maybe to sex, depending upon the person, but not marriage), and I do not object to this raid.

By the way, I do not know if it has been clarified or not already, as I have not read the thread in it's entirety, but I wanted to point out that marijuana usage IS allowed for religious reasons. Ask any Rastafarian. The Supreme Court declared their use of pot, as per their religious demands, to be legal.

The right because they are morally outraged. And they think the Bible bans marriage for 13 year olds.
The left because they think polygamy is 100% oppressive of women 100% of the time.

Are you HIGH? A large portion of the left here supports plural marriage as long as A: All partners are of legal age and B: All partners involved agree to the marriage.

And also they believe that underage marriage is oppressive child abuse.

That would be because it's true.

Shao-Kal here. Now that that is taken care of, I would like to ask all who posted in this thread to do something for me. Break out a dictionary and look up the prefix 'ped-', please.

The prefix Ped is from the Greek, and is in reference to children. Hence, a child's doctor is a pediatrician. 'Ped' referencing child, and the suffix 'iatrician' refering to medicine and medical care.

The suffix 'phile' in pedophile is used to decribe a tendency towards or a liking for. Therefore, pedophilia is a sexual tendency towards children.

Let us stop for a minute and define child. In the eyes of most people, a child refers to a human being before adolecence and, therfore, before the onset of puberty.

Since we are dealing with girls who most definately do NOT fall into the pre-pubescent range, then the definition of pedophile is incorrect.

The correct definition, by the way, is Ephebopilia or hebephilia. The suffix Hebe comes from a the Greek, a reference to the goddess Hebe, goddess of youth (i.e. adolecents). It is from her Roman equivalent, Juventis, that we get the term juvenile, a reference to teenagers as well.

So, the CORRECT terms are ephebophiles or hebephiles. And up until relatively recently in the 20th century, teenage marriages were common and socially acceptable.

However, I would agree that, today, most teenagers are genuinely not mature enough to consent to marriage (maybe to sex, depending upon the person, but not marriage), and I do not object to this raid.

By the way, I do not know if it has been clarified or not already, as I have not read the thread in it's entirety, but I wanted to point out that marijuana usage IS allowed for religious reasons. Ask any Rastafarian. The Supreme Court declared their use of pot, as per their religious demands, to be legal.

No. The AG said they WERENT allowed to, in 1998. While she is not a judge, it is the only legal ruling on this matter to my knowledge.

And quite frankly, why do you care if pedophillia isnt the "correct" term? Who made it "correct" anyway?

And it could be argued taht all are children until they turn 18. In the eyes of the law, that is

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?
The part where you disagreed with me about it not necessarily being paedophilia to be attracted to a 13 year old girl.
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."
The Treaty of Tripoli disagrees with you.
How old are you exactly? A 13 year old has the same faculties of a 22 year old.<further misconceptions about the brain>
I was going to post about how this is all wrong, but Bottle beat me to it and actually can explain why it's wrong.
No they don't. The state can punish people for rape. But they do not have the authority to ban a whole religion.
They aren't banning a religion. They're investigating members of a religion because they are suspected of rape, among other things.

Why are there lawyers who are willing to defend an organization of child rapists? This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
There's this crazy thing where everyone has the right to an attorney.
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?
It amuses me that you're trying to tell a biologist that she's wrong about biology.
a particular kind of rape? Talk about semantics. Rape is rape. All rape should have the same punishment: death.
If this happened then rapists would be more inclined to kill their victims, since the punishment would be no worse if they're convicted. This means more people will get away with rape.
As far back as 1890 at least. That's older than your grandma and it would make them a legit religious group.
Doesn't matter how old they are. Being a religion doesn't protect you from the law.

How about we go around vandalizing mainstream christian churches? I don't like what they teach. I don't like the fact they practice what they teach.
What laws are you suggesting they have broken to warrant searching the premises?

No. The AG said they WERENT allowed to, in 1998. While she is not a judge, it is the only legal ruling on this matter to my knowledge.



http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm

Correction: The Supreme Court hasn't touched the issue as far as I know, but the courts in 2002 DID rule marijuana legal by Rastafarians.

And quite frankly, why do you care if pedophillia isnt the "correct" term? Who made it "correct" anyway?

If you cannot see the huge physical difference between a child (like a 5 year old), and a teenager (like a 13/14 year old), then, well, you have problems I am incapable of helping you with.

I will give you a hint. One of them is physically capable of reproduction, and is physically (although not necessarily emotionally/mentally) ready for sexual interaction.

And the English language made it correct. Words have certain meanings, and those meanings do not change just because someone ignorantly misuses the words.

And it could be argued taht all are children until they turn 18. In the eyes of the law, that is.

Nope. Not really.

Let us compare the 13 year old and the 5 year old. One can be left home alone without you being arrested. The other can't. One can hold a job (outside of Hollywood, at least). The other can't. One can go to the store/mall by themselves. The other can't. I could go on, but I won't.

There are legal differences in what a teenager can do, verses what a child can. Neither have the same rights as adults, but the older one has more rights than the younger.

And it could be argued taht all are children until they turn 18. In the eyes of the law, that is

The law can't change the meaning of prefixes in the English language.

Here's a crazy thought on the subject. Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, mind:

In this insular Mormon sect, they appear to live in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the pioneers. A 13-year old is likely capable of caring for infants and can perform all the duties of maintaining a home. Furthermore, in a plural marriage there are other wives who are capable of assisting. No wife has the full duties of homemaking as a burden all to herself. Thus, plural marriage reduces the difficulties of a housewife and offers a measure of liberation.

Here's a crazy thought on the subject. Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, mind:

In this insular Mormon sect, they appear to live in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the pioneers. A 13-year old is likely capable of caring for infants and can perform all the duties of maintaining a home. Furthermore, in a plural marriage there are other wives who are capable of assisting. No wife has the full duties of homemaking as a burden all to herself. Thus, plural marriage reduces the difficulties of a housewife and offers a measure of liberation.

As long as everyone involved is of age and wants to be involved, you have a point. (I'm starting to feel like a broken record, here)

Since we are dealing with girls who most definately do NOT fall into the pre-pubescent range, then the definition of pedophile is incorrect.

The correct definition, by the way, is Ephebopilia or hebephilia.
This would be correct-- IF this cult actually left the girls alone until they were 13 or so. Their actual practices, according to escapees from the cult, is to start molesting them at ages like 5 to 7, so that their wills are broken before they are "married" at the onset of menstruation.

Here's a crazy thought on the subject. Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, mind:

In this insular Mormon sect, they appear to live in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the pioneers. A 13-year old is likely capable of caring for infants and can perform all the duties of maintaining a home. Furthermore, in a plural marriage there are other wives who are capable of assisting. No wife has the full duties of homemaking as a burden all to herself. Thus, plural marriage reduces the difficulties of a housewife and offers a measure of liberation.

uhhuh

youre leaving out the element of choice and the need for teens to get an education so that they can have meaningful choices in the modern world.

One bit of legal and social hypocrisy that has always struck me is the disparity between when someone has rights and when they have consequences.

If a 13 year-old wants to have sex with someone, or to marry someone, society says she is too young, says she is not mature enough to know what she is doing.

That is true in most cases, I will grant you. (Although, as illustrated in previous post, not in all.)

However, if that same 13 year-old kills someone, well, suddenly she becomes mature enough to stand trial as an adult and go to an adult prison.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here? You have to face full consequences, but are denied the rights that go along with it...

Doesn't that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that teenagers should be allowed to get married and everything, but still, isn't it two-fold? That rights come with consequences? Is it really fair to ask someone to face the full legal consequences of their actions, yet withhold legal rights?

However, if that same 13 year-old kills someone, well, suddenly she becomes mature enough to stand trial as an adult and go to an adult prison.

Not where I live.

uhhuh

youre leaving out the element of choice and the need for teens to get an education so that they can have meaningful choices in the modern world.

:D But that's based on your own world view which you have no right to force on others. You closed-minded ****!:D

Sorry. It's late and my inner sociopath is taking over.

However, if that same 13 year-old kills someone, well, suddenly she becomes mature enough to stand trial as an adult and go to an adult prison.


Not the case here, or almost anywhere I can think of. They get tried as juveniles.


Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here?


Only between your example and reality.

Not the case here, or almost anywhere I can think of. They get tried as juveniles.

I can cite hundreds of cases of adolescents being tried as adults.

Oh, look. Here's one now:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/08/14/loc_juvenile14.html

Oh, and another one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/31/zoloft.killings/

Oh, my god. And another:

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/adult_85457___article.html/teen_tried.html

Ghaaa!!!! And another one!!!!:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E4DF173BF932A05753C1A96F958260

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and... But, I think I made my case.

So tell me. Who's the one not living in reality, huh?

Here's a crazy thought on the subject. Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, mind:

In this insular Mormon sect, they appear to live in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the pioneers. A 13-year old is likely capable of caring for infants and can perform all the duties of maintaining a home. Furthermore, in a plural marriage there are other wives who are capable of assisting. No wife has the full duties of homemaking as a burden all to herself. Thus, plural marriage reduces the difficulties of a housewife and offers a measure of liberation.

The main trouble with this argument, as I see it, is that easing a burden is not nearly the same thing as liberation.

I can cite hundreds of cases of adolescents being tried as adults.

That's fine. The point is that it's far from universal; you're using it as a strawman to try and imply that age-of-consent advocates are hypocritical when in fact most of those posting in this thread would also oppose trying minors as adults.

Back to USA's nonsense in a moment.

That's fine. The point is that it's far from universal; you're using it as a strawman to try and imply that age-of-consent advocates are hypocritical when in fact most of those posting in this thread would also oppose trying minors as adults.

Did I mention that it was directed at anyone here? Nope. Most of the people here are reasonable.

However, there are hundreds of cases of adolescents being tried as adults in a society where they not given rights to counterbalance that.

My comment was an indictment of US society and it's legal system as a whole, not toward any person or persons in general.

I'm not arguing rape. I'm arguing that American values against marrying 13 year old girls is not a universal value.

The fact that some cultures don't care as much about protecting children as ours does doesn't impress me. Try again.

This is not about science.

Regardless of what you think this is "about," science has shown there is a pretty obvious rational basis for treating children like children.

It's about social cultural realities. And most of them do have laws against date rape.

Tell me, how much do you know about European date rape laws? To be more specific, I'm talking about laws regarding consent under the influence of alcohol.

Every nation has a law that bans rape.

Miss the point much?

Age of consent is not necessarily elitist but it is very very much dependent on culture.

Absolutely. Some cultures are terribly backward when it comes to this particular subject.

And no they are not based on science. US laws on age of consent predate science and were based on American christian moral views.

Nothing American predates science.

Just because science is now revealing how the brain develops, does not change the fact that US AOC laws were originally based off of religious moral views.

You know the old maxim, "he who asserts must prove"? You're doing an awful lot of asserting for someone who has yet to prove anything. Can you show me the religious basis for age of consent laws? Can you even tell me when those laws were put in place? Because it seems that someone making the claims that you're making would have to be prepared to do so.

not necessarily arguing that the fundi nutcases are right, but here are some places under certain circumstances(generally parental consent or court consent) that a13 year old girl can be legally married in the world today

Sudan
Tanzania
New Hampshire
Brunei
Iran
Kuwait
Sri Lanka
Yemen
South Africa
Brazil


... i'm not sure what's up with New Hampshire

Did I mention that it was directed at anyone here? Nope. Most of the people here are reasonable.

However, there are hundreds of cases of adolescents being tried as adults in a society where they not given rights to counterbalance that.

My comment was an indictment of US society and it's legal system as a whole, not toward any person or persons in general.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. It's my opinion that the concept of trying children as adults is absurd to the point of being almost totally surreal. There are very good reasons for trying children as children; selectively ignoring this division because we find a crime committed by a child particularly heinous suggests that we don't really believe in the division to begin with.

I think most, if not all, reasonable people would resolve the double standard you've pointed out by ensuring that children are not tried as adults rather than by eliminating age of consent laws.

Hmmm. They had many chances to do that with the Catholic Church priest abuse scandals. I know of no Catholic churches that were busted into or vandalized by authorities.
Why? Might it have something to do with Catholicism being considered mainstream and the FLDS church being considered occultic?

And I don't know of any Catholic churches that had locked themselves down in a compound, and trapped the kids being abused in that compound. Difference of circumstances there.

Admittedly, it is true that the response to the priest abuse scandals probably wasn't enough, but I'd guess that has more to do with the Catholic church being rich. See, for instance, Scientology managing to get away with a heck of a lot.

Did I mention that it was directed at anyone here? Nope. Most of the people here are reasonable.

However, there are hundreds of cases of adolescents being tried as adults in a society where they not given rights to counterbalance that.

My comment was an indictment of US society and it's legal system as a whole, not toward any person or persons in general.

they are "two different line items in the budget". (its a metaphor)

consent laws are driven by assumptions about the innocence of children and when they are old enough to make their own choices about sex and marriage.

trying children as adults is driven by fear of crime and the desire to punish to the maximum degree.

they werent come up with in the same package. it would make more sense if there were some kind of "symposium on the responsibilty of youth" that made recommendations on the legal status and treatment of minors based on an understanding of science and society but we dont do things that way. instead we overreact to .....8 year olds planning an assault on a teacher... and want to change laws to send 3rd graders to jail.

Oh, for FUCK'S SAKE!!! No one live in a Catholic church! Most Catholics don't break the law by systemically forcing children into sexual activity. Most Catholics don't live in armed compounds where escape is difficult, if not impossible. Most Catholics have a choice of who they're going to marry, and when. If children are essentially being held hostage and being forced to marry and/or become sexually active against their will by large groups of Catholics, I haven't heard of it. Let's try to compare apples to apples, instead of saying they taste exactly like oranges, m'kay?

Neither do the FLDS people live in armed compounds. Even when threatened, they don't resist. Note how they let the state walk all over them.

Another difference between the FLDS and the Catholic church is that unlike the Catholics, the FLDS church cooperated with state authorities. The Catholic church tried to cover everything up and moved child molestor priests from one part of the country to another.

No one was holding guns to their heads telling them they couldn't leave the compound. They stayed of their own volition.

Are you HIGH? A large portion of the left here supports plural marriage as long as A: All partners are of legal age and B: All partners involved agree to the marriage.



That would be because it's true.

Legal age is a very subjective term. As demonstrated, there is no universal legal age. 12 or 13 are the lowest legal ages we know of.

It's only child abuse by state law. You move to another state or even another country, it ceases to be child abuse unless it is forced.

But even then, it is just rape. As another person stated quite effectively, child abuse is abuse against someone who is prepubescent. IE someone under the age of 13.

No. The AG said they WERENT allowed to, in 1998. While she is not a judge, it is the only legal ruling on this matter to my knowledge.

And quite frankly, why do you care if pedophillia isnt the "correct" term? Who made it "correct" anyway?

And it could be argued taht all are children until they turn 18. In the eyes of the law, that is

However, it is fact that the law is not based on science in any way. It's based on religious morality.

Legal age is a very subjective term. As demonstrated, there is no universal legal age. 12 or 13 are the lowest legal ages we know of.

It's only child abuse by state law. You move to another state or even another country, it ceases to be child abuse unless it is forced.

But even then, it is just rape. As another person stated quite effectively, child abuse is abuse against someone who is prepubescent. IE someone under the age of 13.

its JUST RAPE?

there are other charges to be brought besides rape. i dont think that "child abuse" is only for prepubescent children.

As long as everyone involved is of age and wants to be involved, you have a point. (I'm starting to feel like a broken record, here)

according to what America's christian moral majority has decided "is of age" means.

This would be correct-- IF this cult actually left the girls alone until they were 13 or so. Their actual practices, according to escapees from the cult, is to start molesting them at ages like 5 to 7, so that their wills are broken before they are "married" at the onset of menstruation.

Your evidence for this incredible charge?????

uhhuh

youre leaving out the element of choice and the need for teens to get an education so that they can have meaningful choices in the modern world.

and just how exactly does being in a polygamous relationship bar teens or anyone else for that from getting an education?

There are a lot of countries on earth where the age of consent is 13 and polygamy practiced and the women have better access to education than here in the US.

I'm sorry, did someone just use the words "it's just rape"?

according to what America's christian moral majority has decided "is of age" means.

Not just Americas ... 13 appears to be lower then a majority of countries allow

Not the case here, or almost anywhere I can think of. They get tried as juveniles.



Only between your example and reality.

Funny. Just this past week 3 teen girls were put on trial as adults for a violent crime they committed against a cheerleader at their school.

and just how exactly does being in a polygamous relationship bar teens or anyone else for that from getting an education?

There are a lot of countries on earth where the age of consent is 13 and polygamy practiced and the women have better access to education than here in the US.

name one. show me statistics of one country where 13 year old polygamous mothers have better education than a typical US teen.

The fact that some cultures don't care as much about protecting children as ours does doesn't impress me. Try again.



Regardless of what you think this is "about," science has shown there is a pretty obvious rational basis for treating children like children.



Tell me, how much do you know about European date rape laws? To be more specific, I'm talking about laws regarding consent under the influence of alcohol.



Miss the point much?



Absolutely. Some cultures are terribly backward when it comes to this particular subject.



Nothing American predates science.



You know the old maxim, "he who asserts must prove"? You're doing an awful lot of asserting for someone who has yet to prove anything. Can you show me the religious basis for age of consent laws? Can you even tell me when those laws were put in place? Because it seems that someone making the claims that you're making would have to be prepared to do so.

http://www.counterpunch.org/rosen08142007.html

"Age-of-consent laws have a long and varied history in the West. In the medieval Europe, the earliest age-of-consent was set for girls at 12-years-old under England's 1275 Statutes of Westminster. The British laws sought to assure the chastity of the female child entering into a marriage agreement."

Sounds a lot like the A of C there was based on religious morality.

"Women were not simply being turned into sexual commodities through fashion, advertising and the media, they were also experiencing themselves in a profoundly new way, as sexual beings. This was very threatening, especially among young women."

The original age of consent in California was???? 10!!!!!

"California was one of the first states to raise the age-of-consent. In 1889, it raised it from 10-years to 14-years and then, in 1897, raised it again to 16-years; in 1913, it raised it to its current level of 18 years-of-age."

Why because it threatened the christian moral order.


"In the post-World War II era, especially as the '60s-'70s sexual revolution took shape, the battle over age-of-consent was redefined.
Unfortunately, feminist and liberals often joined with religious conservatives to restrict the sexuality of young people.
the unstated effort was to de-sexualize the young girl (force her to be nonsexual)
After nearly two decades of struggle, liberals sought to address a critical aspect of poverty by restricting what they identified as "excess fertility."
These "sex police" liberals linked halting premarital sex with their efforts to end poverty. (IE. You had a child when you were 16, that makes you slut and a Wh****) at least according the liberals of the 60's.
By the 1990s, the militant Christian movement further redefined the battle over age-of-consent. Fury over social hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research was applied to youthful sex. Where once consent was an issue of chastity and, then, youthful vulnerability, by the '90s it was reframed in term of teen-pregnancy and abstinence.
The Christian right was (and is!) terrified by youthful sexual hedonism. The wildness of adolescents promoted by the cultural distraction industry is irreconcilable with puritan virtues.

Most states set the age of the victim from 14-years to 18-years; however, in South Dakota it is 10-years and in Alabama 12-years-of-age"

and the link has more information than just that.


Some states also disgree on whether a person under 18 is capable of making her own decision on whether to get married:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/53628/

"Maryland allows pregnant 16 and 17 - year - olds to marry without parental consent. A pregnant 15 - year - old can marry provided a parent agrees to it

But the laws' original intent of limiting out - of - wedlock births

Marriage is a permissible defense to statutory rape in all states and most legal cases. But it is not always successful, adding to the legal muddle over statutory rape and legal grounds for marrying a minor."

And I don't know of any Catholic churches that had locked themselves down in a compound, and trapped the kids being abused in that compound. Difference of circumstances there.

Admittedly, it is true that the response to the priest abuse scandals probably wasn't enough, but I'd guess that has more to do with the Catholic church being rich. See, for instance, Scientology managing to get away with a heck of a lot.

Yes, except that the kdis were not trapped inside the compound. And everyone has the right to stay inside their property if they see fit to.

No, it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Catholic church to shelter the priests from the law.

Not just Americas ... 13 appears to be lower then a majority of countries allow

Only 17 nations have set their age of consent laws to 18 and older.
11 have set them to 13 and younger.

Almost everyone else has set it between 14 and 16. For the majority of the US the age of consent, set by states, is 16.

Now do you needs a listing????

Countries where the age of consent is under 16:

People's Republic of China: 14
Indonesia: 12 for boys 16 for girls
Japan: 13
Phillipines: 12
South Korea 13
Thailand :15
Vanuatu: 15
Tonga:12
Austria: 14
Bosnia: 14
Bulgaria: 14
Croatia: 14
Czech Republic: 15
Denmark: 15
Estonia: 14
France: 15
Germany: 14
Hungary:14
Iceland: 14
Italy: 14
Lithuania: 14
Poland: 15
Portugal: 14
Kosovo: 14
Romania:15
Serbia: 14
Slovakia: 15
Slovenia: 15
Spain: 13
Sweden: 15
Mexico: varies by state, can be as low as 12, It is 14 in Baja California.
US: varies by state, Tennessee 13,
Costa Rica: 15
Honduras: 15
Argentina: 13 in most cases.
Bolivia: 12 or as soon the girl/boy enter puberty
Brazil: 14 if the parents say it is ok
Colombia:14
Ecuador: 14
Guyana: 13
Paraguay: 14
Peru: 14
Uruguay: 15

How many nations is that???

For the age of 12: 5
For the age of 13: 6
14: 21
15: 13

In all, at least 42 nations have set their age of consent laws to an age younger than 16.

The kitchen is getting a wee bit hot for the state officials who raided the compound.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5696448.html

"First looms the inevitable collision between the state's duty to protect Texas children from abuse and the constitutional rights already being raised by sect lawyers — religious liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure."

each kid has to have his own attorney who does not have to do the bidding of Child Protective Services.

"But terminating parental rights requires a far greater burden of proof than needed to raid the compound and temporarily remove children from an allegedly abusive situation, he said."

""And things can get very sticky for the lawyers for the children who are teenagers and say they want to go home," he said."

Meaning they will have to let them return to the compound if they request it.

"CPS officials now say just being born into the sect ensures child abuse" whereby making it clear that the raid is an attack on religious freedom.

Lawyers have filed suit against the state on the grounds the first and fourth amendments of the US constitution and that Texas' own state constitution were violated.

The requests for the warrant to search may also have been grossly misrepresented to the judge who approved the warrants.

"And because of the complexities of severing parental rights and the likelihood that sect children will resist being removed, the state's attempt at wholesale custody may falter."

"To DeGuerin, the Eldorado raid is another example of government overreach.

"It's like Alice in Wonderland, off with their heads! And then we'll have a trial," he said. "It's the classic case of arrest first and investigate later. They took 500 people away from their homes to a makeshift prison without any evidence they've done anything wrong."

The state is not going to get custody of most of the kids. They'll be forced to give them back to their parents and they'll return to ranch. If the FLDSers were smart, they would leave the US or go to Tennessee.

More bad news for the Texas Department of Child Welfare and haters of the FLDS religious cult.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=4640067&page=2

If they can't find the girl who supposedly made the call, they no longer have cause for the raid and all the evidence they took was illegally siezed and can't be used in court.

Some attorneys are now talking about suing the state for violation of civil rights.

They also have no means with which to prosecute the parents or husbands because the so called victims are refusing to accuse them.

"The defense will likely argue that authorities have equated polygamy with child abuse and used that as the basis for the raid."

"Child welfare officials took more than 400 children into custody last week on suspicion that they were being sexually and physically abused after police raided the compound."

Wait wait wait. The children were siezed because officials suspected but had no evidence?
The only reason for their suspicion was the group's religious teachings?


The state has banned the children from talking to or seeing their own mothers.

Some of the kids are being forced, by state officials, to listen to child pyschologists insist that there is no God.

so you think religious persecution by the government is ok?

Nope but cracking down on illegal acts perpetrated in the name of religion is just fine with me

More bad news for the Texas Department of Child Welfare and haters of the FLDS religious cult.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=4640067&page=2

If they can't find the girl who supposedly made the call, they no longer have cause for the raid and all the evidence they took was illegally siezed and can't be used in court.

Some attorneys are now talking about suing the state for violation of civil rights.

They also have no means with which to prosecute the parents or husbands because the so called victims are refusing to accuse them.

"The defense will likely argue that authorities have equated polygamy with child abuse and used that as the basis for the raid."

"Child welfare officials took more than 400 children into custody last week on suspicion that they were being sexually and physically abused after police raided the compound."

Wait wait wait. The children were siezed because officials suspected but had no evidence?
The only reason for their suspicion was the group's religious teachings?


The state has banned the children from talking to or seeing their own mothers.

Some of the kids are being forced, by state officials, to listen to child pyschologists insist that there is no God.

Dmn that last point is terrible . . .. being Forced to believe that there is no god???? OH NO!

I can cite hundreds of cases of adolescents being tried as adults.

Oh, look. Here's one now:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/08/14/loc_juvenile14.html

Oh, and another one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/31/zoloft.killings/

Oh, my god. And another:

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/adult_85457___article.html/teen_tried.html

Ghaaa!!!! And another one!!!!:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E4DF173BF932A05753C1A96F958260

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and... But, I think I made my case.

So tell me. Who's the one not living in reality, huh?

Only one of the four cases listed here show a 13 year old being tried as an adult. The rest of the cases were older people.

...

No.

Just no.

as a muslim, who supports polygamy if fair to all parties involved i must agree, under 17 is just wrong, and i agree with the above post

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm

Correction: The Supreme Court hasn't touched the issue as far as I know, but the courts in 2002 DID rule marijuana legal by Rastafarians.


Um. You mangle and misrepresent the linked article, which in turn mangles and misrepresents the actual decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55215A562F6A670188256BC7005C6CC5/$file/0071247.pdf?openelement) (pdf) of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Looking at the actual decision, I note the following:

1. The court DID NOT rule that the First Amendment protected the use or possession of marijuana. To the contrary, the court notes that pursuant to Employment Division v. Smith, neutral, general laws outlawing the religious use of a controlled substance are constitutional.

2. The court actually addresses whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal statute that seeks to provide greater protection of religious activity than that provided by the First Amendment, protects the defendant's importation of marijuana because he is a Rastafarian. The court rules that RFRA DOES NOT protect the defendant's conduct.

3. The court DID NOT rule that possession or use of marijuana by a Rastafarian is protected by RFRA, i.e., is "legal." To the contrary, the court sets aside the question of whether a law against "simple possession" "might" substantially burden the defendant's religion and therefore trigger strict scrutiny under RFRA, because the defendant in the case was accused of importation of marijuana -- which is not protected by RFRA. (The court also notes an earlier case that ruled that distribution and possession with intent to distribute marijuana are not protected by RFRA.) NOTE: Even if the court had said that laws against possession or use of marijuana did substantially burdern the practice of Rastafarianism (which I emphasize they did not hold), that only satisfies the first part of of the analysis under RFRA. Such laws could still be legal under RFRA if they are narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling government interest -- an issue the court did not reach.

I hope this answer clarifies the matter, despite the legalese. ;)


EDIT: I would note that in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1084), 546 U.S. 418 (2006), the Supreme Court held that RFRA protected the sacramental use of a controlled substance -- where the government conceded that the law in question substantially burdened religion and failed to convince the Court that the law was narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling government interest. What implications this case may have for Rastafarians, I am not sure. Regardless, the laws against polygamy, child molestation, rape, etc., at issue in this thread violate neither the First Amendment nor RFRA.

More bad news for the Texas Department of Child Welfare and haters of the FLDS religious cult.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=4640067&page=2

I don't know why I should respond, given that you consistently ignore my posts and generally ignore facts, reason, and law. I guess I'll just amuse myself with how wrong you are.

If they can't find the girl who supposedly made the call, they no longer have cause for the raid and all the evidence they took was illegally siezed and can't be used in court.

Um. That is not what the article you cite says -- nor is it true. The article quotes Professor Turley for the proposition that failure to find the girl might make it more difficult for the state to establish probable cause which could invalidate the search.

With all due respect to Professor Turley, I disagree with his analysis anyway. Whether or not the 16-year-old's allegations prove false in hindsight does not mean that the state did not act reasonably in acting on such allegations in the first place.

Some attorneys are now talking about suing the state for violation of civil rights.

I don't see where it says this in the article you cited, but some attorneys will talk about suing just about anyone for anything. That doesn't mean such a suit has any merit.

They also have no means with which to prosecute the parents or husbands because the so called victims are refusing to accuse them.

Again, I don't see where the article you cite says this. But again, your premise is wrong: an alleged victim's cooperation is not necessarily required to prosecute someone for crimes such as rape.

"The defense will likely argue that authorities have equated polygamy with child abuse and used that as the basis for the raid."

Now you are citing speculation as to what defense attorneys might say as gospel truth? Of course the defense will argue something -- that doesn't make it true.

Further, the argument presented assumes that laws against polygamy are illegal -- which is directly contrary to existing Supreme Court decisions.

Even if the Court were to change its opinion to hold that polygamy is protected by the First Amendment, that would not retroactively make the actions of state in enforcing polygamy statutes necessarily unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

"Child welfare officials took more than 400 children into custody last week on suspicion that they were being sexually and physically abused after police raided the compound."

Wait wait wait. The children were siezed because officials suspected but had no evidence?
The only reason for their suspicion was the group's religious teachings?

Um. Re-read what you quoted. It does NOT say that officials merely suspected but had no evidence NOR does it say that the only basis for the raid was the group's religious teachings. The issue is whether officials had probable cause. Here they had a warrant approved by a neutral court official, so the warrant and subsequent search and seizure is likely.

The state has banned the children from talking to or seeing their own mothers.

Of course they have. For the time being. Because their "own mothers" are suspected of crimes related to these children. Keeping the children away from the suspected parents is standard procedure in a case involving abuse of said children.

Some of the kids are being forced, by state officials, to listen to child pyschologists insist that there is no God.

Again, I don't see anything in the article that supports this allegation. Nonetheless, I don't find the allegation that shocking. Why do you assert it is wrong for the children to be addressed by child psychologists?

copypasta

You know, I really was going to explain to you how your reading of the history is simplistic and emphasizes the motivations you're looking for while ignoring the rest. Then I remembered that it just doesn't matter. I'm not even sure why I allowed myself to be sidetracked onto something this silly. Even if we assumed that you're right and the only reason we originally put AOC laws on the books was to reinforce the culture's dominant Christian morality, it has become clear thanks to the things we now know about human development that there is a valid secular purpose for AOC laws -- and in fact, that's the only purpose for them that most people would even be able to name today.

These latest developments:

the children are now banned by the state of Texas from having cell phones.

Just before the raid, a group from the compound fled to Colorado and fenced up the property there and blacked out there windows.

If they are innocent why did they flee, why are they blacking out their windows and if they were fleeing the raid, who tipped them off? I suspect guilty parties may be in that group, including the persons whome the state of Texas is looking for.


And this:

"John Nielsen, who once worked for NewEra, said in a 2005 affidavit that he and other FLDS members were made to work for little or no wages."

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/574618.html

That bastard Jeffs was using his own followers, the women and children and even the men of his compounds for slave labor.


The raid may end up being God's way of freeing them from the chains put on them by the false prophet.

Why are they not going after the Coloroda compound? They fled a crime scene. Isn't that a crime???

I don't know why I should respond, given that you consistently ignore my posts and generally ignore facts, reason, and law. I guess I'll just amuse myself with how wrong you are.



Um. That is not what the article you cite says -- nor is it true. The article quotes Professor Turley for the proposition that failure to find the girl might make it more difficult for the state to establish probable cause which could invalidate the search.

With all due respect to Professor Turley, I disagree with his analysis anyway. Whether or not the 16-year-old's allegations prove false in hindsight does not mean that the state did not act reasonably in acting on such allegations in the first place.



I don't see where it says this in the article you cited, but some attorneys will talk about suing just about anyone for anything. That doesn't mean such a suit has any merit.



Again, I don't see where the article you cite says this. But again, your premise is wrong: an alleged victim's cooperation is not necessarily required to prosecute someone for crimes such as rape.



Now you are citing speculation as to what defense attorneys might say as gospel truth? Of course the defense will argue something -- that doesn't make it true.

Further, the argument presented assumes that laws against polygamy are illegal -- which is directly contrary to existing Supreme Court decisions.

Even if the Court were to change its opinion to hold that polygamy is protected by the First Amendment, that would not retroactively make the actions of state in enforcing polygamy statutes necessarily unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.



Um. Re-read what you quoted. It does NOT say that officials merely suspected but had no evidence NOR does it say that the only basis for the raid was the group's religious teachings. The issue is whether officials had probable cause. Here they had a warrant approved by a neutral court official, so the warrant and subsequent search and seizure is likely.



Of course they have. For the time being. Because their "own mothers" are suspected of crimes related to these children. Keeping the children away from the suspected parents is standard procedure in a case involving abuse of said children.



Again, I don't see anything in the article that supports this allegation. Nonetheless, I don't find the allegation that shocking. Why do you assert it is wrong for the children to be addressed by child psychologists?

Your the attorney. I know more than I do about case law. That is why I haven't addressed your posts. Do you think any legal precedents will be set in this case?

But as for the Supreme Court ruling, a lot of states believe that decision would be reversed today if made it back to the SCOTUS. That is why Texas, Arizona, and Utah are going after child rape charges instead of the polygamy charges.
As for the decision upholding a ban on polygamy you should take it in its historical context. (Note, remember that SCOTUS also said at one time that slavery was constitutional and that segregation was protected by the constitution.)
"mainstream religions and political forces in the United States mounted a vigorous campaign to stamp it out. The United States Congress passed laws criminalizing the practice and dissolving polygamous families, disincorporated the LDS Church, and began seizing church property. A few months after a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the legality of the church's disincorporation and forfeiture of property, the church issued its 1890 Manifesto renouncing the practice of polygamy."
By disincorporating the LDS church for polygamy the US Congress violated the first amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late_Corporation_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_v._United_States

The actual ruling upheld the Edmunds Tucker Act which banned mormon religion from the US for its teachings on polygamy. Though seen as upholding a ban on polygamy the case was actually about whether the Congress could effectively ban a whole religion. Unfortunately, the Court at that time said yes the government could ban your religion. The court also said that if Congress banned your religion, the government was free to seize your properties, including your churches and temples.
That was a bad decision and I can see why state governments are worried that it will be reversed in today's climate of greater tolerance. Remember there was no tolerance for other religions, let alone other races at that time. Remember also, that during that period, American women were considered the property of their fathers or husbands.
The SCOTUS of that time period made a lot of decisions that have since been reversed.





Nothing wrong with them seeing a child psychologist as long as the state funded psychologist does not demand they give up belief in God. Because by making such an insistence on the children, the state is infringing on their religious freedom rights because the psychologist is an agent of the state by being in the pay of the state for the purpose of counseling the children.

further from:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=136&invol=1

"'And act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah"

So the US Congress banned a democratically elected government.

"and all such property so forfeited and escheated to the United States shall be disposed of by the secretary of the interior" the property of the Mormon church was ordered seized.

Actually it exempted churches, temples and cemetaries.


"The principal questions raised are-First, as to the power of congress to repeal the charter of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; and, secondly, as to the power of congress and the courts to seize the property of said corporation, and to hold the same for the purposes mentioned in the decree. "

You know, I really was going to explain to you how your reading of the history is simplistic and emphasizes the motivations you're looking for while ignoring the rest. Then I remembered that it just doesn't matter. I'm not even sure why I allowed myself to be sidetracked onto something this silly. Even if we assumed that you're right and the only reason we originally put AOC laws on the books was to reinforce the culture's dominant Christian morality, it has become clear thanks to the things we now know about human development that there is a valid secular purpose for AOC laws -- and in fact, that's the only purpose for them that most people would even be able to name today.

In which case the laws need to be reworded.

Have you heard of edit button?

In which case the laws need to be reworded.

...what?

A state employed doctor charges the state with abusing hundreds of mormon kids being held in concentration camp conditions.


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4646965&page=1

"Dr. Stephen Smith has been providing medical care at the state shelter, and he says he is upset by what he has seen there.

"All of the mothers and children that I spoke with wanted to go back to the ranch, without a doubt," Smith told ABC News. "Personally, it makes me very sad for what we have done."

...what?

The way most of the laws are worded,"in order to preserve virginity" "in order to preserve morality" etc, all have religious connotations. If you want to make AoC laws based on science, they should not refer in any way to morality or virginity.

The way most of the laws are worded,"in order to preserve virginity" "in order to preserve morality" etc, all have religious connotations. If you want to make AoC laws based on science, they should not refer in any way to morality or virginity.

What the living fuck does virginity have to do with religion? For that matter, what does morality necessarily have to do with religion?

The way most of the laws are worded,"in order to preserve virginity" "in order to preserve morality" etc, all have religious connotations. If you want to make AoC laws based on science, they should not refer in any way to morality or virginity.

...what? (http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_05044.htm)

And we have confession from the state:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24178574

"Department of Public Safety Sgt. Danny Crawford testified to DPS's discovery of a church bishop's records taken from a safe at the ranch that listed about 38 families, some of them polygamous and some that included wives 16 or 17 years old. But acknowledged the records contained no evidence of sexual abuse."

no proof that the children were sexually abused. Previously they were saying that the records did prove abuse. Now they backtrack.

So what where is the evidence that lead to the state sanctioned kidnapping of the children?

EDIT: the way I qouted it can give the false impression that he acknowledge from the start. Not true. He at first said that records proved all the children had been sexually assualted by backtracked after 100's of lawyers examined the documents and questioned him repeatedly on where in the documents was the evidence for the abuse. Under fire from the legal community, he recanted and said that the documents did not prove the state's assertions.
I qouted it the way I did to simplify that the documents do not prove abuse or child endangerment. Thought that should be clarified.

Of course that would also mean that when Mr. Crawford originally testified, he lied under oath and it took a grilling from over a hundred attorneys to get him to tell the truth.

With agents of the state already lying on the witness stand does anyone really want to give full benefit of doubt to the state???

And we have confession from the state:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24178574

"Department of Public Safety Sgt. Danny Crawford testified to DPS's discovery of a church bishop's records taken from a safe at the ranch that listed about 38 families, some of them polygamous and some that included wives 16 or 17 years old. But acknowledged the records contained no evidence of sexual abuse."

I'm struggling to contain my lack of surprise.

no proof that the children were sexually abused. Previously they were saying that the records did prove abuse. Now they backtrack.

Reference please.

So what where is the evidence that lead to the state sanctioned kidnapping of the children?

lol how do i understood article?

Based on the story that you yourself linked, the evidence introduced so far would be in the form of testimony from a child welfare investigator based on interviews with the girls. Further evidence hasn't been admitted yet because, as you should know after reading the story, the case is a fucking three-ring circus where only two witnesses have testified so far.

EDIT: the way I qouted it can give the false impression that he acknowledge from the start. Not true. He at first said that records proved all the children had been sexually assualted by backtracked after 100's of lawyers examined the documents and questioned him repeatedly on where in the documents was the evidence for the abuse. Under fire from the legal community, he recanted and said that the documents did not prove the state's assertions.
I qouted it the way I did to simplify that the documents do not prove abuse or child endangerment. Thought that should be clarified.

Again, reference? To evaluate your claim that he was lying under oath, I'll need a source that shows not only that he testified in court that the documents proved abuse, but that he had examined the documents before giving that testimony and wasn't just speculating on their content.

"Department of Public Safety Sgt. Danny Crawford testified to DPS's discovery of a church bishop's records taken from a safe at the ranch that listed about 38 families, some of them polygamous and some that included wives 16 or 17 years old. But acknowledged the records contained no evidence of sexual abuse."

no proof that the children were sexually abused. Previously they were saying that the records did prove abuse. Now they backtrack.


From the records? As proof? Seriously, what kind of proof are you expecting to get from the books?

"July 10, 1998. Robert fondled Sara's breast today. Tomorrow, we expect him to move up to groping."

"July 12, 1998. Today we took 6 year old Jamie, and had 50 year old Mark copulate with her three times. We expect him to continue this practice for another seven days."

I mean, seriously, WTF? Sexual abuse evidence isn't the sort of thing you look up in records.

All I can say is this: I was molested at ages 4-6. I NEVER LIKED IT. I don't give a rat's @$$ if some sick, sick, sick person thinks god says it's ok. IT IS NOT OK.

To the people that are saying it's ok because it's their religion: What kind of f***ed up dumb @$$ are you?

Personally, my religion states that anyone that has raped or abused anyone else in such a manner should get their testicles removed. And if they do it again...I don't even want to say it. A shot gun is involved, though.

This should not need to be debated. No one with a sane mind should even think it's ok to have intercourse with children. I don't care if she's got her period, she is still a child until she is at least 16.

Some people mature faster than others, so a solid age doesn't really work. But you've got to work with what you have. If a 16 year old girl goes out, finds a 50 year old dude and sexes him, that's a different story. But for a 50 year old guy to marry a 10 year old? I don't think so.

:|

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.
There is no justification for allowing any superstitious belief to impose it's spiritual values upon children. Especially not, when this involves abuse. It's a falacious argument to say it happens in other cultures, we're talking about this particular example.

A child has not had enough life experience to state with certainty what their superstitious/spiritual beliefs are, other than those that are inculcated to them by their elders (this applies to followers of any superstitious beliefs). If they do, it's just proof of the emotional/social and cultural abuse heaped upon them by their elders.

Of course that would also mean that when Mr. Crawford originally testified, he lied under oath and it took a grilling from over a hundred attorneys to get him to tell the truth.

With agents of the state already lying on the witness stand does anyone really want to give full benefit of doubt to the state???Would you rather give benefit of the doubt to the people that have been lying to good ol' Larry King? There are pregnant teenagers and mothers among those taken into custody, and the three women LK interviewed were quite adamant that they had never witnessed anything of the sort.

And we have confession from the state:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24178574

"Department of Public Safety Sgt. Danny Crawford testified to DPS's discovery of a church bishop's records taken from a safe at the ranch that listed about 38 families, some of them polygamous and some that included wives 16 or 17 years old. But acknowledged the records contained no evidence of sexual abuse."

no proof that the children were sexually abused. Previously they were saying that the records did prove abuse. Now they backtrack.

So what where is the evidence that lead to the state sanctioned kidnapping of the children?

EDIT: the way I qouted it can give the false impression that he acknowledge from the start. Not true. He at first said that records proved all the children had been sexually assualted by backtracked after 100's of lawyers examined the documents and questioned him repeatedly on where in the documents was the evidence for the abuse. Under fire from the legal community, he recanted and said that the documents did not prove the state's assertions.
I qouted it the way I did to simplify that the documents do not prove abuse or child endangerment. Thought that should be clarified.Since when are lawyers representing one side of a case considered the legal community?

There is no justification for allowing any superstitious belief to impose it's spiritual values upon children. Especially not, when this involves abuse. It's a falacious argument to say it happens in other cultures, we're talking about this particular example.

A child has not had enough life experience to state with certainty what their superstitious/spiritual beliefs are, other than those that are inculcated to them by their elders (this applies to followers of any superstitious beliefs). If they do, it's just proof of the emotional/social and cultural abuse heaped upon them by their elders.


That is exactly the same excuse the evil commies in China are using to committ genocide against the Tibetan's religious culture. That religion is evil and must be squashed.

Would you rather give benefit of the doubt to the people that have been lying to good ol' Larry King? There are pregnant teenagers and mothers among those taken into custody, and the three women LK interviewed were quite adamant that they had never witnessed anything of the sort.

And you know for a solid fact they are all lying? How?
You actually believe the state did not f up and is not trying to cover its own rear by trumping up fake charges as state's with bigoted leaders are prone to do?

That is exactly the same excuse the evil commies in China are using to committ genocide against the Tibetan's religious culture. That religion is evil and must be squashed.

Religion was the exact same excuse the Tibetan monks used to take slaves, brutally murder people, for the Church to burn people to death, put them on the rack and use thumbscrews.

Religion was the same excuse used to commit genocide in the middle East, with bands of Christian fanatics catching and EATING Muslim families. All in the name of religion.

Now unless you agree to me carving your heart out with a hooked knife and sacrificing it to the god Quetzalcoatl, you have no grounds whatsoever to claim "religious persecution"

More evidence that is a direct attack on the first amendment of the United States:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD904I5GO0

"Girls in the west Texas polygamous sect enter into underage marriages without resistance because they are ruthlessly indoctrinated from birth to believe disobedience will lead to their damnation, experts for the state testified Friday at a custody hearing for 416 youngsters.

The renegade Mormon sect's belief system "is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian," said Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist and an authority on children in cults."

So the state has the right to seize the children because it has the right to block parents from passing their religion to their children. Or so the state is says.

Despite insisting that all the parents were abusive bastards, "the state's experts acknowledged that the sect mothers are loving parents and that there were no signs of abuse among younger girls and any of the boys."


Either the mothers are abusive or they are loving parents. Which is it?

Remember how the state claimed that all the beds found in the temple were used only for sex?

An expert on the FLDS called the state's claims uneducated and rediculous. He said "the bed is used for naps during the sect's long worship services.

"There is no sexual activity in the temple," Walsh said."

The state is claiming that pregnant girls who are under 20 years of age constitutes proof of sexual abuse. Teen age girls between 13 and 18 are always getting pregnant in America. I suppose their pregnancies prove that all of them are victims sexual assault.

"the state was trying to tear families apart on the mere possibility that the girls might be abused when they reach puberty several years from now."

So if you live in an apartment complex and one of your neighbors turns out to be a pedophile, the state should seize your children from you and ban you from ever again having kids, plus require you to register as a sex offender because your next door neighbor liked to rape kids. You lived next to him, that makes you automatically guilty.

"state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys."

Then why did she abduct them at gunpoint?

"Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS amount to abuse."

Thanks to CPS for admitting they were attacking the religion rather than the actual criminals.

CPS claims that women of the FLDS are too stupid to think for themselves.
That's pretty elitist.

Another so called expert for the state admitted that the girls chose on their own to get married.

""Obedience is a very important element of their belief system," he said. "Compliance is being godly; it's part of their honoring God.""

And the problem with teaching obedience is?????? They make it sound like a crime. If children are disobedient you have chaos and high crime.

He also admits that the children will extremely severe psychological harm if they are forced into foster homes as the state wants to do.

"Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said courts have generally held that a parent's belief system cannot, in itself, justify a child's removal. He said, for example, that a parent might teach his child that smoking marijuana is acceptable, but only when he helps the child buy pot does he cross the line."

So it is illegal to take children just because of the religious beliefs taught to the child by its parents.

"Walsh testified that the renegade Mormon sect did not promote underage marriages until imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs took over as the sect's "prophet."

"He encourages marriage," Walsh said. "In some ways, he's indifferent to their age.""

Should note that Jeffs only became profit because he inherited it. He's apparently changed quite a few of their practices. Once he's gone, they'll revert back most likely.

Religion was the exact same excuse the Tibetan monks used to take slaves, brutally murder people, for the Church to burn people to death, put them on the rack and use thumbscrews.

Religion was the same excuse used to commit genocide in the middle East, with bands of Christian fanatics catching and EATING Muslim families. All in the name of religion.

Now unless you agree to me carving your heart out with a hooked knife and sacrificing it to the god Quetzalcoatl, you have no grounds whatsoever to claim "religious persecution"

The FLDS church does not teach human sacrifice nor does it teach the raping of little girls. Mind you, the state is saying that a pregnant 17 year old proves rampant child abuse and has already declared it has the power to ban an entire religious belief system. That is something that none of the other states have done.

If people really dislike religion so much, then I'm sure they'd be at home in the evil Chinese empire.

The thing that needs to be remembered is that even in child rape cases, the burden of proof remains on the state to prove that a crime actually occured, not that you lived next to one or that one might happen ten years in the future.

The state of Texas is claiming they have the right to punish you today for something you might do in ten or twenty years from now. Texas is currently the only state that is claiming this power.

The FLDS church does not teach human sacrifice nor does it teach the raping of little girls.


It doesn't matter. If I am not allowed to sacrifice you to Quetzalcoatl, you're oppressing my religion. Either I am exempt from laws against murder to practice human sacrifice or I am religiously oppressed.

So what will it be? Limits in accordance to the law, or do I get to carve your heart out?


Mind you, the state is saying that a pregnant 17 year old proves rampant child abuse and has already declared it has the power to ban an entire religious belief system.

Not that they've said it of course, but why stop lying now?


If people really dislike religion so much, then I'm sure they'd be at home in the evil Chinese empire.

Yes Mr Child rapist. I'm sure you'd be happy to start your own child raping theocratic empire.

And why do you dislike my religion? I should be able to carve your heart out and eat it. But you won't let me now will you? So maybe it's not so much religious persecution, but "Only my religion can do whatever it wants"

It's clear where your affiliations lie. In the FLDS.

For those who still refuse to believe the raid was the result of a prank phone call:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24199519/page/2/

"Texas Rangers also are investigating a Colorado woman as a "person of interest" related to calls made to a family crisis center. Police arrested Rozita Swinton, 33, on Wednesday in Colorado Springs on a misdemeanor charge of false reporting to authorities for a call she made in late February.
But officers who searched her home found items suggesting a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding a compound owned by FLDS in Arizona and one in Eldorado, the Texas Department of Public Safety said late Friday.
Authorities in Colorado confirmed Swinton has a history of making false reports."

And now hundreds of families are being destroyed, people's lives are being ruined because of her selfishness and immaturity.


They should give her the death penalty.

It doesn't matter. If I am not allowed to sacrifice you to Quetzalcoatl, you're oppressing my religion. Either I am exempt from laws against murder to practice human sacrifice or I am religiously oppressed.

So what will it be? Limits in accordance to the law, or do I get to carve your heart out?



Not that they've said it of course, but why stop lying now?



Yes Mr Child rapist. I'm sure you'd be happy to start your own child raping theocratic empire.

And why do you dislike my religion? I should be able to carve your heart out and eat it. But you won't let me now will you? So maybe it's not so much religious persecution, but "Only my religion can do whatever it wants"

It's clear where your affiliations lie. In the FLDS.

Funny considering I'm not even Mormon. Also interesting that supporting the constitution of the United States makes a person a child raper.

supporting the constitution of the United States

You don't.

I never thought I'd miss Janet Reno, but after this whole thing, well... :p

You don't.

Where in the united states constitution does it give any state the authority to seize children if the state does not like what the parents' religion teaches?

It does not say it anywhere.

Where in the constitution does it say that states may make laws that based primarily off of religion, such as laws banning polygamy?

It does not say it anywhere.

Where in the united states constitution does it give any state the authority to seize children if the state does not like what the parents' religion teaches?

It does not say it anywhere.

Where in the constitution does it say that states may make laws that based primarily off of religion, such as laws banning polygamy?

It does not say it anywhere.

Have you ever looked at a constitution? :p It's not a replacement for the criminal code.

Where in the united states constitution does it give any state the authority to seize children if the state does not like what the parents' religion teaches?

It does not say it anywhere.

Where in the constitution does it say that states may make laws that based primarily off of religion, such as laws banning polygamy?

It does not say it anywhere.

Your interpretations of the constitution are erronious and contrary to prevailing caselaw. Your legal arguments are sophmoric and unsophisticated. You understanding of the constitutional requirements of the 1st amendment are predicated on significant misunderstandings of fundamental legal principles.

You have shown a complete and total failure to understand the constitutional requirements of religious freedom, and demonstrated that not only do you lack the required legal sophistication necessary to carry on this discussion, your continued failure to grasp basic legal principles even after they have been explained to you demonstrated aptly that not only do you not grasp the fundamental basics of legal understanding, you also lack the necessary intellectual acumen to ever do so.

In short, I reject out of hand the very notion that you respect the constitution. Anyone who respected the constitution would not remain so terminally ignorant as to its meaning and content. Therefore I must conclude that not only do you NOT respect the constitution, you are incapable of formulating the basic legal understandings necessary to properly understand the very thing you so wholehardidly disrespect by your clumsy, unsophisticated and all together lacking attempts to, incorrectly, explain it.

Have you ever looked at a constitution? :p It's not a replacement for the criminal code.

It actually restricts the criminal code. If a state passes a criminal or other law that is unconstiutional, the courts nullify it.

Where in the united states constitution does it give any state the authority to seize children if the state does not like what the parents' religion teaches?

It does not say it anywhere.

Where in the constitution does it say that states may make laws that based primarily off of religion, such as laws banning polygamy?

It does not say it anywhere.

Okay, I'm going to try this again, veeeery sloooowly.

Polygamy is against the law. Forcing underage persons into marriage is against the law. Having sex with underage persons is against the law. I'm not saying I agree with all of these, or that you have to, but that is THE FUCKING LAW!!!!! Nobody is being oppressed, here - the laws are being followed. How many more ways can this be said? Or are you just out to prove yourself immune to logic-based attacks?

It actually restricts the criminal code. If a state passes a criminal or other law that is unconstiutional, the courts nullify it.

Right. The polygamists will get their day in court - that's what they're entitled to.

Your interpretations of the constitution are erronious and contrary to prevailing caselaw. Your legal arguments are sophmoric and unsophisticated. You understanding of the constitutional requirements of the 1st amendment are predicated on significant misunderstandings of fundamental legal principles.

You have shown a complete and total failure to understand the constitutional requirements of religious freedom, and demonstrated that not only do you lack the required legal sophistication necessary to carry on this discussion, your continued failure to grasp basic legal principles even after they have been explained to you demonstrated aptly that not only do you not grasp the fundamental basics of legal understanding, you also lack the necessary intellectual acumen to ever do so.

In short, I reject out of hand the very notion that you respect the constitution. Anyone who respected the constitution would not remain so terminally ignorant as to its meaning and content. Therefore I must conclude that not only do you NOT respect the constitution, you are incapable of formulating the basic legal understandings necessary to properly understand the very thing you so wholehardidly disrespect by your clumsy, unsophisticated and all together lacking attempts to, incorrectly, explain it.

You failed to show me where in the constitution or in case law it says the state can ban a religion. You also failed to show where in the constitution or case law it says that accusations without evidence of actual abuse are grounds for state sanctioned kidnapping at gunpoint.

Further, you have not shown where in either the constitution or in any US case laws the courts have ruled that religious beliefs can be a valid reasons for seizing children from their parents.

Also, remember that case law also said that laws against sodomy, homosexuality, and abortion did not violate the constitution. Remember also that case law said that slavery and racism toward blacks, as official state policy, did not violate the constitution.

I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I'm not one to mince words as a "sophisticated" person would do. The majority of Americans don't know legalese and they don't engage in high level debates. When common Americans talk, they are simple, not sophisticated.
If you look into any chat room or forum about this case, on any site other than this one, you will find common Americans saying the state overstepped its bounds. In fact, a quick glance tells me that most Americans believe the state Texas has overstepped its bounds.

i agree with wilgrove.

Right. The polygamists will get their day in court - that's what they're entitled to.

That's why I'm actually hoping the state will prosecute. Then they can appeal to SCOTUS, which will likely take at least 10 years, and SCOTUS will most likely overturn Texas polygamy laws as well as anti polygamy laws in other the other states.

I feel bad for these people but someone has to be martyrd for the cause.

That's why I'm actually hoping the state will prosecute. Then they can appeal to SCOTUS, which will likely take at least 10 years, and SCOTUS will most likely overturn Texas polygamy laws as well as anti polygamy laws in other the other states.

I feel bad for these people but someone has to be martyrd for the cause.

The odds of any of that happening are about zero, but keep hope alive, and all that, I guess. :p

All I can say is this: I was molested at ages 4-6. I NEVER LIKED IT. I don't give a rat's @$$ if some sick, sick, sick person thinks god says it's ok. IT IS NOT OK.

To the people that are saying it's ok because it's their religion: What kind of f***ed up dumb @$$ are you?

Personally, my religion states that anyone that has raped or abused anyone else in such a manner should get their testicles removed. And if they do it again...I don't even want to say it. A shot gun is involved, though.

This should not need to be debated. No one with a sane mind should even think it's ok to have intercourse with children. I don't care if she's got her period, she is still a child until she is at least 16.

Some people mature faster than others, so a solid age doesn't really work. But you've got to work with what you have. If a 16 year old girl goes out, finds a 50 year old dude and sexes him, that's a different story. But for a 50 year old guy to marry a 10 year old? I don't think so.

:|

That's unfortunate for you.

There are no religions that teach raping of 4 year olds. If you actually study the teachings of the FLDS, you will find they teach, support or condone child rape either.

Not sure how you rape with testicles considering that is where most sex hormones are produced. But I agree with the shotgun idea. Unfortunately, I've recently learned that the US Supreme Court does not. If you can't execute for rape, then how do you deter it?

In the US she is still a child till 16. But even in the US it varies state to state. In some states you are child and an invalid until you are 18. In at least 2 states, you are an adult and capable of consent when you reach 13.

I agree with your last assertions. The problem is telling when a chick is actually 18. But if they are 10, it should be pretty clear that they are prepubescent.
Before Warren Jeffs seized control of the sect, the FLDS church actually had a ban on underage marriages. Which, pre Jeffs, was defined as anyone under 16.

Look up their teachings sometime. It's quite informative as to what they actually believe.
The stuff I found changed my mind about them being a cult.

The odds of any of that happening are about zero, but keep hope alive, and all that, I guess. :p

The state AG said the state might pursue charges.

The state AG said the state might pursue charges.

What I said was that the SCOTUS isn't going to overturn prohibitions on polygamy. I haven't been following the trivialities of the story. This thread was interesting to me for its 'religions can break the law with impunity 'cause they're religions' nonsense, not because I actually care about the rights of FLDS members. :p Sorry if it seemed otherwise.

You failed to show me where in the constitution or in case law it says the state can ban a religion.

You have failed to show me where someone's religion has been banned.

I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

Then what you mean is silly and what you say is worse.


I'm not one to mince words as a "sophisticated" person would do.

You're not one to understand them either...

The majority of Americans don't know legalese and they don't engage in high level debates. When common Americans talk, they are simple, not sophisticated. If you look into any chat room or forum about this case, on any site other than this one, you will find common Americans saying the state overstepped its bounds. In fact, a quick glance tells me that most Americans believe the state Texas has overstepped its bounds.

There's a reason becomming a lawyer takes three years. There's a reason that you need to be certified before a state lets you practice law. There's a reason lawyers have doctorates before they practice law.

It's because the "common american" is no more equipped to accurately discuss the law than he is capable of performing open heart surgery or designing a skyscraper. In other words, the reason we make lawyers prove they can be lawyers before we let them be lawyers is because people like you think they can be lawyers.

What I said was that the SCOTUS isn't going to overturn prohibitions on polygamy.<snip>

Oh, they might overturn prohibitions on polygamy.
But they won't do it with this case, because this, as we have said thousands of times by now, IS A CHILD ABUSE CASE AND NOT A POLYGAMY CASE.

There's a reason becomming a lawyer takes three years. There's a reason that you need to be certified before a state lets you practice law. There's a reason lawyers have doctorates before they practice law.

It's because the "common american" is no more equipped to accurately discuss the law than he is capable of performing open heart surgery or designing a skyscraper. In other words, the reason we make lawyers prove they can be lawyers before we let them be lawyers is because people like you think they can be lawyers.

Hey now, you don't need to attend law school to be a lawyer, at least in California. You can sit for the exam with a few years experience working for a lawyer - doesn't happen much, but it's possible. :) And then there's the field of contract management, which is populated primarily by non-lawyers like a guy I know - not a lawyer, but a genius with contracts and contract law. And of course you have paralegals and certified law students and the odd philosopher who might contribute an influential amicus brief, in theory - it's happened once or twice, I've been told. :p The average person may be clueless, but can usually understand a good deal with a little effort.

Hey now, you don't need to attend law school to be a lawyer, at least in California. You can sit for the exam with a few years experience working for a lawyer - doesn't happen much, but it's possible. :) And then there's the field of contract management, which is populated primarily by non-lawyers like a guy I know - not a lawyer, but a genius with contracts and contract law. And of course you have paralegals and certified law students and the odd philosopher who might contribute an influential amicus brief, in theory - it's happened once or twice, I've been told. :p The average person may be clueless, but can usually understand a good deal with a little effort.

Sure people can learn the law without going to lawschool, just as people can learn medicine without going to medical school and can learn accounting without taking any coursework in accounting.

It can be done, absolutly. But how much legal knowledge does the "common american" have, reall? Especially in larger legal principles like constitutional jurisprudence?

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

Us evil pedophiles have been trying to tell y'all this for years.

I might also mention that loving children might not be as evil as you think.

But no, y'all are damned and determined to screw yourselves over.

Some of us are working on ways to get safely away from the United States. What will you do when they come after YOU?

Where in the united states constitution does it give any state the authority to seize children if the state does not like what the parents' religion teaches?

Where in the United States constitution does it grant the individual authority to break the law by claiming religious purposes hmm? Congress shall not make any law in the establishment of religion I believe the line went. And exemptions for religion against law breaking would certainly be considered that.

You don't support the constitution. You support child abuse.

You don't support the constitution. You support child abuse.

I think it should be clear by now that the chief abuser of children in the United States are the governments of the United States and the respective States thereof.

For heaven's sake, the public schools are a joke, and children are forced to attend so they can be dumbed down into mindless drones that will accept whatever bullshit the U.S. government tells them. I've seen the schoolbooks that fourth graders used a century ago, and the average college student today could not read at that level. Thee may not be an established Church in the old sense, but many laws are explicitly religious in tone, and many more accept religious ideas implicitly. So strong has this religious impulse been that the U.S. Congress has even gone so far as to condemn scientific studies that contradict the received customs of the American people.

Finally, to add insult to injury, children are warned against assaults by strangers despite the fact that they are roughly 10 times as likely to be abused by someone in their own family, but they are not given any option to leave a bad family situation - instead, if caught fleeing abuse, the police will take them back to their abusers. On top of all this, the government and media collude to enslave the American people by appealing over and over again that this is the only way to make children safe - that abusive laws must be passed "for the children".

Let's just say that while I am suspicious of this religious group, I am far more suspicious of the secular authorities.

I think it should be clear by now that the chief abuser of children in the United States are the governments of the United States and the respective States thereof.

For heaven's sake, the public schools are a joke, and children are forced to attend so they can be dumbed down into mindless drones that will accept whatever bullshit the U.S. government tells them. I've seen the schoolbooks that fourth graders used a century ago, and the average college student today could not read at that level. Thee may not be an established Church in the old sense, but many laws are explicitly religious in tone, and many more accept religious ideas implicitly. So strong has this religious impulse been that the U.S. Congress has even gone so far as to condemn scientific studies that contradict the received customs of the American people.

Finally, to add insult to injury, children are warned against assaults by strangers despite the fact that they are roughly 10 times as likely to be abused by someone in their own family, but they are not given any option to leave a bad family situation - instead, if caught fleeing abuse, the police will take them back to their abusers. On top of all this, the government and media collude to enslave the American people by appealing over and over again that this is the only way to make children safe - that abusive laws must be passed "for the children".

Let's just say that while I am suspicious of this religious group, I am far more suspicious of the secular authorities.

Evidence?

Information on the actual teachings of the FLDS.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/flds.htm

The FLDS is actually a 20th century phenomenon created in the year 1935 after its founders, John Barlow and Joseph Musser were excommunicated from the Mormon church for hearsay.
Mr. Barlow was the original leader.
However, Roulon Jeffs took over the sect. In 2002 his son, Warren took over the sect. Warren was a principle at one of the FLDS schools.

Because FLDS members never spoke to nonmembers until recently, "most of the information comes from critics of the FLDS or from ex-FLDS members who have left the group. These can be unreliable sources."

Exmembers who fled the group can't be relied on because they do have grudges against community members.

Since he took over, Jeffs has been a very busy man. In addition to mandating so called underage marriage, he has:

1. Banned all television, video games, and even the internet. Ironically, the first step tin pot dictators in third world countries do these days when they seek to consolidate power is they ban the internet. According to this, Mr. Jeffs does qualify as a tin pot dictator.

2. He banned all water activities. So how did they shower or bathe without water?

3. Ordered parents to toss or burn both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Another site says that he forbid his followers from reading the Bible themselves.


4. All holidays, including christmas and easter were banned. How the heck can you ban Christmas????? That's not cool.

5. He a made a law banning dances, social get togethers, and even parties are banned under his leadership.

6. He imposed a law that bans laughter. Apparently, if you laugh you get kicked out.

7. He expelled dozens of men who disagreed with his political policies and claimed the right to take their children and spouses from them and give those spouses/children to other men who were political allies of Mr Jeffs. Mr. Jeffs had a policy of literally ripping families apart if a man questioned his policies.

8. Mr. Jeffs claims the power to send your soul to hell. Hmmm, considering that only God can send people's souls to hell, Mr. Jeffs seems to be claiming he is God. Even among Mormons that would be blasphemy. So this guy is declaring to the world that he is god.

9. He has banned children from playing with each other. Instead, he imposed a law that requires children to verbally put down each other's parents.

10. In 2004, Jeffs purged 20 political opponents from the FLDS communities and gave their wives and children to close allies.

But he ran into difficulty recently. He was prosecuted for underage sex.
Then Texas, who AofC was 14 raised it to 16 as soon as they heard about the the FLDS.

In Utah, a judge removed Jeffs and his allies from control of the communities multi million dollar trust fund. This fund owns all the land, homes, schools, and businesses used by FLDS members.

In Arizona, the state had to take over FLDS schools because funds had mysteriously disappeared as in the trust fund case.

In 2006, Jeffs was arrested in a brand new, 2007 Cadillac Escalade, likely purchased from the money he stole from the trust fund and the FLDS schools. He probably has more than one of the Escalades. This guy was ripping off his own members from right under their noses.

According to one investigator, when you in their midst, you feel like you are in the middle of a third world dictatorship.

Jeffs has also passed laws requiring men to work no less than 20 hours a day so that he and his closest associates can liberties with other men's wives.

He has also required older men to marry the younger girls. As stated earlier, he has excommunicated dozens of men for refusing to marry girls who were 10 to 12 years old.

apparently the men of the FLDS are afraid of him.


Warren Jeffs has 40 wives, among them, his own mother.
Just like Nero of Rome, Jeffs likes to write songs.

He purged men even without cause just so there would be a supply of lots of extra girls.

Wives are required by an edict that Jeffs issued, to apply for government assistance.

Members are afraid of disobeying the prophet because they fear losing their families and their salvation. Basically, he has terrorized everyone of his followers; the males, the females, the adults and the children.

For all his demands that his followers follow strict codes and only wear certain types of clothing, the media has avoided reporting the following important fact:
"When Jeffs was arrested, he was wearing an apparently very comfortable pair of shorts and white T-shirt. One of his wives who accompanied him was dressed in slacks. Both asked to be able to change into their regular religious clothes before being photographed. Members of the FLDS are required to wear white religious undergarments and are totally covered except for their hands and head."

Mr. Jeffs doesn't even believe in his own religion.

This information site is more credible than the sites run by FLDS bashers and sites set up by former FLDS members. The Religious Tolerance Organization favors a neutral policy toward religion rather than the hostile stance favored by many FLDS bashers.

Sure people can learn the law without going to lawschool, just as people can learn medicine without going to medical school and can learn accounting without taking any coursework in accounting.

It can be done, absolutly. But how much legal knowledge does the "common american" have, reall? Especially in larger legal principles like constitutional jurisprudence?

So you think only the elite should have any say in America.

Where in the United States constitution does it grant the individual authority to break the law by claiming religious purposes hmm? Congress shall not make any law in the establishment of religion I believe the line went. And exemptions for religion against law breaking would certainly be considered that.

You don't support the constitution. You support child abuse.

Just as you support religious persecution.
And in case you didn't get it already, the SCOTUS did rule one religious group to be exempt from laws against killing animals.

They also ruled that Native Americans can use peyote in their religious rituals, despite the fact that there are federal and state laws that ban the possession, sale, and use of peyote.

So the court has granted exemptions to laws if the exemptions are 100% for religious reasons, which I must confess I am no longer certain is the case here as Mr. Jeffs was making off with all those people's money and not even living by the same rules he forced them to live by.

They are all victims, unfortunately no one is going to help them because the thing in Texas is nothing more than a circus and platform for future politicians to say, "vote for me I went after evil pedies" or "vote for me, I defended families against evil government"

The children need saving, so do the women and so do the men. But none of them will get it.

Just as you support religious persecution.


I won't, when I'm allowed to freely kill people so long as I claim it for religious reasons. Until then, religion is no excuse to break the law.


And in case you didn't get it already, the SCOTUS did rule one religious group to be exempt from laws against killing animals.

The only law against killing animals are those for excessive cruelty and public health and sanitation, otherwise abattoirs would have been out of business ages ago. So your argument is bunk.


They also ruled that Native Americans can use peyote in their religious rituals, despite the fact that there are federal and state laws that ban the possession, sale, and use of peyote.

Native Americans in native American reservations, which are considered to be separate areas from certain laws unless I am very much mistaken. Try again.

That is exactly the same excuse the evil commies in China are using to committ genocide against the Tibetan's religious culture. That religion is evil and must be squashed.
Thank you, I'm glad we can reach some concensus here.

They also ruled that Native Americans can use peyote in their religious rituals, despite the fact that there are federal and state laws that ban the possession, sale, and use of peyote.

Link?

You won't get a link. The supreme court in Employment Board v. Smith specifically said that laws limiting petoye consumption DID NOT violate the first amendment rights of native Americans . Not only has scotus not said what he claims they said the central holding in smith said the exact opposite

Update: The moms just left the kids and returned to the compound.

They are not perscuting them for the religion. They are persecuting them for minors being pretty much raped by older men. Honestly, I don't care about polygamy. As long as they are all consenting people over the age of 18.

So you think only the elite should have any say in America.

What an absolute non sequitur.

So many pages and people still want to indulge USoA in the biggest trollfest he's ever come across?

So many pages and people still want to indulge USoA in the biggest trollfest he's ever come across?

he enjoys it and sometimes its fun to hit the easy pitches out of the park.

The attorneys in the case are complaining that the state is still refusing to let them meet with their clients.

It is also being reported that the state refuses to accept the identification documents of the FLDS members.
If those documents were issued by the state of Arizona or Utah, then Texas is clearly violating the constitutional clause that requires that states recognize and accept documents issued by all of the other states.

Some are questioning the constitutionality of forcing all the children into a mass hearing instead of the individual hearings that have been a custom in US legal sittings.

None of the children are allowed to have cell phones, internet access or even television.
Wow. That's the exact same thing that Warren Jeffs was already doing to them. Now it's the state that's abusing them.

One so called child advocate had to be removed after he punched a 15 year old pregnant girl who had refused to tell him who got her pregnant.
Shades of Guantanamo. So now the state is beating up pregnant women.
But I guess the FLDS is so evil that it makes rightfor the to beat up underage women who are pregnant.

Only a quarter of the attorneys have been allowed any contact with their clients.

Ever heard of the Inquistion???

Because that is exactly what is happening now in Texas.

Thank you, I'm glad we can reach some concensus here.

Heard about the anti west protests yet? They are supposedly upset because many western nations refused to ban protests for the olympic torch relay.

At least our protests voluntary efforts that were organized by regular people. While the ones in China were organized by the government and people were required by law to participate.

The attorneys in the case are complaining that the state is still refusing to let them meet with their clients.
Care to provide evidence of your claim?
It is also being reported that the state refuses to accept the identification documents of the FLDS members.
Source?
If those documents were issued by the state of Arizona or Utah, then Texas is clearly violating the constitutional clause that requires that states recognize and accept documents issued by all of the other states.
So you have no idea whether or not the FLDS ID's are even valid.
Some are questioning the constitutionality of forcing all the children into a mass hearing instead of the individual hearings that have been a custom in US legal sittings.
Source?
None of the children are allowed to have cell phones, internet access or even television.
Source?
Also, OMG the governments not giving them free cellphones how horrible... :rolleyes:

One so called child advocate had to be removed after he punched a 15 year old pregnant girl who had refused to tell him who got her pregnant.
Shades of Guantanamo. So now the state is beating up pregnant women.
But I guess the FLDS is so evil that it makes rightfor the to beat up underage women who are pregnant.
Source?
Only a quarter of the attorneys have been allowed any contact with their clients.
Source?

Also USoA you still haven't answered my question about how you came to the conclusion that the definition of marriage as 2 people is based on 1 interpretation of the bible.

You won't get a link. The supreme court in Employment Board v. Smith specifically said that laws limiting petoye consumption DID NOT violate the first amendment rights of native Americans . Not only has scotus not said what he claims they said the central holding in smith said the exact opposite

You are citing employment law. Private employers are not bound by the same restrictions as the government.
There is a huge difference between what was happening in that case and wt is happening here.
1. Unlike in this case, non of those defendents were denied the right to practice their religion. There is no such thing as a "right to work" which is what they were trying to imply. One of the conditions for employment was that you don't use drugs that are illegal.
Nor were their families destroyed by the state because of their faith.
At stake in the case you cite, is not religious freedom but rather the issue of whether there is a right to work and a right to unemployment insurance.

2. In fact, federal law exempts religious use of peyote from prosecution.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6D9113CF93BA25757C0A966958260

"Peyote, a cactus that contains the hallucinogenic substance mescaline, has been used for centuries in Indian religious ceremonies. Federal law and the laws of 23 states, including many with substantial Indian populations, exempt the sacramental use of peyote from criminal penalties."

"A generally applicable law or regulation that places an incidental burden on religious practice is constitutional, Justice Scalia said, unless it is ''specifically directed'' at a religious act. As an example, he said, a law prohibiting ''bowing down before a golden calf'' would ''doubtless be unconstitutional.''

The FLDS faith requires polygamous marriage and hence laws must accomodate it.

However, in your case which you cited, there was strong dissent from 4 of the justices.

"Justice O'Connor called the majority opinion ''incompatible with our nation's fundamental commitment to individual religious liberty.'' "

She added: ''If the First Amendment is to have any vitality, it ought not be construed to cover only the extreme and hypothetical situation in which a state directly targets a religious practice,'' she said.

''The essence of a free exercise claim,'' she said, ''is relief from a burden imposed by government on religious practices or beliefs, whether the burden is imposed directly through laws that prohibit or compel specific religious practices, or indirectly through laws that, in effect, make abandonment of one's own religious or conformity to the religious beliefs of others the price of an equal place in the civil community.

''The history of our free-exercise doctrine amply demonstrates the harsh impact majoritarian rule has had on unpopular or emerging religious groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish.''

In addition to filing their own dissenting opinion, Justices Blackmun, Marshall and Brennan signed much of Justice O'Connor's opinion. All four agreed that the Government must be required to justify a burden on religious practice by demonstrating that it served a ''compelling state interest.''


It should further be noted that the two were not being prosecuted for engaging in ritual or religious use of peyote. They were not jailed they were not tried.

further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#United_States

United States federal law (and many state laws) protects the harvest, possession, consumption and cultivation of peyote as part of "bonafide religious ceremonies" (the federal statute is 42 USC §1996a.

Because of concerns that the ruling you cited would lead to religious persecution,

"American jurisdictions enacted these specific statutory exemptions in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that laws prohibiting the use of peyote that do not specifically exempt religious use nevertheless do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment"

Care to provide evidence of your claim?

Source?

So you have no idea whether or not the FLDS ID's are even valid.

Source?

Source?
Also, OMG the governments not giving them free cellphones how horrible... :rolleyes:


Source?

Source?

Also USoA you still haven't answered my question about how you came to the conclusion that the definition of marriage as 2 people is based on 1 interpretation of the bible.

http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/g/marriage.htm

"The definition of marriage depends on not only the historial period, but also on the geographical location and the cultural traditions of the individuals involved in the marriage relationship."

Demanding that marriage is only between one man and one woman of the exact same age is tantamount to religious bigotry.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

Marriage is a sacrament that must be voluntarily entered into.

Even the modern state recognizes it can not prosecute polygamous marriages unless they involved the FORCED marriage of underage girls who are unable to defend themselves.

Also, 18 is not the Age of Consent in most of the US. In most US states, the age of consent is 16.

As per the link for the above:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polygamists20apr20,1,942048.story

The FLDS is actually a 20th century phenomenon created in the year 1935 after its founders, John Barlow and Joseph Musser were excommunicated from the Mormon church for hearsay.
I'm glad somebody's finally getting serious about the Rules of Evidence!

http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/g/marriage.htm

"The definition of marriage depends on not only the historial period, but also on the geographical location and the cultural traditions of the individuals involved in the marriage relationship."
Yeah, and? How is does this support your theory?
Demanding that marriage is only between one man and one woman of the exact same age is tantamount to religious bigotry.
Where is this 'demanded'?
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

Marriage is a sacrament that must be voluntarily entered into.
You do reaslize that your own link destroys your theory, yes?
The marriage of Hatshepsut and Thutmose II was an arranged marriage to ensure the legitimacy of the royal line. Here is information about their marriage and children.

Hatshepsut took on the roles of "... daughter of a pharaoh, wife of a pharaoh, step-mother of a pharaoh and, for 20 years or more as pharaoh herself, the sole ruler of the mightiest nation in the ancient world, and the first documented female head of in human history."
Proof that marriage being two people predates christianity (http://marriage.about.com/od/ancientegyptian/p/hatshepsut.htm). /\
Even the modern state recognizes it can not prosecute polygamous marriages unless they involved the FORCED marriage of underage girls who are unable to defend themselves.
Care to provide evidence of that?
Also, 18 is not the Age of Consent in most of the US. In most US states, the age of consent is 16.
So?
The Age of consent in Texas happens to be 17.
As per the link for the above:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polygamists20apr20,1,942048.story

Will have to read through link again before I can comment...

So?
The Age of consent in Texas happens to be 17.


Also age of consent to have sex and the age at which you're allowed to marry are two different things.

Americans are very much deeply divided over whether the Texas CPS did the right thing.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8989851

A little over half of Americans say they believe that Texas is violating the First amendment and engaging in indirect religious persecution.

Most Americans are questioning whether the need to protect children is a valid reason for restricting religious freedom.

Many of the children seized at the ranch were fathered by sect Prophet, Warren Jeffs.

CPS representative Voss, said the state was not engaging in religious persecution but then said the state needed to ban the FLDS because it was the most evil religion in existenc.

"While none argue that abuse should go unchecked, some experts said Walther's sweeping ruling may have handed fundamentalist Mormons who believe in plural marriage a case capable of testing the ban on polygamy at the U.S. Supreme Court level"

Loving dealt with interracial marriage, Lawrence with homosexual relationships and Reynolds banned polygamy. The last case, heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1890, has never been directly challenged.
For that reason, attorneys general in Utah and Arizona have resisted prosecutions of consenting adults who have polygamous relationships.


The state of Texas is now admitting that they removed the children, not because of alleged abuse, but because the group engages in polygamy.

"But the Texas raid removed children whose parents said they were adults when they entered plural marriages, as well as monogamous parents who consider plural marriage a religious tenet."

Such that even if you didn't abuse your kids and your children were not being forced to marry older men, they were still taken because your religion teaches polygamy.
This case is mostly about polygamy. The child abuse claims are a farce.

"Michael Quinn, a historian and Mormon scholar, said social hysteria and Protestant revulsion against polygamy provide the backdrop for the Texas raid."

" “It is very clear this attack is on plural marriage as a way of living,” Quinn said. The children's removal was a “blanket punishment of an entire group for alleged crimes of an individual. That is clearly something that could be appealed up the court system.”

"If there is abuse, religion is not a defense, he said. But, “It is an astonishing decision if it was based on what parents teach their children and how it may affect them years later,” he said. “That is very problematic. I don't think the state can just draw inferences from religious beliefs.”

"A expert testified last week that underage marriages are not universal among the FLDS. "

FLDS beliefs require polygamy but they do not require underage marriages.

"As for polygamy, it's a a religious imperative for the FLDS and they won't likely give up the practice.
“They'll continue on,” Quinn said. “The same thing happened 55 years ago [in the Short Creek, Arizona, raid]. In some cases, it took three years for the parents to be reunited with their children.”
And this event, like that one, he said, will only entrench their sense of persecution.
“It will only reinforce their view that Satan operates through government,” Quinn said. "

Yeah, and? How is does this support your theory?

Where is this 'demanded'?

You do reaslize that your own link destroys your theory, yes?

Proof that marriage being two people predates christianity (http://marriage.about.com/od/ancientegyptian/p/hatshepsut.htm). /\

Care to provide evidence of that?

So?
The Age of consent in Texas happens to be 17.


Will have to read through link again before I can comment...

The age of consent in Texas was originally 14 then raised because the FLDS moved into the state and many Texans don't like other religions that are non christians. Remember they were among the first to declare that all Muslims were terrorists.

Monogamous marriages predating christian rule were entirely voluntary. Prechristian laws, polygamy was legal.

In fact, the so called evil of polygamy was actually used as an excuse by the British, French and Americans to go around invading other countries during the era of colonialism. This was used as an excuse for the west europeans being allowed to carve up Africa into colonies where local traditions and cultures were banned under European rule.

The age of consent in Texas was originally 14 then raised because the FLDS moved into the state and many Texans don't like other religions that are non christians. Remember they were among the first to declare that all Muslims were terrorists.

Monogamous marriages predating christian rule were entirely voluntary. Prechristian laws, polygamy was legal.

In fact, the so called evil of polygamy was actually used as an excuse by the British, French and Americans to go around invading other countries during the era of colonialism. This was used as an excuse for the west europeans being allowed to carve up Africa into colonies where local traditions and cultures were banned under European rule.

And again, care to provide anything to back up your claims?

Also age of consent to have sex and the age at which you're allowed to marry are two different things.

In most states the marriage age is 16. In one state it is 21.
In mississipi you are not an adult until you are actually 21.

In New Hampshire, 13 year olds can marry if they have parental consent. Why would 13 year olds want to get marry????

Marriage age in North Carolina can be as young as 14 with court consent.

Minimum age of marriage, with parental consent, in Alabama is 14.
The permission of the court is also required.

In Hawaii, 15 year olds can marry with parental consent and a judge's permission.

Idaho, people under 16 can marry if they have permission from a court.

In Indiana, 15 year olds can marry if they get permission from a circuit court.

In Michigan, 15 year olds can marry if they have parental permission and court permission.

In Nevada, people under 16 can marry if they consent from a judge.

If you are not from New Hampshire you cannot marry there under any condition.

In New Mexico, 14 year olds can marry with parental consent.

In North Carolina 14 year olds can marry with court permission.

People under 16 can also marry in Pennsylvania.

In South Carolina, 14 year old girls can marry with court consent.

In Texas, the age for marriage is under 16 if you the permission of a judge. If you under 18 you need parental consent.

15 year olds can marry in Utah.

So most of the US allows 14 or 15 year olds to marry if certain conditions are met.

he enjoys it and sometimes its fun to hit the easy pitches out of the park.

I've always used the "whack-a-mole" analogy to explain my participation in threads like this, but "batting practice" is pretty good too. :)

In most states the marriage age is 16. In one state it is 21.
In mississipi you are not an adult until you are actually 21.

In New Hampshire, 13 year olds can marry if they have parental consent. Why would 13 year olds want to get marry????

Marriage age in North Carolina can be as young as 14 with court consent.

Minimum age of marriage, with parental consent, in Alabama is 14.
The permission of the court is also required.

In Hawaii, 15 year olds can marry with parental consent and a judge's permission.

Idaho, people under 16 can marry if they have permission from a court.

In Indiana, 15 year olds can marry if they get permission from a circuit court.

In Michigan, 15 year olds can marry if they have parental permission and court permission.

In Nevada, people under 16 can marry if they consent from a judge.

If you are not from New Hampshire you cannot marry there under any condition.

In New Mexico, 14 year olds can marry with parental consent.

In North Carolina 14 year olds can marry with court permission.

People under 16 can also marry in Pennsylvania.

In South Carolina, 14 year old girls can marry with court consent.

In Texas, the age for marriage is under 16 if you the permission of a judge. If you under 18 you need parental consent.

15 year olds can marry in Utah.

So most of the US allows 14 or 15 year olds to marry if certain conditions are met.

Ie court consent. Which rarely, rarely, rarely happens. So most of the time, its 18 year olds.

ANd is English your first or second language?

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

What if their religious faith mandates the killing of animals as part of their ritual - do you allow that? What if it mandates the killing of non-believers or apostates - is that ok? Their religious practice said it was ok to marry a girl under the legal age of consent. They broke the law, repeatedly. The men allegedly had sex with girls that were under the age of consent. Where do you draw the line - or is everything ok, provided it's practiced under the umbrella of "religious faith?"

In most states the marriage age is 16. In one state it is 21.
In mississipi you are not an adult until you are actually 21.

In New Hampshire, 13 year olds can marry if they have parental consent. Why would 13 year olds want to get marry????

Marriage age in North Carolina can be as young as 14 with court consent.

Minimum age of marriage, with parental consent, in Alabama is 14.
The permission of the court is also required.

In Hawaii, 15 year olds can marry with parental consent and a judge's permission.

Idaho, people under 16 can marry if they have permission from a court.

In Indiana, 15 year olds can marry if they get permission from a circuit court.

In Michigan, 15 year olds can marry if they have parental permission and court permission.

In Nevada, people under 16 can marry if they consent from a judge.

If you are not from New Hampshire you cannot marry there under any condition.

In New Mexico, 14 year olds can marry with parental consent.

In North Carolina 14 year olds can marry with court permission.

People under 16 can also marry in Pennsylvania.

In South Carolina, 14 year old girls can marry with court consent.

In Texas, the age for marriage is under 16 if you the permission of a judge. If you under 18 you need parental consent.

15 year olds can marry in Utah.

So most of the US allows 14 or 15 year olds to marry if certain conditions are met.

Which is A) not 13, B) not polygamous, and C) assuming that the child is also consenting. I'm also fairly certain that there are other qualifiers and that a judge will not give permission for a 14 year old to marry a 50 year old. There is also stipulation that the parent is not manipulating the child into doing this, which can be legally investigated if the judge thinks it's dodgy enough to warrant closer inspection.

The age of consent in Texas was originally 14 then raised because the FLDS moved into the state and many Texans don't like other religions that are non christians. Remember they were among the first to declare that all Muslims were terrorists.

Please, please attempt to provide evidence for the bolded claim. I need the entertainment.

Posting these here instead of starting new thread. Anything that is related to the FLDS situation in should probably be kept in one thread. NO????


Some pictures of what really went down:

http://captivefldschildren.org/viewphoto.php?photo=04-04-08/DSCN0136.jpg

Other pictures on other sites are too graphic to show here. One shows a 5 year old girl being kicked in the face by a state trooper because she would not stop crying.

Another picture showed state police pointing loaded weapons at the women and children as they boarded the buses.


In a sign that the state is clearly overstepping its bounds, the judge, today, actually had to directly order the state and the CPS to allow attorneys to see and talk with their clients.

They were also ordered out of the concentration camp the state had forced them to live in.

What if their religious faith mandates the killing of animals as part of their ritual - do you allow that? What if it mandates the killing of non-believers or apostates - is that ok? Their religious practice said it was ok to marry a girl under the legal age of consent. They broke the law, repeatedly. The men allegedly had sex with girls that were under the age of consent. Where do you draw the line - or is everything ok, provided it's practiced under the umbrella of "religious faith?"

Read the thread. You are allowed to kill animals if its requirement of your religion.

The only way religious sacrifice of animals can be banned is if it creates a threat to community sanitation and the public health.

SCOTUS has already ruled that unless animal sacrifice threatens to create a spawning ground for diseases or threatens public health in any other way, you cannot ban it.

Human sacrifice is banned because it poses a direct threat to sanitation and human health.

What is the legal age of consent? It varies from political jurisdiction to political jurisdiction. Also your laws only apply in your state.
Further, marriage is not an act of sex. To say otherwise is foolish.
If this was about them getting it on with girls under the age of 14 or 15 I would see the point of prosecuting them because having sex with an 8 year old or a 12 year old could be a threat to the public health and perhaps a hazard to public sanitation. However, they are prosecuting people for marrying 17 year olds. When the marriage occured outside of Texas.

They are prosecuting people for being polygamists.

Prove to me that marrying a 17 or even a 16 year old poses a sanitation threat or creates a public health hazard.

What are you going to do if the children run away from their state appointed caretakers and to go back to the FLDS??? Hunt them down Nazi style???

The FLDS' fault is that they moved to a state which had recently raised its age of consent laws. When this is over, they move to Tennessee or South America or Eastern Europe.

Ironically there is a lot more religious freedom in East Europe and in Russia than there is in America which thinks it has right to carve up other countries and dictate what other nations can do internally.

Thank God for Russia being there to remind Americans they don't own the planet.

Lets face it, all the people who oppose the FLDS in this matter without giving them the benefit of the doubt, are the same people who support China's right to engage in genocide against defenseless Tibetans.

Please, please attempt to provide evidence for the bolded claim. I need the entertainment.

Do this or admit defeat.

Read the thread. You are allowed to kill animals if its requirement of your religion.

The only way religious sacrifice of animals can be banned is if it creates a threat to community sanitation and the public health.

SCOTUS has already ruled that unless animal sacrifice threatens to create a spawning ground for diseases or threatens public health in any other way, you cannot ban it.

You're not addressing the bit where he asks about killing nonbelievers...

Posting these here instead of starting new thread. Anything that is related to the FLDS situation in should probably be kept in one thread. NO????


Some pictures of what really went down:

http://www.captivefldschildren.org/viewphoto.php?photo=04-04-08/DSCN0136.jpg

Other pictures on other sites are too graphic to show here. One shows a 5 year old girl being kicked in the face by a state trooper because she would not stop crying.

Another picture showed state police pointing loaded weapons at the women and children as they boarded the buses.


In a sign that the state is clearly overstepping its bounds, the judge, today, actually had to directly order the state and the CPS to allow attorneys to see and talk with their clients.

They were also ordered out of the concentration camp the state had forced them to live in.

i didnt see those pictures on that site. where are they?

Posting these here instead of starting new thread. Anything that is related to the FLDS situation in should probably be kept in one thread. NO????


Some pictures of what really went down:

http://captivefldschildren.org/viewphoto.php?photo=04-04-08/DSCN0136.jpg

Other pictures on other sites are too graphic to show here. One shows a 5 year old girl being kicked in the face by a state trooper because she would not stop crying.

Another picture showed state police pointing loaded weapons at the women and children as they boarded the buses.


In a sign that the state is clearly overstepping its bounds, the judge, today, actually had to directly order the state and the CPS to allow attorneys to see and talk with their clients.

They were also ordered out of the concentration camp the state had forced them to live in.

Source?
Also your pic link is not working.

Prove to me that marrying a 17 or even a 16 year old poses a sanitation threat or creates a public health hazard.

What does this have to do with anything?

i didnt see those pictures on that site. where are they?

They're pretend images. Like his pretend arguments.

Which is A) not 13, B) not polygamous, and C) assuming that the child is also consenting. I'm also fairly certain that there are other qualifiers and that a judge will not give permission for a 14 year old to marry a 50 year old. There is also stipulation that the parent is not manipulating the child into doing this, which can be legally investigated if the judge thinks it's dodgy enough to warrant closer inspection.

In New Hampshire it is 13. The consensus is 14 and that falls in line with the vast majority of the rest of the world.


About the 16 year old that some people still think was a real person making a legit call to the authorities:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/22/polygamy.testing/?iref=hpmostpop

"Authorities say a series of phone calls in late March from 16-year-old "Sarah" prompted the raid, which began on April 3. The caller, who said she was living on the ranch, reported that she had been beaten and forced to become an adult man's "spiritual" wife.

Authorities have yet to locate the caller, whom members of the sect say does not exist.

"However, Texas Rangers are pursuing a Colorado woman as a "person of interest" in connection with the phone calls that touched off the raid. A search of Rozita Swinton's home in Colorado Springs yielded evidence that possibly links her to the phone calls made about the YFZ ranch, authorities said. Swinton, 33, has been charged in Colorado with false reporting to authorities."

The fact is that the 16 year old the state relied on for the raid never existed and it was a prank call that the state is using to persecute a religious group on the basis of polygamy.

"we do believe we have information that will be substantiated in court that will show there has been sexual assault as well as bigamy."

They are now saying if you have more than one wife, it constitutes sexual assault.

You're not addressing the bit where he asks about killing nonbelievers...

That's been addressed already. You're just ignoring it.

Which is normal because in the US anytime some one says "child rapist" you Americans automatically assume guilt. You don't allow for due process. Due process means the state cannot seize the children until they prove that all children taken were actually approved.


Yet I bet a lot of you are screaming about suicide bomber terrorists being assumed guilty without due process.


Also you claim religious freedom in your country. Yet here you are persecuting a lot of people because of their religious beliefs.

Those people have not even been found guilty by a judge yet you already decarling them guilty and you:

1. are not judges
2. have not seen any of the evidence
3. have not spoken to any of the people in the FLDS
4. have not spoken to the attorney of the people in the FLDS
5. have not spoken to any of the people involved in the case

And it highly doubtful any of you even know someone connected to the case.

It's nice to know that terrorist suicide bombers who want to blow people up should be allowed to walk free while people who have a weird culture from a wierd religion should be locked up for life because of their beliefs.

Exuse me but no one from the FLDS blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11. No one from the FLDS went around blowing up subways.
No one from the FLDS went around the US killing cops and then fleeing down to Mexico as quite a few illegals have done.
No one from the FLDS has cheated on their taxes though I'm sure the rest of America has done precisely that.
The FLDS does not allow their children access to online porn, gambling, or gangster rap. I'm pretty certain that most non FLDS children have had tons of exposure to all three.

You Americans need to get your priorities straight.

i didnt see those pictures on that site. where are they?

I don't want to be banned for telling you. I am not crazy.
I would rather lose the argument because of the graphic nature of the images located on the site in question.

Lets face it, all the people who oppose the FLDS in this matter without giving them the benefit of the doubt, are the same people who support China's right to engage in genocide against defenseless Tibetans.

A swing and a miss...

SCOTUS has already ruled that unless animal sacrifice threatens to create a spawning ground for diseases or threatens public health in any other way, you cannot ban it.
False.
Lets face it, all the people who oppose the FLDS in this matter without giving them the benefit of the doubt, are the same people who support China's right to engage in genocide against defenseless Tibetans.
False.

I don't want to be banned for telling you. I am not crazy.
I would rather lose the argument because of the graphic nature of the images located on the site in question.

consider it lost then.

The FLDS does not allow their children access to online porn, gambling, or gangster rap. I'm pretty certain that most non FLDS children have had tons of exposure to all three.

You Americans need to get your priorities straight.

I'm not American, so how do you reconcile that with the fact that I think you're a moron?

Porn is not evil. Gambling is not evil (not to my taste, but not evil). Gangster rap is not evil. Kids being exposed to this is part of what makes kids adults, and stops them from being clueless by the time they come of age.

What kids shouldn't be exposed to is the sort of ridiculous patriarchal, feudalist crap peddled by the FLDS, smothered in a thin veneer of religious self-justification. The fact is that if people have been forced to marry while under-age, or to engage in sexual activity while under-age with someone not under-age, then a crime has been committed. The law is obliged to step in under such a circumstance. This is not an issue of religious freedom - it is a legal matter. The law is more important than a religion, which is why secularism is so crucial. And I say this as a Christian.

Your comment about Russia, a diabolical piss-poor excuse for a nation led by a chest-puffing, sabre-rattling egotist (not that Bush isn't), being there to keep the States in its place is laughable, and shows just how little your arguments can be taken seriously.

I'm not American, so how do you reconcile that with the fact that I think you're a moron?

Porn is not evil. Gambling is not evil (not to my taste, but not evil). Gangster rap is not evil. Kids being exposed to this is part of what makes kids adults, and stops them from being clueless by the time they come of age.

What kids shouldn't be exposed to is the sort of ridiculous patriarchal, feudalist crap peddled by the FLDS, smothered in a thin veneer of religious self-justification. The fact is that if people have been forced to marry while under-age, or to engage in sexual activity while under-age with someone not under-age, then a crime has been committed. The law is obliged to step in under such a circumstance. This is not an issue of religious freedom - it is a legal matter. The law is more important than a religion, which is why secularism is so crucial. And I say this as a Christian.

Your comment about Russia, a diabolical piss-poor excuse for a nation led by a chest-puffing, sabre-rattling egotist (not that Bush isn't), being there to keep the States in its place is laughable, and shows just how little your arguments can be taken seriously.

You don't even know what the situation is. You hear child rapist and you assume guilt without there even having been a trial, without there being any proof whatever.

The fact is that none of the women whether adult or teen have been forced to marry anyone. The person who made that claim has been arrested on charges of making prank phone calls. It was fat black girl in Colorado who has no connection with the FLDS. She made the call because she thought it would be funny to make practical joke call to state authorities.

No one has been forced to submit to sex. Unlike in all the non FLDS communities where rape is rampant.

One day Russia will free the world from American imperliasm. The US owes the rest of the world at least $4,500 per American for gross human rights violations committed by Americans (both military and civilian tourists) around the world. Especially the atrocities committed by American tourists in third world countries such as Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

Hey, in the US they say porn is evil. That is why it is illegal.
In the US they say gambling in evil. That is why they have banned online gambling.

Gang rap is most certainly the most evil thing ever invented as it promotes racism, mass rape, and genocide.

It is cultural. Only the parents have the right to decide if their children should be exposed to such thing.

consider it lost then.

If it is choice between exposing any children who might be on this site to disturbing images and losing the so called argument, I'll take the loss thank you.

If it is choice between exposing any children who might be on this site to disturbing images and losing the so called argument, I'll take the loss thank you.

Your citing of non-existent proof of Texas state troopers abusing the FCJCLDS children has the same impenetrable credibility as George W. Bush declaring that he has proof Iraq carried weapons of mass destruction and that they were going to launch them at the United States within 48 hours.

A convenient excuse with no solid foundation.

And it's darkly hilarious how you're defending religiously sanctioned child sexual abuse by claiming that the state of Texas is physically abusing those children.

I know you're just attention-whoring as usual trying to defend a pragmatically indefensible position, but I just wanted to say something.

In New Hampshire it is 13. The consensus is 14 and that falls in line with the vast majority of the rest of the world.

Was the religious sect in New Hampshire?

And it's still not polygamy.

And assuming consent.

And the rest of the world is not America, so their laws are somewhat irrelevant.

"we do believe we have information that will be substantiated in court that will show there has been sexual assault as well as bigamy."

They are now saying if you have more than one wife, it constitutes sexual assault.

"As well as". Not "therefore".

That's been addressed already.

Where?

Due process means the state cannot seize the children until they prove that all children taken were actually approved.

The state can take custody of the children temporarily if there is a chance that the children may be in danger while due process is being carried out. For example, if you think a child is being abused you do not leave it in the custody of the abuser while you're finding out if it's true because there is a good chance the abuser will abuse them more for snitching, or abuse them into lying, or kill them to keep them from talking, or any number of things an abuser does to children when they're just pissed off.

Do this or admit defeat.

Also, this ^

Your citing of non-existent proof of Texas state troopers abusing the FCJCLDS children has the same impenetrable credibility as George W. Bush declaring that he has proof Iraq carried weapons of mass destruction and that they were going to launch them at the United States within 48 hours.

A convenient excuse with no solid foundation.

And it's darkly hilarious how you're defending religiously sanctioned child sexual abuse by claiming that the state of Texas is physically abusing those children.

I know you're just attention-whoring as usual trying to defend a pragmatically indefensible position, but I just wanted to say something.

There is no proof what so ever that there is any abuse going on. The state itself has already admitted that. The accusation of abuse came from a liar who lives in Colorado and who has never had any connection with the FLDS.

I'm defending religious freedom and due process. Two things you apparently do not believe in.

I'm not American, so how do you reconcile that with the fact that I think you're a moron?

Porn is not evil. Gambling is not evil (not to my taste, but not evil). Gangster rap is not evil. Kids being exposed to this is part of what makes kids adults, and stops them from being clueless by the time they come of age.

What kids shouldn't be exposed to is the sort of ridiculous patriarchal, feudalist crap peddled by the FLDS, smothered in a thin veneer of religious self-justification. The fact is that if people have been forced to marry while under-age, or to engage in sexual activity while under-age with someone not under-age, then a crime has been committed. The law is obliged to step in under such a circumstance. This is not an issue of religious freedom - it is a legal matter. The law is more important than a religion, which is why secularism is so crucial. And I say this as a Christian.

Your comment about Russia, a diabolical piss-poor excuse for a nation led by a chest-puffing, sabre-rattling egotist (not that Bush isn't), being there to keep the States in its place is laughable, and shows just how little your arguments can be taken seriously.

It's nice to know you think it is ok to expose children to pornography but not to the beliefs or culture of their own parents.

It's nice to know you think it is ok to expose children to pornography but not to the beliefs or culture of their own parents.

The question is not exposure. The question is coercion.

There is no proof what so ever that there is any abuse going on. The state itself has already admitted that.

It has?

You don't even know what the situation is. You hear child rapist and you assume guilt without there even having been a trial, without there being any proof whatever.

Hey, I don't assume guilt. But an allegation had been made, and the law were obliged to step in. Given Warren Jeffs' previous conviction (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Polygamist-Leader.html), they were also obliged to take it pretty seriously. Which, by the way, makes your following point seem all the more foolish and ill-informed:

The fact is that none of the women whether adult or teen have been forced to marry anyone. The person who made that claim has been arrested on charges of making prank phone calls. It was fat black girl in Colorado who has no connection with the FLDS. She made the call because she thought it would be funny to make practical joke call to state authorities.

No one has been forced to submit to sex. Unlike in all the non FLDS communities where rape is rampant.

Yeah, rape is certainly rampant everywhere I've been in the States. I was in Boston a couple of years ago, and you couldn't get away from it, every street corner someone was being taken against their will... >.<

Why does it matter that she's fat? Or black? Do you know she had no connection? Do you have a source for this?

Unless you have lived in one of these communities, how is it exactly you know all this information for certain? Because if you're just going from what you know from teh internets, you're really in no better position to argue than any of us. In fact, probably a worse one, given Jeffs' conviction. It's not guilt by association, but suspicion by association is certainly warranted here.

One day Russia will free the world from American imperliasm. The US owes the rest of the world at least $4,500 per American for gross human rights violations committed by Americans (both military and civilian tourists) around the world. Especially the atrocities committed by American tourists in third world countries such as Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

Are you Russian, by any chance? Only you seem to have a bit of a hard-on for the country, and a massive over-estimation of their global influence. Do you have any source/proof for these apparent atrocities committed by tourists? And if you say that, as with the photos, they are too sensitive to post here, then you will pretty much be branded and official, professional troll. Where did you come up with the specific figure of $4500? You don't seem to have any factual or logical basis for your claims.

Hey, in the US they say porn is evil. That is why it is illegal.

Err, are you taking the piss? Porn is most definitely NOT illegal in the States.

In the US they say gambling in evil. That is why they have banned online gambling.

Why not ban it altogether? If it's evil, rather than just dangerous/distasteful, they wouldn't keep it legal...

Gang rap is most certainly the most evil thing ever invented as it promotes racism, mass rape, and genocide.

Further highlighting the prejudice you heavily insinuated before. I'm willing to bet that less than 5% of mainstream/commercial gangster rap promotes mass rape or genocide. As for racism, that depends on your definition of racism, and whether you think the use of the n-bomb, for instance, promotes racial inequality. Regardless, I could just as easily accuse country music of promoting racism, or class war, or religious music of inciting religious hatred...

It is cultural. Only the parents have the right to decide if their children should be exposed to such thing.

And herein lies the problem. Any nation has a sovereign culture, enshrined, in part, in its legal system. Those not abiding by that culture ought not to live in the nation. Hence, radical islamists should get the fuck out of Britain. if you allow ONLY parents to decide what a child ought to be exposed to, fucked-up parents will more often produce fucked-up children. E.g. the idiot mothers in the UK who bring their children fish and chips or burgers and the like for lunch, when the school is promoting a healthy eating plan (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/17/news/lunch.php), or parents who let their kids do whatever, run riot, chav it up, and then support them. Parents are not perfect, and should definitely not be the be all and end all of what a child is exposed to.

It's nice to know you think it is ok to expose children to pornography but not to the beliefs or culture of their own parents.

Generalisations, are we at that point already? Wonderful...

There are caveats to both of these situations. Children, if exposed to porn, should know what porn is - how and why it's made, and that it does not reflect real life. As I just said in my previous post, parents are often idiots too, so their beliefs and culture may be equally idiotic and damaging to the child. If those beliefs and culture do not sit within a country's legal framework, then the state is obliged to intervene. How is that difficult to understand?

Further proof that the raid was the result of a deliberate smear campaign:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5724630.html

Regarding mis Swinton:

"Texas authorities said the search turned up several items suggesting a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding compounds in Texas and Arizona owned by the Mormon sect, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

"The document released today shows Swinton had an extensive record in Colorado Springs of posing as a troubled teen and making false claims"

"The document links Swinton to calls made throughout October from a "Dana Anderson." The caller claimed to be a young woman being abused by her pastor at Colorado Springs' New Life Church,"

"Texas Ranger Brooks Long asked about two telephone numbers, both with Colorado Springs area codes. One of the phone numbers, the document says, "was related to the reporting party for the YFZ Ranch incident," and was one of the numbers police had connected to Swinton."

"Swinton was arrested April 16 in connection with the call"

"Documents related to Swinton's arrest were sealed by a judge at the request of Texas authorities."

They were worried it willdestroy their case against the FLDS if the truth gets out.

Was the religious sect in New Hampshire?

And it's still not polygamy.

And assuming consent.

And the rest of the world is not America, so their laws are somewhat irrelevant.



"As well as". Not "therefore".



Where?



The state can take custody of the children temporarily if there is a chance that the children may be in danger while due process is being carried out. For example, if you think a child is being abused you do not leave it in the custody of the abuser while you're finding out if it's true because there is a good chance the abuser will abuse them more for snitching, or abuse them into lying, or kill them to keep them from talking, or any number of things an abuser does to children when they're just pissed off.



Also, this ^

I bring up New Hampshire because someone had said that AoC of 16 to 18 for marriage was universal in the US.

You are assuming that parents in the US would force their own daughters into a marriage????

As with New Hampshire I bring the rest of the world because of some people making the erroneous claim that the AoC for their communities was universally held by all countries.

You, and many of the other posters in this thread, at least acknowledge that the AoC and the AoM are not universally held values. Though the universal limit does seem to be 14 with 2 or three exceptions. Why would the Spanish have their AoC at 13?????

I agree to the last but I believe the state will look bad if it turns out they did all this without evidence and it turns out there was no abuse. There is thing called slander laws. Unfortunately the FLDS people seem to be too passive. They won't sue. Heck, from what I've been told the FLDS men won't even defend themselves if they are hit. Some BS about their belief in turning the other cheek.
The only to get a reaction from them seems to be to threaten their children.
But I guess those are bad values to teach children. That last comment was not pointed at you or any other posters. Just a generalization.

It does not logically follow that because the caller was false the compound did not need to be investigated.

The question is not exposure. The question is coercion.

The state has no proof of coercion. Three of their witnesses have already confessed in court that nothing they saw on the ranch indicated coercion.

So I would like to know where you get this idea that the girls are being coerced.

It has?

When they had the hearing to determine if the children would remain in state custody.

When they had the hearing to determine if the children would remain in state custody.
You never provide any link to any source of information that would confirm any assertion you make. So many of the things you have said are clearly false, some the result of gross misunderstandings on your part but perhaps others from your deliberate invention; it is getting hard to tell. You need to understand that no-one believes anything on your say-so.

Hey, I don't assume guilt. But an allegation had been made, and the law were obliged to step in. Given Warren Jeffs' previous conviction (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Polygamist-Leader.html), they were also obliged to take it pretty seriously. Which, by the way, makes your following point seem all the more foolish and ill-informed:



Yeah, rape is certainly rampant everywhere I've been in the States. I was in Boston a couple of years ago, and you couldn't get away from it, every street corner someone was being taken against their will... >.<

Why does it matter that she's fat? Or black? Do you know she had no connection? Do you have a source for this?

Unless you have lived in one of these communities, how is it exactly you know all this information for certain? Because if you're just going from what you know from teh internets, you're really in no better position to argue than any of us. In fact, probably a worse one, given Jeffs' conviction. It's not guilt by association, but suspicion by association is certainly warranted here.



Are you Russian, by any chance? Only you seem to have a bit of a hard-on for the country, and a massive over-estimation of their global influence. Do you have any source/proof for these apparent atrocities committed by tourists? And if you say that, as with the photos, they are too sensitive to post here, then you will pretty much be branded and official, professional troll. Where did you come up with the specific figure of $4500? You don't seem to have any factual or logical basis for your claims.



Err, are you taking the piss? Porn is most definitely NOT illegal in the States.



Why not ban it altogether? If it's evil, rather than just dangerous/distasteful, they wouldn't keep it legal...



Further highlighting the prejudice you heavily insinuated before. I'm willing to bet that less than 5% of mainstream/commercial gangster rap promotes mass rape or genocide. As for racism, that depends on your definition of racism, and whether you think the use of the n-bomb, for instance, promotes racial inequality. Regardless, I could just as easily accuse country music of promoting racism, or class war, or religious music of inciting religious hatred...



And herein lies the problem. Any nation has a sovereign culture, enshrined, in part, in its legal system. Those not abiding by that culture ought not to live in the nation. Hence, radical islamists should get the fuck out of Britain. if you allow ONLY parents to decide what a child ought to be exposed to, fucked-up parents will more often produce fucked-up children. E.g. the idiot mothers in the UK who bring their children fish and chips or burgers and the like for lunch, when the school is promoting a healthy eating plan (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/17/news/lunch.php), or parents who let their kids do whatever, run riot, chav it up, and then support them. Parents are not perfect, and should definitely not be the be all and end all of what a child is exposed to.

In US it illegal to have porn in the home if you also have children in the home. If you have kids and there is porn in your home, in some states you can be prosecuted for being a child molestor. Even if you never touch a child in a sexual manner.

Do this or admit defeat.

Still this ^

And it's still not polygamy.

Still this ^

You, and many of the other posters in this thread, at least acknowledge that the AoC and the AoM are not universally held values. Though the universal limit does seem to be 14 with 2 or three exceptions. Why would the Spanish have their AoC at 13?????

Why does it matter?

I agree to the last but I believe the state will look bad if it turns out they did all this without evidence and it turns out there was no abuse.

It looks worse when they don't do anything and they needed to.

There is thing called slander laws.

Which have absolutely nothing to do with this case.

Unfortunately the FLDS people seem to be too passive. They won't sue. Heck, from what I've been told the FLDS men won't even defend themselves if they are hit. Some BS about their belief in turning the other cheek.

Or they don't have a case.

The only to get a reaction from them seems to be to threaten their children.

Source?

But I guess those are bad values to teach children.

Yes. That would be why the compound is being investigated. The possibility that they were threatening (and/or beating) children.

That last comment was not pointed at you or any other posters. Just a generalization.

Generally, generalizations are a bad idea.

It does not logically follow that because the caller was false the compound did not need to be investigated.

If the libelous call had not been made, there is good argument to be made that there would be no investigation.

Albeight there may be one case of abuse. But what community does not have at least case of child abuse in its midst? In many cases the neighbors do nothing despite that they know about the abuse. Yet they are never prosecuted. Yet the state of Texas wants to prosecute the FLDS neighbors of any child who was exposed.

I guess the right of equal treatment by the law does not apply in Texas.

It does not logically follow that because the caller was false the compound did not need to be investigated.

Indeed, especially given the fact that when the police showed up to investigate the call, the men at the gate apparently lied to them - a lie that gave further justification for a search of the premises.


When they had the hearing to determine if the children would remain in state custody.

You mean the one where the state determined that there was evidence of abuse and that the children would therefore remain in state custody?

Albeight there may be one case of abuse.

One? There are at least 10 pregnant underage girls currently in custody. And, until the DNA testing is done, we won't know how many underage mothers there are.

It's also important to note that this community has a very high incidence of a genetic disorder causing a particularly severe form of mental retardation. To my knowledge, there is no indication that the community refrains from having women with the disorder married, despite the fact that they are likely unable to consent even as adults.

The state has no proof of coercion. Three of their witnesses have already confessed in court that nothing they saw on the ranch indicated coercion.

So I would like to know where you get this idea that the girls are being coerced.

I never said they were. I said that coercion is the point in question.

In US it illegal to have porn in the home if you also have children in the home. If you have kids and there is porn in your home, in some states you can be prosecuted for being a child molestor. Even if you never touch a child in a sexual manner.

Source!?

Also keeping in mind that, for instance, it is illegal in Virginia to have sex in any position other than Missionary with the lights out. There are old laws that no one cared enough to take off the books but are not presently enforced.

If the libelous call had not been made, there is good argument to be made that there would be no investigation.

Libelous is not the word you are looking for.

Libelous means it is not true of the person being accused. If it is true that the sect was abusing children, the accusation is not libelous, regardless of whether or not the person who called is honest.

Albeight there may be one case of abuse.

You have just countered your own argument. Fail.

But what community does not have at least case of child abuse in its midst? In many cases the neighbors do nothing despite that they know about the abuse. Yet they are never prosecuted. Yet the state of Texas wants to prosecute the FLDS neighbors of any child who was exposed.

In fact the abusers are prosecuted. If everyone in the community contributes to the abuse, everyone is prosecuted. If only person contributes to it and no one else does but no one reports it, the neighbors are assholes. Also keep in mind that there are laws that say you can be prosecuted if you were aware of abuse and did not notify someone. The tricky part is proving that they were aware of it.

As for "community", define it. The Catholic Church, for example, is a massive community with a huge number of smaller communities in it. When abuse is reported, the small community (the church in which it happened) is prosecuted if they knew it was going on and didn't do anything about it. The Catholic Church overall is not prosecuted because the Pope does not have direct control over each church, and more importantly, is not aware of any specific instance of abuse (though I'm sure if he ever becomes aware of one, he reports it).

Catholicism aside, yes, communities are held legally responsible for their members in many cases, especially when the community knew about or encouraged the abuse.

Further proof that the raid was the result of a deliberate smear campaign:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5724630.html

Regarding mis Swinton:

"Texas authorities said the search turned up several items suggesting a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding compounds in Texas and Arizona owned by the Mormon sect, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

"The document released today shows Swinton had an extensive record in Colorado Springs of posing as a troubled teen and making false claims"

"The document links Swinton to calls made throughout October from a "Dana Anderson." The caller claimed to be a young woman being abused by her pastor at Colorado Springs' New Life Church,"

"Texas Ranger Brooks Long asked about two telephone numbers, both with Colorado Springs area codes. One of the phone numbers, the document says, "was related to the reporting party for the YFZ Ranch incident," and was one of the numbers police had connected to Swinton."

"Swinton was arrested April 16 in connection with the call"

"Documents related to Swinton's arrest were sealed by a judge at the request of Texas authorities."

They were worried it willdestroy their case against the FLDS if the truth gets out.

you forgot this quote from your article

Authorities have not found that girl but say they have found evidence other children were abused.

Still this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13632227#post13632227), and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13635178#post13635178).

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935617.aspx

FLDS members say that brides younger than 16 are extremely rare.

They also state, these are the women, that they have the right to say no to a marriage. They also say that most waited until they were 18 to carry out their arranged marriages.

The marriages are decided by the parents. But girls still have the right, in their community, to refuse.

They noted that Texas raised the age of consent to 16 only after the FLDS moved in and had already set up shop. Clearly they are aware the law was specifically targeted at their beliefs.

They think it is unfortunate the state of Texas says that sex with an unmarried woman is rape.

They don't like their place being called a "compound". There are no walls there are no machine guns. They have open plains with cattle. People have freedom to come and go as they like.

As time continues to go by, the women on the ranch are sounding less like timid robots and more like conservative women in other parts of the US.

They are fully up to date on modern day conveniences. Well that should be clear already from the fact that we know they drive the latest SUV's and have the latest cell phones.

They also drink coffee, unlike mainstream Mormons.

Some FLDS women are college graduates.

Television is not banned. They don't allow TV's in their homes because they object to America's culture of gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence.

They have regular internet access but all children in the FLDS are banned from the internet until they are 18 because of the porn sites that pervade the internet.

The school is segregated according to gender.

They consider their community to be a town.

None of the FLDS members own their own house. They don't know who owns their houses.

This clearly opposes the picture presented by the state which claims it has proof of widespread child raping going on.

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935617.aspx

FLDS members say that brides younger than 16 are extremely rare.

They say.

And yet there are 10 pregnant underage girls currently in custody. Those are girls that are currently pregnant. We aren't counting any that have already had children or who have been married off and had sex without yet getting pregnant.

If we assume for the sake of running the numbers that half of the children taken from the ranch are female, that means that about 5% of the female children there were already "married" prior to 16.

They think it is unfortunate the state of Texas says that sex with an unmarried woman is rape.

Huh?

Indeed, especially given the fact that when the police showed up to investigate the call, the men at the gate apparently lied to them - a lie that gave further justification for a search of the premises.



You mean the one where the state determined that there was evidence of abuse and that the children would therefore remain in state custody?



One? There are at least 10 pregnant underage girls currently in custody. And, until the DNA testing is done, we won't know how many underage mothers there are.

It's also important to note that this community has a very high incidence of a genetic disorder causing a particularly severe form of mental retardation. To my knowledge, there is no indication that the community refrains from having women with the disorder married, despite the fact that they are likely unable to consent even as adults.

It's nice to know that a girl being pregnant is the end all be all proof that she was the victim of rape.
Pregnancy does not prove rape.

Whether a woman is considered able to to consent at a particular age or in a particular condition is cultural.
I've already demonstrated that is NOT a universal value. I've also demonstrated, already, that even in the US, AoC and AoM values and laws are not universal.

They told the police what they knew. If your neighbor is abusing his own daughter and you don't know about it, and you tell the police he is not abusing her. Should you be prosecuted as a pedophile because you lied to the police?

The state's witnesses said there was no evidence. They said they were suspicious because of the FLDS's beliefs. Suspicion on account of a group's professed beliefs does not = evidence of abuse.

It's nice to know that a girl being pregnant is the end all be all proof that she was the victim of rape.
Pregnancy does not prove rape.

No. But if the father is an adult, and she is under the age of consent, it does prove statutory rape.

Since we don't yet know who the fathers are, but we do know something about the practices of the sect, it is certainly enough reason to suspect that the fathers are adults. And, given that, we have enough to suspect widespread abuse.

Whether a woman is considered able to to consent at a particular age or in a particular condition is cultural.
I've already demonstrated that is NOT a universal value. I've also demonstrated, already, that even in the US, AoC and AoM values and laws are not universal.

Irrelevant when discussing whether or not Texas took proper legal action here.

They told the police what they knew. If your neighbor is abusing his own daughter and you don't know about it, and you tell the police he is not abusing her. Should you be prosecuted as a pedophile because you lied to the police?

I don't buy that. This is a close-knit group. Are you really going to tell me that you believe that, despite roughly 5% of all of the young girls on the compound being pregnant (presumably by their "spiritual husbands"), most of the neighbors weren't aware of it?

The state's witnesses said there was no evidence. They said they were suspicious because of the FLDS's beliefs. Suspicion on account of a group's professed beliefs does not = evidence of abuse.

Did they, now?

And that's why the state determined that there was evidence of abuse?

I never said they were. I said that coercion is the point in question.



Source!?

Also keeping in mind that, for instance, it is illegal in Virginia to have sex in any position other than Missionary with the lights out. There are old laws that no one cared enough to take off the books but are not presently enforced.



Libelous is not the word you are looking for.

Libelous means it is not true of the person being accused. If it is true that the sect was abusing children, the accusation is not libelous, regardless of whether or not the person who called is honest.



You have just countered your own argument. Fail.



In fact the abusers are prosecuted. If everyone in the community contributes to the abuse, everyone is prosecuted. If only person contributes to it and no one else does but no one reports it, the neighbors are assholes. Also keep in mind that there are laws that say you can be prosecuted if you were aware of abuse and did not notify someone. The tricky part is proving that they were aware of it.

As for "community", define it. The Catholic Church, for example, is a massive community with a huge number of smaller communities in it. When abuse is reported, the small community (the church in which it happened) is prosecuted if they knew it was going on and didn't do anything about it. The Catholic Church overall is not prosecuted because the Pope does not have direct control over each church, and more importantly, is not aware of any specific instance of abuse (though I'm sure if he ever becomes aware of one, he reports it).

Catholicism aside, yes, communities are held legally responsible for their members in many cases, especially when the community knew about or encouraged the abuse.

The intent of the woman in question was to committ libel. She was not targeting the guilty she was targeting the innocent.

She targeted the whole group.

It's nice to know that a girl being pregnant is the end all be all proof that she was the victim of rape.
Pregnancy does not prove rape.

Whether a woman is considered able to to consent at a particular age or in a particular condition is cultural.
I've already demonstrated that is NOT a universal value. I've also demonstrated, already, that even in the US, AoC and AoM values and laws are not universal.

They told the police what they knew. If your neighbor is abusing his own daughter and you don't know about it, and you tell the police he is not abusing her. Should you be prosecuted as a pedophile because you lied to the police?

The state's witnesses said there was no evidence. They said they were suspicious because of the FLDS's beliefs. Suspicion on account of a group's professed beliefs does not = evidence of abuse.

pregnant girl or young mother who is under the age of consent or had to have been under the age of consent when she got pregnant is the victim of statutory rape. thats what statutory rape IS.

you forgot this quote from your article

The testimony from the state's own witnesses contradicts the validity of their so called evidence.

Further, if the evidence was really that strong why are the defense attorneys not being given ready access to examine it????

Do defense attorneys in the US not have a right to examine evidence being used against their clients??

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935617.aspx

FLDS members say that brides younger than 16 are extremely rare.

They say.

They also state, these are the women, that they have the right to say no to a marriage. They also say that most waited until they were 18 to carry out their arranged marriages.

Yes, and those in the People's Temple also had the right to leave.

They didn't.

The marriages are decided by the parents. But girls still have the right, in their community, to refuse.

Even if they are technically allowed to say no, it needs to be investigated that parents were not abusively manipulating the children into not ever saying no.

They noted that Texas raised the age of consent to 16 only after the FLDS moved in and had already set up shop. Clearly they are aware the law was specifically targeted at their beliefs.

Source proving that it targeted them specifically? Coincidence does not prove causality.

They think it is unfortunate the state of Texas says that sex with an unmarried woman is rape.

Unmarried woman below the age of consent, yes.

They don't like their place being called a "compound". There are no walls there are no machine guns. They have open plains with cattle. People have freedom to come and go as they like.

Compound is a word. They do not get to choose its definition, including whether or not it describes them.

Whether or not it describes them, I wouldn't know. The point is, it's not up to them.

As time continues to go by, the women on the ranch are sounding less like timid robots and more like conservative women in other parts of the US.

And this has what to do with what?

They are fully up to date on modern day conveniences. Well that should be clear already from the fact that we know they drive the latest SUV's and have the latest cell phones.

They also drink coffee, unlike mainstream Mormons.

Some FLDS women are college graduates.

What to do with what?

Television is not banned. They don't allow TV's in their homes

"Banned" means "is not allowed." The question now becomes who has decided this. If each individual family has decided to refrain from purchasing a TV, that's all well and good. If the leader of the sect has strongly suggested that they not allow a TV in their home, that is dodgy.

because they object to America's culture of gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I see their point.

They have regular internet access but all children in the FLDS are banned from the internet until they are 18 because of the porn sites that pervade the internet.

Fair enough.

The school is segregated according to gender.

Dodgy. What is in place to maintain standards of education and to ensure equal opportunities for both genders?

They consider their community to be a town.

What to do with what?

None of the FLDS members own their own house. They don't know who owns their houses.

Weird, but whatever. Sounds culty to me. But they have a right to believe in a cult, so long as it's not endangering anyone.

This clearly opposes the picture presented by the state which claims it has proof of widespread child raping going on.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the state is wrong.

They say.

And yet there are 10 pregnant underage girls currently in custody. Those are girls that are currently pregnant. We aren't counting any that have already had children or who have been married off and had sex without yet getting pregnant.

If we assume for the sake of running the numbers that half of the children taken from the ranch are female, that means that about 5% of the female children there were already "married" prior to 16.



Huh?

10 underage girls out of almost 450. That's statistically insignificant (1 out of every 45 girls) (considering the rate of underage pregnancies in the general US population is much higher.
I think the rate for the general population is something like 1 out of 10.

Again, no one has answered my question: Since when is pregnancy absolute proof of rape? Especially when the girls insist the sex was voluntary?

Yes. 5% were married before 16. The question is how many of those "under 16" marriages occured in Texas and how many occured before the state raised its AoC laws.

Last I heard, if you did something before it became it illegal you could not be prosecuted for it after it was declared illegal unless you committed the crime after the law went into effect.

pregnant girl or young mother who is under the age of consent or had to have been under the age of consent when she got pregnant is the victim of statutory rape. thats what statutory rape IS.

Then a couple, who have their daughter artificially inseminated so they can T-cell transplants to save one of their other kids is guilty of statutory rape.

She was underage and they got her pregnant. By that definition they and the doctor committed statutory rape.

It's nice to know that a girl being pregnant is the end all be all proof that she was the victim of rape.
Pregnancy does not prove rape.

Whether a woman is considered able to to consent at a particular age or in a particular condition is cultural.
I've already demonstrated that is NOT a universal value. I've also demonstrated, already, that even in the US, AoC and AoM values and laws are not universal.

It doesn't matter whether or not they are universal. What matters is the law in Texas. If the age of consent in Texas is 16 and a 14 year old girl is pregnant, legally there has been a rape committed. It doesn't matter what the age of consent is in another state. The act was performed in Texas, Texas law is what matters.

Incidentally, I don't know what the age of consent is in Texas. But if it is above the age of a pregnant girl, the person who got her pregnant can be legally prosecuted for rape. It is a law, he has broken it.

They told the police what they knew. If your neighbor is abusing his own daughter and you don't know about it, and you tell the police he is not abusing her. Should you be prosecuted as a pedophile because you lied to the police?

Fallacious logic. I did not lie, I was misinformed. If they were misinformed, then they are innocent. The evidence presented so far would indicate that they were not misinformed, they were lying.

The state's witnesses said there was no evidence. They said they were suspicious because of the FLDS's beliefs. Suspicion on account of a group's professed beliefs does not = evidence of abuse.

Source.

The intent of the woman in question was to committ libel. She was not targeting the guilty she was targeting the innocent.

She targeted the whole group.

Intent does not matter. A statement is libelous if and only if it is untrue and damaging to the person accused. If you intend to commit libel and what you say is true, you have legally not committed libel and cannot be prosecuted for it.

Regardless, evidence presented so far indicates that the accusations of abuse are true. Even if the woman were prosecuted for libel, the sect can and will still be prosecuted for abuse.

Again, it does not logically follow that because the woman was lying about her identity or intention the sect is innocent of the charges of abuse.

The testimony from the state's own witnesses contradicts the validity of their so called evidence.

Source.

Further, if the evidence was really that strong why are the defense attorneys not being given ready access to examine it????

Source.

And you are still not addressing the issue of polygamy which is illegal in the state of Texas.

10 underage girls out of almost 450. That's statistically insignificant (1 out of every 45 girls) (considering the rate of underage pregnancies in the general US population is much higher.

Wrong. 10 underage girls out of about 400 children. Some of those children are male. If we go by general statistics, we'd be looking at about half of those children being female - so approximately 200.

That makes it roughly 5%, and doesn't cover young girls who have already had children or have not yet been impregnated.

Again, no one has answered my question: Since when is pregnancy absolute proof of rape? Especially when the girls insist the sex was voluntary?

Did I say it was "absolute proof? It is evidence - and definitely enough evidence to investigate.

Yes. 5% were married before 16. The question is how many of those "under 16" marriages occured in Texas and how many occured before the state raised its AoC laws.

Irrelevant. The law that was changed was for legal marriage with the parent's consent. In order for it to matter, the girls would have to be legally married to the fathers - before they had sex.

The AoC in Texas is actually 17, outside of parental consent to legal marriage.

Last I heard, if you did something before it became it illegal you could not be prosecuted for it after it was declared illegal unless you committed the crime after the law went into effect.

Indeed.

But if those girls are under 17, it is and has been illegal for quite some time.

Then a couple, who have their daughter artificially inseminated so they can T-cell transplants to save one of their other kids is guilty of statutory rape.

She was underage and they got her pregnant. By that definition they and the doctor committed statutory rape.

maybe so. is that some how relevant to this discussion?

Then a couple, who have their daughter artificially inseminated so they can T-cell transplants to save one of their other kids is guilty of statutory rape.

She was underage and they got her pregnant. By that definition they and the doctor committed statutory rape.

No sexual act was performed. Different context, fallacious argument.

10 underage girls out of almost 450. That's statistically insignificant (1 out of every 45 girls) (considering the rate of underage pregnancies in the general US population is much higher.


Human beings are not statistics, especially children, especially rape victims. A rape is never insignificant, statistically or otherwise.

I think the rate for the general population is something like 1 out of 10.

Source.

Again, no one has answered my question: Since when is pregnancy absolute proof of rape? Especially when the girls insist the sex was voluntary?

When the girl is below the age of consent. Below the age of consent, a child is legally considered to be incapable of giving consent.

Yes. 5% were married before 16. The question is how many of those "under 16" marriages occured in Texas and how many occured before the state raised its AoC laws.

That is a good question. I imagine marriage licenses will be able to clear that up. A directly related question: when was the law implemented that made the age of consent 16? Another: What was the law before then?

Last I heard, if you did something before it became it illegal you could not be prosecuted for it after it was declared illegal unless you committed the crime after the law went into effect.

Polygamy has been illegal for a long time.

They say.



Yes, and those in the People's Temple also had the right to leave.

They didn't.



Even if they are technically allowed to say no, it needs to be investigated that parents were not abusively manipulating the children into not ever saying no.



Source proving that it targeted them specifically? Coincidence does not prove causality.



Unmarried woman below the age of consent, yes.



Compound is a word. They do not get to choose its definition, including whether or not it describes them.

Whether or not it describes them, I wouldn't know. The point is, it's not up to them.



And this has what to do with what?



What to do with what?



"Banned" means "is not allowed." The question now becomes who has decided this. If each individual family has decided to refrain from purchasing a TV, that's all well and good. If the leader of the sect has strongly suggested that they not allow a TV in their home, that is dodgy.



Fair enough. I disagree, but I see their point.



Fair enough.



Dodgy. What is in place to maintain standards of education and to ensure equal opportunities for both genders?



What to do with what?



Weird, but whatever. Sounds culty to me. But they have a right to believe in a cult, so long as it's not endangering anyone.



You have yet to provide any evidence that the state is wrong.

Not just what they say. It is also proven if you look at the numbers. 1 out of every 45 underage girls. That would make it extremely rare.

1/45= 10/450 divided the common denominator of 10.

The people's temple????????

You have proof for your assertion they are liars??

Nothing wrong with investigating as long as you don't have the state or its supporters going around telling everyone they are guilty when no such determination has been made.

I posted a link to the state legislator who said the law was only passed after he had become aware of the presence of the FLDS in the state. He also stated that if not for the FLDS' beliefs, Texas would not have raised its consent age.
Do you need another link for this??????

The robotic manner in which many of the women spoke has led to lots of people calling them liars. Kind of like saying that all people with black skin are rapists.

The families decided they would not have televisions in their homes.

That could be determined by the state department of education certifying their school. If I am correct, most private schools have to have state certification in order to operate as schools.
The women have the opportunity to go to college. That indicates some level of gender equality. Though they also have traditional gender roles.

It doesn't matter whether or not they are universal. What matters is the law in Texas. If the age of consent in Texas is 16 and a 14 year old girl is pregnant, legally there has been a rape committed. It doesn't matter what the age of consent is in another state. The act was performed in Texas, Texas law is what matters.

Incidentally, I don't know what the age of consent is in Texas. But if it is above the age of a pregnant girl, the person who got her pregnant can be legally prosecuted for rape. It is a law, he has broken it.



Fallacious logic. I did not lie, I was misinformed. If they were misinformed, then they are innocent. The evidence presented so far would indicate that they were not misinformed, they were lying.



Source.



Intent does not matter. A statement is libelous if and only if it is untrue and damaging to the person accused. If you intend to commit libel and what you say is true, you have legally not committed libel and cannot be prosecuted for it.

Regardless, evidence presented so far indicates that the accusations of abuse are true. Even if the woman were prosecuted for libel, the sect can and will still be prosecuted for abuse.

Again, it does not logically follow that because the woman was lying about her identity or intention the sect is innocent of the charges of abuse.



Source.



Source.

And you are still not addressing the issue of polygamy which is illegal in the state of Texas.

polygamy is illegal in Texas. Did you know that sodomy was also illegal in Texas? Sodomy being defined as anal intercourse or intercourse between two men.

The fact is that polygamy is illegal in all states but there no states willing to prosecute for polygamy because they believe the laws have no constitutional foundation.

Not just what they say. It is also proven if you look at the numbers. 1 out of every 45 underage girls. That would make it extremely rare.

Why do you insist on suggesting that this entire community had no male children?

There were 430 or so children removed from custody. Most likely, roughly half of those were male and therefore cannot be pregnant.

Therefore, we are actually looking at something more like 10/215. That's closer to 1:20 - ie. 5%.

I posted a link to the state legislator who said the law was only passed after he had become aware of the presence of the FLDS in the state. He also stated that if not for the FLDS' beliefs, Texas would not have raised its consent age.

It isn't the age of consent that was raised. It was the age at which a parent can approve of an underage marriage.

Not just what they say. It is also proven if you look at the numbers. 1 out of every 45 underage girls. That would make it extremely rare.

Source.

I also stand by my statement that a rape victim (if, indeed, a rape has been committed) should not be just a statistic. One in forty-five is still more than zero.

[Edit: dammit, I cannot type today.]

1/45= 10/450 divided the common denominator of 10.

I may be an English major, but I can still do simple fractions, thank you.

[Edit: but apparently I can't type.]

The people's temple????????

Purple kool-aid.

You have proof for your assertion they are liars??

"There is no abuse going on in our sect" (paraphrased)
"Evidence of abuse was found" (paraphrased from the various articles already posted by others).

Nothing wrong with investigating as long as you don't have the state or its supporters going around telling everyone they are guilty when no such determination has been made.

The news media is not controlled by the state.

Regardless, the state, it would seem, has already found evidence of their guilt, if the sources already posted by others are to be believed.

You've yet to provide any sources counter to them.

I posted a link to the state legislator who said the law was only passed after he had become aware of the presence of the FLDS in the state. He also stated that if not for the FLDS' beliefs, Texas would not have raised its consent age.
Do you need another link for this??????

Yes. I'm lazy.

The robotic manner in which many of the women spoke has led to lots of people calling them liars. Kind of like saying that all people with black skin are rapists.

Fallacious argument. The way a person acts is not analogous to a person's race. It is not fallacious to think that a person who is acting like they are lying may be lying. Similarly, it is not fallacious to think that a person acting like a rapist may be a rapist. It is fallacious to think that a person of the same race but not acting like a rapist may be a rapist, as race does not dictate behavior.

The families decided they would not have televisions in their homes.[/quote

Source.

[quote]That could be determined by the state department of education certifying their school. If I am correct, most private schools have to have state certification in order to operate as schools.
The women have the opportunity to go to college. That indicates some level of gender equality. Though they also have traditional gender roles.

Fair enough.

This does not rule out the possibility of abuse.

Wrong. 10 underage girls out of about 400 children. Some of those children are male. If we go by general statistics, we'd be looking at about half of those children being female - so approximately 200.

That makes it roughly 5%, and doesn't cover young girls who have already had children or have not yet been impregnated.



Did I say it was "absolute proof? It is evidence - and definitely enough evidence to investigate.



Irrelevant. The law that was changed was for legal marriage with the parent's consent. In order for it to matter, the girls would have to be legally married to the fathers - before they had sex.

The AoC in Texas is actually 17, outside of parental consent to legal marriage.



Indeed.

But if those girls are under 17, it is and has been illegal for quite some time.

Your numbers ignore the fact that there are a lot more girls than than their are boys. This is due to most underage boys are being evicted from the FLDS community.

The exact total number of children is 437.

AoC, as far as I know, has always been dependent on whether you were married to the person.

Unless they were already married.

polygamy is illegal in Texas. Did you know that sodomy was also illegal in Texas? Sodomy being defined as anal intercourse or intercourse between two men.

The fact is that polygamy is illegal in all states but there no states willing to prosecute for polygamy because they believe the laws have no constitutional foundation.

Obviously this is false, as Texas is clearly prosecuting them for polygamy.

Supreme Court precedence in upholding laws against polygamy (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040212.html).

Also, I believe you mentioned somewhere the drug peyote?

In Employment Division v. Smith, it held that an individual's claim that religious belief compelled him to use peyote, did not prevent the state from denying him unemployment benefits on the ground that he had engaged in illegal drug use, just as it would any other drug law violator.

The point being that this court case [1990] upheld the decision of Reynolds v. United States (which did not allow a polygamous marriage [1879]) in allowing the state to prosecute someone for breaking the law, regardless of their claims of religious requirement.

Your numbers ignore the fact that there are a lot more girls than than their are boys. This is due to most underage boys are being evicted from the FLDS community.

The exact total number of children is 437.

AoC, as far as I know, has always been dependent on whether you were married to the person.

Unless they were already married.


it doesnt matter

none of those girls are married.

No sexual act was performed. Different context, fallacious argument.



Human beings are not statistics, especially children, especially rape victims. A rape is never insignificant, statistically or otherwise.



Source.



When the girl is below the age of consent. Below the age of consent, a child is legally considered to be incapable of giving consent.



That is a good question. I imagine marriage licenses will be able to clear that up. A directly related question: when was the law implemented that made the age of consent 16? Another: What was the law before then?



Polygamy has been illegal for a long time.

The law was changed in 2004 or 2005 after many of the marriages had already taken place. Before that it was 14.

Of course that would not help those people who married or sexed the 13 year olds.

The law was changed in 2004 or 2005 after many of the marriages had already taken place. Before that it was 14.

Source.

Of course that would not help those people who married or sexed the 13 year olds.

No, it would not.

Nor would it address polygamy.

For the record: polygamous marriages are not legal. Therefore, any sexual act performed with an under-aged girl in a polygamous marriage is not protected under the law and still open for prosecution.

The law was changed in 2004 or 2005 after many of the marriages had already taken place. Before that it was 14.

Of course that would not help those people who married or sexed the 13 year olds.

to get married you have to go to town, get a marriage license, fill it out, get permission for the underage marriage, have a qualified person perform a ceremony then file the certificate of marriage with the county.

those girls arent married.

Obviously this is false, as Texas is clearly prosecuting them for polygamy.

Supreme Court precedence in upholding laws against polygamy (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040212.html).

Also, I believe you mentioned somewhere the drug peyote?



The point being that this court case [1990] upheld the decision of Reynolds v. United States (which did not allow a polygamous marriage [1879]) in allowing the state to prosecute someone for breaking the law, regardless of their claims of religious requirement.

Where in Reynolds v. United States did it say the men were being prosecuted for the peyote? They were denied unemployment. Not getting unemployment surely is not the same thing as being prosecuted is it?

Your numbers ignore the fact that there are a lot more girls than than their are boys. This is due to most underage boys are being evicted from the FLDS community.

Source?

The exact total number of children is 437.

Ok. I've seen a couple of different numbers, but that could be accurate. They aren't all female, though.

AoC, as far as I know, has always been dependent on whether you were married to the person.

Varies state to state. The age of consent is the age at which a person can legally give consent to sex.

However, some states allow parents to decide that their children can enter into a legal marriage before that age. Once married, the age of consent no longer matters as the minor is considered legally emancipated and is basically now legally an adult.

Unless they were already married.

...in which case their marriage would be a matter of public record. Their parents would have filled out the paperwork allowing them to marry and the fathers of the children would have marriage licenses showing that the girls were legally married to them.

I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it if such documents were presented.

The law was changed in 2004 or 2005 after many of the marriages had already taken place. Before that it was 14.

And any such marriages will have a paper trail.

The law was changed in 2004 or 2005 after many of the marriages had already taken place. Before that it was 14.

Basic maths here. If the law was changed in 2004, then the youngest married girls then would now be 18. Since there has been a 4 year gap, and a 3 year amendment, surely the change is effectively irrelevant? Any girl who is married and now under the age of 17 would have been under the legal age of marriage 4 years ago...

Where in Reynolds v. United States did it say the men were being prosecuted for the peyote? They were denied unemployment. Not getting unemployment surely is not the same thing as being prosecuted is it?

Point missed. He is not legally protected under the law.

Neither are polygamists.

it doesnt matter

none of those girls are married.

Wasn't someone saying earlier in this thread something a common law marriage??

And if the girls are not considered married, then why is the state preparing to prosecute them for polygamy??
Clearly the state is recognizing them as being married.

In common law marriages you don't have to get a marriage license. Most priests or most religions are qualified. You don't have to be government certified to marry people but you do need to meet the requirements of your religious faith in order to have authority to marry people.

Because they did not need a license, they did not get a court's permission for the marriage.

Common law polygamous marriage.

Source?



Ok. I've seen a couple of different numbers, but that could be accurate. They aren't all female, though.



Varies state to state. The age of consent is the age at which a person can legally give consent to sex.

However, some states allow parents to decide that their children can enter into a legal marriage before that age. Once married, the age of consent no longer matters as the minor is considered legally emancipated and is basically now legally an adult.



...in which case their marriage would be a matter of public record. Their parents would have filled out the paperwork allowing them to marry and the fathers of the children would have marriage licenses showing that the girls were legally married to them.

I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it if such documents were presented.



And any such marriages will have a paper trail.

Unfortunately they don't give the ratio of boys to girls.

I think the state is basing its polygamy charges off of secret marriage documents they found inside the temple. Or something to that effect.

The problem is doing that with a polygamous marriage setting. The community would have the paperwork perhaps. But the state would not have any paperwork on the marriages because the state claims not to recognize such marriages. Yet it is going to prosecute for them.

:sniper:Wasn't someone saying earlier in this thread something a common law marriage??

And if the girls are not considered married, then why is the state preparing to prosecute them for polygamy??
Clearly the state is recognizing them as being married.

In common law marriages you don't have to get a marriage license. Most priests or most religions are qualified. You don't have to be government certified to marry people but you do need to meet the requirements of your religious faith in order to have authority to marry people.

Because they did not need a license, they did not get a court's permission for the marriage.

Common law polygamous marriage.


you cannot be common law married to someone who is already married.

i dont know under what theory they plan to prosecute the women in polygamous marriage. as far as i can tell you can only be prosecuted if you do the whole marriage license-ceremony-certificate thing but im not familiar with that aspect of the law.

those girls arent married.

Wasn't someone saying earlier in this thread something a common law marriage??

Way to not know your own argument. If you want to make a point of something, look it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Texas).

And if the girls are not considered married, then why is the state preparing to prosecute them for polygamy??
Clearly the state is recognizing them as being married.

The girls are not considered to be married because it was a polygamous, and therefore illegal, marriage. Causality does not flow the way you want it to just because you want it to.

In common law marriages you don't have to get a marriage license. Most priests or most religions are qualified. You don't have to be government certified to marry people but you do need to meet the requirements of your religious faith in order to have authority to marry people.

See link above.

Because they did not need a license, they did not get a court's permission for the marriage.

When someone is below the age of consent, notification to the court is required. There should be a paper trail.

Common law polygamous marriage.

Polygamous marriages are illegal, regardless of how you are married. Common law marriage does not make polygamy legal. Once again, causality flows in one direction, which is not the direction you're trying to make it flow.

:sniper:


you cannot be common law married to someone who is already married.

i dont know under what theory they plan to prosecute the women in polygamous marriage. as far as i can tell you can only be prosecuted if you do the whole marriage license-ceremony-certificate thing but im not familiar with that aspect of the law.

those girls arent married.

according to their own traditions they are married. According to the documents seized by the state, but not certified by the state, they are married.

It is those marriage documents, taken from a safe in the Temple, that are being used to prosecute for polygamy and for the statutory rape charges.

The fact that they are dealing with a polygamous situation just complicates the issues.

So it is not a simple matter as it would be if we were dealing with the usual monogamous community. It would be easy to say who is or who is not married.
In a polygamous setting you can't just go off what the state says. You have to go by what the community says about how they did things.

Wasn't someone saying earlier in this thread something a common law marriage??

Common law marriage laws apply to adults. I do not believe they apply to minors.

And if the girls are not considered married, then why is the state preparing to prosecute them for polygamy??

Because it isn't just the underage girls who have been a part of it?

In common law marriages you don't have to get a marriage license. Most priests or most religions are qualified. You don't have to be government certified to marry people but you do need to meet the requirements of your religious faith in order to have authority to marry people.

You don't know what a common law marriage is, do you? It has nothing to do with priests or religions.

The laws vary from state to state, but the basic idea is that, once you have lived as married and/or presented yourself as married for a certain period of time, you are legally considered to be married. Of course, this doesn't count for minors. And even if it did, the men who engaged in it would be guilty of statutory rape up until the common law marriage kicked in.

Because they did not need a license, they did not get a court's permission for the marriage.

But they do need a license and official parental consent for the 16 age limit to apply. Otherwise, the age of consent is 17.

Unfortunately they don't give the ratio of boys to girls.

Then, outside of any other evidence, it is best for us to assume a normal ratio.

This is due to most underage boys are being evicted from the FLDS community.

This is also a very serious abuse, although it is not getting as much attention.

Unfortunately they don't give the ratio of boys to girls.

I think the state is basing its polygamy charges off of secret marriage documents they found inside the temple. Or something to that effect.

The problem is doing that with a polygamous marriage setting. The community would have the paperwork perhaps. But the state would not have any paperwork on the marriages because the state claims not to recognize such marriages. Yet it is going to prosecute for them.

No paper trail means the marriages were not legal because the court was never notified.
A paper trail means the marriages were polygamous and therefore illegal.

Paper trail or no, polygamous marriage, especially to someone below the age of consent, is still illegal.

according to their own traditions they are married. According to the documents seized by the state, but not certified by the state, they are married.

It is those marriage documents, taken from a safe in the Temple, that are being used to prosecute for polygamy and for the statutory rape charges.

The fact that they are dealing with a polygamous situation just complicates the issues.

So it is not a simple matter as it would be if we were dealing with the usual monogamous community. It would be easy to say who is or who is not married.
In a polygamous setting you can't just go off what the state says. You have to go by what the community says about how they did things.

oops i did not mean to use the gun smiley. must have been a slip of the mouse.

the state decides who is and who is not married. its not up to the church.

This is also a very serious abuse, although it is not getting as much attention.

i hope someone figures out a way to prosecute the flds for what they do to these boys too. many of them are kicked out of the church and abandoned by their families when they are minors.

according to their own traditions they are married. According to the documents seized by the state, but not certified by the state, they are married.

Which means nothing to the state. If no legal marriage was performed, they are not legally married, and therefore open to prosecution by the state for statutory rape.

You have to go by what the community says about how they did things.

The community does not make the law, the state does. If the community has broken that law, the state has the right to prosecute them for it.

?

Yes. 5% were married before 16. The question is how many of those "under 16" marriages occured in Texas and how many occured before the state raised its AoC laws.



It is of no relevance going across state boundaries to marry with a minor is a federal crime under the Mann act. which was upheld in the Supreme Court to include circumstances like this in Cleveland v. United States (329 U.S. 14, 16-17) (1946). Also the sex is illegal even if the marriage is not. Also I don't believe the state of Texas does not recognizes marriages to people under the age of 16 even if another state does.

Here is why polygamy groups are targeted, because you will almost always find girls as 14 or younger getting married to men much older because you have a lack of women in such groups and the only way to make up for it is to marry off women who are younger to take advantage of the population pyramid.

Society is allowed to deem what is acceptable and unacceptable and make laws accordingly so long as they are applied equally.

Common law polygamous marriage.
Does not exist. Anywhere.

polygamy is illegal in Texas. Did you know that sodomy was also illegal in Texas? Sodomy being defined as anal intercourse or intercourse between two men.

No, it's not. Lawrence v. Texas. This is the second offensively false claim you've made about the great state of Texas. Learn, dammit.

The fact is that polygamy is illegal in all states but there no states willing to prosecute for polygamy because they believe the laws have no constitutional foundation.

No. They don't enforce it because under normal circumstances it's difficult to enforce while respecting due process, and they don't believe enforcing it would be an effective use of their limited resources. That wasn't the case here. Your talk of "Constitutional foundation" is bullshit, because as has already been conclusively shown, polygamy laws have been explicitly ruled valid under current Constitutional jurisprudence.

By the way, you've got two pages (30 posts) to defend your "Texas declared all Muslims are terrorists" claim or admit defeat.

They also ruled that Native Americans can use peyote in their religious rituals, despite the fact that there are federal and state laws that ban the possession, sale, and use of peyote.

I'm still waiting for this case.

I'm still waiting for this case.

One the one hand, Indian reservations are sovereign land, and the US gov't has no legal jurisdiction over them, so they can do peyote all they want.

This does not, of course, protect Indians that do not live on the reservations and consider themselves to be US citizens rather than citizens of whatever tribe they're from.

In any case, as I mention in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13635956&postcount=451) post, US companies are allowed to deny them employment for doing the drug.

The fact is that none of the women whether adult or teen have been forced to marry anyone. The person who made that claim has been arrested on charges of making prank phone calls. It was fat black girl in Colorado who has no connection with the FLDS.

Her weight and skin color are relevant to this debate, how exactly?

Her weight and skin color are relevant to this debate, how exactly?

Don't know about her skin color, but her weight is relevant because it proves she's not a member of the FLDS. Their first rule of membership is "No Fatties." ;)

Don't know about her skin color, but her weight is relevant because it proves she's not a member of the FLDS. Their first rule of membership is "No Fatties." ;)

That's the third rule. First rule is "Do not talk about the FLDS".

Don't know about her skin color, but her weight is relevant because it proves she's not a member of the FLDS. Their first rule of membership is "No Fatties." ;)

The "wimmen" of the PsychoMormons are all pale. No dark skin in the entire assembly whatsoever.

Don't know about her skin color, but her weight is relevant because it proves she's not a member of the FLDS. Their first rule of membership is "No Fatties." ;)

the FLDS leadership has made comments about how all the evil in the world came from black people.

Wasn't someone saying earlier in this thread something a common law marriage??

Common law polygamous marriage.

Common Law marriages can only exist in situations where regular marriages could occur.
In other words, you would have to be able to get a marriage license, and since polygamy is illegal there is no possibility of a common law polygamous marriage.

No, it's not. Lawrence v. Texas. This is the second offensively false claim you've made about the great state of Texas. Learn, dammit.

My only objection here is you said Texas was great.


As an aside, why would someone want to be a polygamist? Having the one women your with nagging you and being mad at you is bad enough. Why would you want that x4?;)

This is also a very serious abuse, although it is not getting as much attention.

What exactly is abusive about it? There is a thing called the right of free association. If I own a property and I don't want you on it I have to the right to ban you from it. If I don't want your kids on my property, I have the right to ban your kids from my property.

The right of freedom of association and the right of private property are both at work here.

Freedom of Association: The group has the inherent right to refuse association with person or any other group.
All religious communities have the right to kick out heretics and anyone else who refuses to obey communities laws and regulations.

What exactly is abusive about it? There is a thing called the right of free association. If I own a property and I don't want you on it I have to the right to ban you from it. If I don't want your kids on my property, I have the right to ban your kids from my property.

You do not have the right to abandon a child that is legally under your care.

The right of freedom of association and the right of private property are both at work here.

It does not apply to your own children.

Freedom of Association: The group has the inherent right to refuse association with person or any other group.
All religious communities have the right to kick out heretics and anyone else who refuses to obey communities laws and regulations.

Not when they are minors.

No, it's not. Lawrence v. Texas. This is the second offensively false claim you've made about the great state of Texas. Learn, dammit.



No. They don't enforce it because under normal circumstances it's difficult to enforce while respecting due process, and they don't believe enforcing it would be an effective use of their limited resources. That wasn't the case here. Your talk of "Constitutional foundation" is bullshit, because as has already been conclusively shown, polygamy laws have been explicitly ruled valid under current Constitutional jurisprudence.

By the way, you've got two pages (30 posts) to defend your "Texas declared all Muslims are terrorists" claim or admit defeat.

I said "WAS". What is the difference between "is" and "was"?? Anyone???

SCOTUS ruled during the 19th century that polygamy could be banned. Again what else did SCOTUS rule was ok for the state to do?
1. Ban women from having property or having their own businesses.
2. Ban women from voting.
3. Make laws that black people would always and forever be slaves.
4. Make laws that blacks were property.
5. Make laws that women were the property of either their fathers or their husbands and hence have no rights whatever.
6. Pre civil war: that state could make laws requiring you to attend church on Sunday.
7. Make laws legalizing lynchings on account of race.
8. SCOTUS also said it was also ok to force racial segregation even if the motive for the segregation was racism.
9. At one point, they even said it was ok to ban the teaching of evolution.
10. They also ruled that the states could ban the sale and possession of pornography and the sodomy and homosexuality could be banned.

Almost all have been overturned by a modern SCOTUS that is much much more enlightened than the 19th century SCOTUS which the anti polygamist arguments rely on. The SCOTUS of the 19th century was composed of racists.

EDIT: I'm not going to argue the terrorism issue because it has nothing to do with the polygamy issue.

Did he seriously try to argue that "freedom of association" includes the right to abandon your own minor child?

Did he seriously try to argue that "freedom of association" includes the right to abandon your own minor child?

Yep.

One the one hand, Indian reservations are sovereign land, and the US gov't has no legal jurisdiction over them, so they can do peyote all they want.

This does not, of course, protect Indians that do not live on the reservations and consider themselves to be US citizens rather than citizens of whatever tribe they're from.

In any case, as I mention in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13635956&postcount=451) post, US companies are allowed to deny them employment for doing the drug.

I believe that under a 20th century law, all the indians located in the US were declared US citizens.

Did he seriously try to argue that "freedom of association" includes the right to abandon your own minor child?

Trolling for attention as usual. And succeeding.

I said "WAS". What is the difference between "is" and "was"?? Anyone???

SCOTUS ruled during the 19th century that polygamy could be banned. Again what else did SCOTUS rule was ok for the state to do?
1. Ban women from having property or having their own businesses.

And it was, until the 14th amendment changed that.

2. Ban women from voting.

And they could, until the 19th amendment changed that

3. Make laws that black people would always and forever be slaves.
4. Make laws that blacks were property.

And they were, until the 13th amendment changed that.

I could go on here but I hope you're getting my point. You pulled out all these things the supreme court said was constitutional, things that are now unconstitutional, and try to hold that up to the standard that "things change" and the courts have been wrong, but your point is nonsensical and stupid.

The courts ruled slavery was constitutional, well...slavery was constitutional, until the 13th amendment made it unconstitutional

The courts ruled that denying women the right to vote based on gender was constitutional, well...denying women the right to vote based on gender was constitutional, until the 19th amendment made it unconstitutional.

You list all these things in apparent support of times when the court "got it wrong" but they didn't get it wrong. The courts, in most of those cases, were absolutly correct. The constitution has sinced changed though.

Yes, the courts said slavery was constitutional, and they were right. It took the 13th amendment to make it unconstitutional

You do not have the right to abandon a child that is legally under your care.



It does not apply to your own children.



Not when they are minors.

The parents can go with the child or the parents can give the child to social services for placement with another family.

If they are minors.

The parents can go with the child

They didn't. Hence the neglect.

or the parents can give the child to social services for placement with another family.

They didn't. Hence the neglect.

And it was, until the 14th amendment changed that.



And they could, until the 19th amendment changed that



And they were, until the 13th amendment changed that.

I could go on here but I hope you're getting my point. You pulled out all these things the supreme court said was constitutional, things that are now unconstitutional, and try to hold that up to the standard that "things change" and the courts have been wrong, but your point is nonsensical and stupid.

The courts ruled slavery was constitutional, well...slavery was constitutional, until the 13th amendment made it unconstitutional

The courts ruled that denying women the right to vote based on gender was constitutional, well...denying women the right to vote based on gender was constitutional, until the 19th amendment made it unconstitutional.

You list all these things in apparent support of times when the court "got it wrong" but they didn't get it wrong. The courts, in most of those cases, were absolutly correct. The constitution has sinced changed though.

Yes, the courts said slavery was constitutional, and they were right. It took the 13th amendment to make it unconstitutional

So. Then the constitution needs to change to bar the state from prohibiting voluntary adult polygamous relationships.

While we are at it, we need to change the constitution to prevent states from banning homosexual marriages.

and enough with this bullshit about "it was a 19th century holding!" While the specific case, dealing with polygamy was decided in the 19th century, the central holding in that case, upon which the ruling rests, has been upheld time after time after time.

If it was a single, isolated issue, with a single, isolated impact you'd have a point. However, while the case was decided in the 19th century, the principles behind that case are still sound, and there has been no indication whatsoever that the supreme court is ready to abandon over 100 years of first amendment jurisprudence.

The age of the case is irrelevant, the central holdings in that case have been affirmed time and time again.

So. Then the constitution needs to change to bar the state from prohibiting voluntary adult polygamous relationships.

Maybe yes, maybe no, however as of right now it has not, which makes what the church did as of right now a crime.

It's also amazing how your bs filled rants about "it violated the constitution!" filled with nonsense, hyperboli, factual errors and not one hint of legal sophistication has suddently morphed into "well we should change the constitution!"

I'm not about to argue with you over your personal feelings as to what should, or should not be constitutional, it's irrelevant and not really a debatable position. What is a debatable position is what is constitutional, and you have shown, through your sophmoric and ill conceived attempts at argument to be thoroughly incapable of discussing that topic with the sophistication and intellect it requires.

My only objection here is you said Texas was great.

Well, I was being just a little ironic there. But living in Austin, I can tell you that at least that part of Texas is pretty good if not necessarily great. :p

As an aside, why would someone want to be a polygamist? Having the one women your with nagging you and being mad at you is bad enough. Why would you want that x4? ;)

I have always wondered about this.

I said "WAS". What is the difference between "is" and "was"?? Anyone???

Please. Your phrasing was deliberately ambiguous and you know it.

SCOTUS ruled during the 19th century that polygamy could be banned. Again what else did SCOTUS rule was ok for the state to do?

Is this some bizarre genetic fallacy in which you argue that polygamy laws are unconstitutional because they were held to be constitutional by the 19th century Supreme Court?

Also, are you going to continue ignoring that the overriding concern in this case is child abuse and not polygamy?

EDIT: I'm not going to argue the terrorism issue because it has nothing to do with the polygamy issue.

You can start another thread for it if you like, but your task remains. Don't waste any more time, you only have seven posts left!

Everyone basically said what I would:

What was or was not legal in the past has absolutely no bearing on this case unless those laws were changed in the last 4 years. What will or will not be legal has no bearing on this case. Polygamy is illegal. Child abuse is illegal. Statutory rape by illegally marrying a minor is illegal.

You cannot provide evidence counter to the many articles presented that show them to be guilty of the above, so until then it is fair to assume that they are indeed guilty, and thus can, should, and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Everyone basically said what I would:

What was or was not legal in the past has absolutely no bearing on this case unless those laws were changed in the last 4 years. What will or will not be legal has no bearing on this case. Polygamy is illegal. Child abuse is illegal. Statutory rape by illegally marrying a minor is illegal.

You cannot provide evidence counter to the many articles presented that show them to be guilty of the above, so until then it is fair to assume that they are indeed guilty, and thus can, should, and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Do I have to report you for having an intelligent and meaningful debate (at least your part), young man?

The appeals have begun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24294759/

The Texas third court of appeals has agreed to hear arguments from polygamist women that the state is wrongly denying them contact with their own children who are still in state custody.

If the state was not overstepping its boundaries why would the court of appeals agree to look at the case?

Maybe yes, maybe no, however as of right now it has not, which makes what the church did as of right now a crime.

It's also amazing how your bs filled rants about "it violated the constitution!" filled with nonsense, hyperboli, factual errors and not one hint of legal sophistication has suddently morphed into "well we should change the constitution!"

I'm not about to argue with you over your personal feelings as to what should, or should not be constitutional, it's irrelevant and not really a debatable position. What is a debatable position is what is constitutional, and you have shown, through your sophmoric and ill conceived attempts at argument to be thoroughly incapable of discussing that topic with the sophistication and intellect it requires.
No. You are wrong. The church itself did not break any laws. As churches are incapable of breaking laws. Only people, individuals, can break laws.