NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

Because it is their job?
An indication that the state had overstepped its boundaries would be the court of appeals finding in favor of the FLDS women.

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



I have always wondered about this.



Please. Your phrasing was deliberately ambiguous and you know it.



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?



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!

What exactly is ambigious about the word "was"???

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.

Many articles???
What articles. No one has presented anything.

Because it is their job?
An indication that the state had overstepped its boundaries would be the court of appeals finding in favor of the FLDS women.

If the state is banning the women from communicating with their own children and is banning the attorneys from talking to the children, it is likely the court of appeals will rule for the women.

Granted: polygamy, child abuse, and statutory rape are illegal. So too is presumption of guilt before a trial, based simply upon allegations fed by the media and other entities which may be eager to erode a central liberty of those people and everyone else which fall under the umbrella of innocence until proven guilty

I found it amusing that the media would actually express shock at the supposed fact that those children were taught that the outside world was hostile and immoral. My first thought was.."It isn't? Guess I am on the wrong planet."

I believe that the way that situation is being handled is actually proving to the children that what they were being taught was correct. Being taken from your parents...definitely hostile...thrust into an ideology of political correctness, multiculturalism, general ungodliness...definitely immoral to everything they've likely known.

In time, those memories will be pushed to the far recesses of their minds as they are correctly and socially "re-educated" to be more compatible to the ways of the rest of the world.

It will be interesting to see what seeds were sown through the efforts of yet another witch hunt.

What exactly is ambigious about the word "was"???

Sorry, not letting you sidetrack this onto a point of semantics when you've got more relevant arguments to deal with. Specifically:

1. That the overriding concern in this case is statutory rape, not polygamy.
2. That the state was enforcing a generally applicable law, as is its constitutional right and duty.
3. That even under a "strict scrutiny" standard this state action would still have been constitutional.
4. That the state had probable cause to raid the compound, and subsequent evidence of statutory rape has vindicated that decision.
5. And others that I've forgotten but I'm sure others will remind you of.

Afraid you're out of time on the Texas-Muslims-terrorists point, however. I'll take that as your concession.

If the state is banning the women from communicating with their own children and is banning the attorneys from talking to the children, it is likely the court of appeals will rule for the women.

the word you're looking for is 'barring' not 'banning'...

Also, no to the first, there is no reason for the state to allow people who have been accused of abusing their children to see said children.
As to the second, if the attorneys representing the children have indeed been barred from talking to their clients, then yes. You, however, have not provided any proof of your claims that this is indeed the case. Not that I am surprised, this is par for the course for you.

Religious RIGHTS?

I'm appalled these fanatics have been allowed to abuse their children for so long!

Do I have to report you for having an intelligent and meaningful debate (at least your part), young man?

You wouldn't dare.

And occasionally a thread catches my intellectual interest. Especially since this one is so easy, I don't really have to try.

Many articles???
What articles. No one has presented anything.

Anyone want to help me on this one? I don't particularly feel like going back through the thread so if you guys could search for your own posts and throw the links up that'd be awesome.

Or just say screw it and make this guy look for them

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.

Semantics.
4. (sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority

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?

Because it is the responsibility of the court to investigate such claims. You have again countered your own argument here: you have repeatedly championed the rights of the sect, presumably falling back on the American judicial practice of "innocent until proven guilty." It should prove no surprise, then, that the appeal does not mean the Texas court is guilty of falsely arresting the sect members just because the supreme court has agreed to hear it.

The fact that the supreme court is hearing the appeal only means that the court thinks that it is worth looking into.

Similar to the fact that Texas thought the sect was worth looking into.

I believe that under a 20th century law, all the indians located in the US were declared US citizens.

Just because I'm picky and feel like addressing this:

All Indians born in US territory are automatically citizens, just like everyone else. Indians may become US citizens like everyone else.

Indian Reservations are not US territory. They are sovereign territory and not under US jurisdiction, and to that end Indians born in a reservation are not automatically US citizens.

Just because I'm picky and feel like addressing this:

All Indians born in US territory are automatically citizens, just like everyone else. Indians may become US citizens like everyone else.

Indian Reservations are not US territory. They are sovereign territory and not under US jurisdiction, and to that end Indians born in a reservation are not automatically US citizens.

Well, seeing as Native Americans were there first, I guess all you colonizing scum should be the ones becoming Native citizens. It should be that way and not Indians becoming US citizens.:mad:

J/K!
;)

Just because I'm picky and feel like addressing this:

All Indians born in US territory are automatically citizens, just like everyone else. Indians may become US citizens like everyone else.

Indian Reservations are not US territory. They are sovereign territory and not under US jurisdiction, and to that end Indians born in a reservation are not automatically US citizens.

The land is US Territory.
What the native Americans have is called limited national Sovereignty.
The Reservations are managed by tribes under the department of the interior.
For instance sometimes the laws of the US do take precedence of local native laws. Also these tribes can not conduct treaties with any nation other then the USA.

The land is US Territory.
What the native Americans have is called limited national Sovereignty.
The Reservations are managed by tribes under the department of the interior.
For instance sometimes the laws of the US do take precedence of local native laws. Also these tribes can not conduct treaties with any nation other then the USA.

Really? Huh, learn somethin' new every day. I was always under the impression that they were completely sovereign (officially, anyways). I figured if the reservation did what the US told them to it was because when you're surrounded by a nation vastly superior to you in size and military, you do what they tell you do.

And for more on tribal sovereignty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw), here's George W. Bush!

Only people, individuals, can break laws.

Swing and a miss no. 2

If only individuals can break laws, how can companies be sued? Or governments? How can countries be sanctioned? Also, and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but if every member of a group or organisation has committed the same crime, how can you possibly say that the group has not broken the law?

Just because I'm picky and feel like addressing this:

All Indians born in US territory are automatically citizens, just like everyone else. Indians may become US citizens like everyone else.

Indian Reservations are not US territory. They are sovereign territory and not under US jurisdiction, and to that end Indians born in a reservation are not automatically US citizens.

thats the law he is talking about. there was a time when indians were not considered to be citizens--even after the 14th ammendment that guaranteed citizenship to everyone born in the US. the indian citizenship act of 1924 made it clear that all american indians are citizens.

not surprising that it would have been in the 20th century since we still had a few "indian wars" in the beginning of the last century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924

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.

hrm...

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Justice's Antitrust
Division has brought criminal contempt charges against a Chicago
bedding company

here (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/November94/665.txt.html)

has filed a class action lawsuit against Emex Corporation

here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_/ai_mark02027892)

Railroad Corporation Charged with Manslaughter

here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=940CEFDA1030E733A25757C1A9679C946297D6CF)

Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran announced today that Donald J. Spargo, 61 and Spargo Enterprizes Corp. both of 12107 Brandywine Road, Brandywine Maryland have been charged in Prince George’s County Circuit Court with illegal disposal of solid waste.

here (http://www.oag.state.md.us/Press/2006/051106a.htm)

You are, unsurprisingly, absolutly, totally, 100% wrong that only people can break laws.

Well...actually, you're currect, technically, you just don't know why, and it involves corporate personhood.

So actually you're correct, only persons can commit crimes, but a person under the law is not restricted to human beings. And since your intent was to claim that only human beings can be charged with crimes, you are, of course, wrong...again.

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 parents do not have the right to throw their children away.

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.
Neither of those things is going to happen.

Granted: polygamy, child abuse, and statutory rape are illegal. So too is presumption of guilt before a trial, based simply upon allegations fed by the media and other entities which may be eager to erode a central liberty of those people and everyone else which fall under the umbrella of innocence until proven guilty

The accused are innocent until proven guilty. However, given the evidence against them, children cannot be reasonably left in their custody. If they are acquitted, the children can be returned to their custody.

I believe that the way that situation is being handled is actually proving to the children that what they were being taught was correct. Being taken from your parents...definitely hostile...thrust into an ideology of political correctness, multiculturalism, general ungodliness...definitely immoral to everything they've likely known.

From what I understand, the children are intentionally being kept out of mainstream culture. They are being placed in foster homes together, with no other children. They are not being taken to public schools and the state is ensuring that their clothing is delivered to them so that they do not have to wear more contemporary (and typically more revealing) styles.

It appears that the state is doing everything it can to preserve the lifestyle they are used to, short of putting them back into a possibly abusive situation until the facts are determined.

So actually you're correct, only persons can commit crimes, but a person under the law is not restricted to human beings. And since your intent was to claim that only human beings can be charged with crimes, you are, of course, wrong...again.

Not to mention the fact that members of an organization can be charged with conspiracy to commit many crimes if they knew about/supported them. They could, for instance, charge the entire church leadership with conspiracy to commit if they sanctioned and knew about a "spiritual marriage" involving an underaged girl.

(I think)

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

Ya, just look at what happened last time that this was taught in a mosque, or in another muslim place of worship/terror. We ended up with planes hitting our economic center, our defense center, and god only knows where that last one was heading, all i can say is god bless the heroes who save coutless lives that day.

I am Osama:eek::sniper:

I got bored after page 27...

I figure I can read the rest later... now, onward-ho with my post!

I would like to make one thing clear before I go into my tirade, I am not anti-polygamy, I am against the sexual exploitation of any individual. I am against the forceful indoctrination that comes with most religions. I do not care if more than two CONSENTING adults (ie: 18+) are engaged in a relationship like this. It is their business. The problem comes from when younger girls and boys (in this case, both being minors) are forced into it and they are only "willing" participants because they have been mislead into thinking it is acceptable.

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

Actually, while the person may have been in violation of the US law, they didn't actually break the law while on US soil. Even if they did engage in sexual relations while in Germany, they can't be charged with breaking the law in the US because they weren't engaging in the activity in the US. Hence, there is no grounds for it.

It's like when I was in Amsterdam. Possession and use of pot is perfectly legal there. I could have some on my person. If I was stopped, there would be no issue, and I could smoke without issue. When I returned to Canada, if I had the substance on me, I would have been in deep shit with the law. However, because I had none on me, I am not breaking the law.

Your logic fails.

Further, in regards to your claims that religious freedom is being violated, I refer to something that Anderson Cooper on CNN said in regards to this. He had stated that the state was going about this the smart way and not targeting polygamy itself, as it would be a muddy quagmire. Instead, the direct charges were related to child abuse and sexual exploitation of minors.

The adults in the polygamous relationships are left to engage in those relationships. The people are only separated due to the complex nature of the community's hierarchy and the fact that the authorities are having a difficult time figuring out which kid belongs to which two people.

Some people were reluctant to come forward, which was creating problems. Evidently, being scared of the raid is the biggest reason. Also, haven't you considered that these people may have been groomed to be heavily suspicious of those outside of their community, hence are not likely to fully assist authorities and will deny wrong doing because they have been mentally coerced into believing that while a certain act is illegal under the eyes of US criminal law, that it is perfectly legal for them?

If you've observed this carefully, the only reason the families were broken up is because they are primarily concerned with determining if there are children in forced marriages, and are minors who have been abused either physically, mentally and/or sexually.

The only reason this is a problem because the media frequently cites the fact that these people are part of the FDLS sect and are actively engaged in a religious act being called polygamy. If the media didn't harp on this fact, there would not be such a huge controversy.

If we strip away the fact that there is a religion and view it from a secular perspective and ask ourselves, is this legal, and are the minors involved fully aware and not just unwilling participants, like their parents, heavily indoctrinated from birth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVGK2Aa4uEk - This video is interesting. I was listening to these women of the sect talk. I found the way they spoke to be very disturbing. They either have the mental capacity of a child, or they are severely brainwashed. Their voices are extremely haunting. I got the feeling from the way they spoke that they are from an unhealthy environment. Not because it is religious but because of the nature of the community that demands that these women "keep sweet".

It seems to me that these people are being kept wilfully ignorant by leaders desperate to cling to power. The children were pulled from the public schools and they attend their own home schools. They are being deprived of an education and not given the freedom to make the choices that the rest of us can in life.

Every child in the UN is guaranteed a certain number of rights, but these rights are being trampled. And this isn't a backwater nation we're talking about, this is the US, and the US is supposed to part of the modern, western world. How is it almost every other goddamn religion in the US can keep its faith while sending its children to school and affording them the right to make their own choices while this one can't? There is something wrong there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights

There is something inherently wrong with assigning women to an husband; something horribly archaic about it. There is a lack of choice. Or what of when a woman is taken because that man is deemed not worthy? There is no choice left.

The religion itself is not a problem. The fact that it's taking away the freedom for people to make their own life choices is disturbing, and it happens when young girls are forced to marry without being given the choice to decide. They are told from birth that this is their purpose. It's morbid really.

You're defending a form of slavery.

You can say they're willing all you want till the cows come home but it won't change a thing. They have been indoctrinated from birth and bound by these rules without given a reason why.

Another inherent issue with polygamy is equality and fair treatment of all spouses, as well as the ability of the spouses to get along with the others. There are issues that can arise with favouritism, which is why you see a religion like Islam where there is almost no polygamy because while the religion allows for it, the Qu'ran specifically states that the man can take up to three wives but must provide for all three and treat all three equally, love all three equally.

It's like when I was in Amsterdam. Possession and use of pot is perfectly legal there. Actually, it's not legal at all. It's just "tolerated".

Actually, while the person may have been in violation of the US law, they didn't actually break the law while on US soil. Even if they did engage in sexual relations while in Germany, they can't be charged with breaking the law in the US because they weren't engaging in the activity in the US. Hence, there is no grounds for it.

It's like when I was in Amsterdam. Possession and use of pot is perfectly legal there. I could have some on my person. If I was stopped, there would be no issue, and I could smoke without issue. When I returned to Canada, if I had the substance on me, I would have been in deep shit with the law. However, because I had none on me, I am not breaking the law.

Your logic fails.

Not entirely correct. In the United States it is a federal crime to travel abroad for the purposes of having sex with children. If someone travels to a foreign country with the intent of engaging in child prostitution, it is a crime in the united states, even if the act never occured on US soil.

And, it would appear, Canada is the same way. (http://www.voyage.gc.ca/main/pubs/child_endure-en.asp)

Actually, it's not legal at all. It's just "tolerated".

I think I should have written it as quasi-legal. :) But it is tolerated the way it tolerates prostitution... $_$ kaching! Tourism euros!

I think I should have written it as quasi-legal. :) But it is tolerated the way it tolerates prostitution... $_$ kaching! Tourism euros!Not really. Prostitution actually is legal in the Netherlands, while cannabis is expressly defined as illegal, yet tolerated. :p

Not really. Prostitution actually is legal in the Netherlands, while cannabis is expressly defined as illegal, yet tolerated. :p

Fine, fine... *goes and sulks with her bong* :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVGK2Aa4uEk - This video is interesting. I was listening to these women of the sect talk. I found the way they spoke to be very disturbing. They either have the mental capacity of a child, or they are severely brainwashed. Their voices are extremely haunting. I got the feeling from the way they spoke that they are from an unhealthy environment. Not because it is religious but because of the nature of the community that demands that these women "keep sweet".

That is possibly the most disturbing video I have seen in 2008, definitely in the top two. What is wrong with those women? It really is painful to watch - they seem to be bordering on retardation.

That is possibly the most disturbing video I have seen in 2008, definitely in the top two. What is wrong with those women? It really is painful to watch - they seem to be bordering on retardation.

Interesting you should mention that. The close community of the FDLS sect is the only in the world with the highest documented (and think about how many are possibly undocumented) cases of Fumarase deficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase_deficiency), which can lead to severe mental retardation amongst other issues. Outside of it, there are only about 40 known cases. Some are able to reach mild functioning capacity even if the IQ is only around 25 or so.

It's a problem because there are only two real bloodlines, both able to trace back to Smith. They refuse to outbreed as it were. Then again, who from the modernised world unless really desperate would want to live like that? The mutation occurs on the first chromosome and is an hereditary condition. (if you don't want to read the link and want the short version).

It's the United States of America versus the state of Texas in the FLDS dispute:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24317685

Texas is clearly losing the public relations war.

"The move has the appearance of "a class-action child removal," said Jessica Dixon, director of the child advocacy center at Southern Methodist University's law school in Dallas.
"I've never heard of anything like that," she said."

My favorite part of the article which is especially damming of the state of Texas:
"the state has essentially said, "If you're a member of this religious group, then you're not allowed to have children."

They didn't just take children from polygamous families they seized the children of single mothers just for being members of the FLDS.

This pretty much represents the views of the majority of Americans on the actions taken by the state of Texas:

""Of course, we condemn child abuse and we don't stand up for the perpetration of that," said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. But "what the state has done has offended a pretty wide swath of the American people with what appears to be an overreaching action"

Ever since state officials heard of the cult they had been trying to figure out a way to engage in a legal form of religious persecution.

"Texas law has a "very low burden for removal of children from a parent's home"

In Texas, they don't need proof of abuse. They have the right to just take your kids at gunpoint.

As for the claims they had evidence of abuse:

"CPS officials have conceded there is no evidence the children were abused"


The number of teenage boys is about 2 dozen or 24 out of 460 children the majority of which are females.

source for the number of boys seized: "two dozen teenage boys are also in state custody"

460 minus 24 is 436 girls

of which, 9 were pregnant supposedly at 13. That gives means that barley 2% of the girls were sexually abused or statutorily raped.
That percentage is smaller than what it is general US society.
The exact number being .02064.... moving the decimal gives you 2.06 percent.

Include the teenage girls who got pregnant after 13 and the number goes to 30 which CPS admits the actual number they found, instead of the "hundreds of teens forced to be impregnated", which some FLDS bashers have cited on other sites.
30 brings it to 6% still much smaller than the entire US population in general.

Source: "CPS officials say no more than 30 minor girls in state custody have children"


"Constitutional experts say U.S. courts have consistently held that a parent's beliefs alone are not grounds for removal.

"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't do that," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh"

Yet the great state of Texas says it does not need to prove potential for harm nor does it need to prove that harm actually happened.

"One FLDS member who did testify said she and her husband and their three children form a traditional family and live in a separate house from other sect members"

Only half the families in the sect are actually polygamous. Yet because they associate with polygamous, Texas wants to deny them their rights.

As for the prank phone call not having any bearing, despite the fact it was the only reason and is the only thing the state is staking its credentials on:

"Another legal issue may emerge if investigators discover the call from the 16-year-old girl was a hoax"


Of course this doesn't mean the people who live in Texas are bad. It just means they have corrupt mean spirited politicians and mean spirited bureacrats who don't believe in freedom.
If the state can deprive a religious group of its rights without evidence of wrong doing, then the state can deprive all Texans of their rights without any laws actually being broken.

Sorry, not letting you sidetrack this onto a point of semantics when you've got more relevant arguments to deal with. Specifically:

1. That the overriding concern in this case is statutory rape, not polygamy.
2. That the state was enforcing a generally applicable law, as is its constitutional right and duty.
3. That even under a "strict scrutiny" standard this state action would still have been constitutional.
4. That the state had probable cause to raid the compound, and subsequent evidence of statutory rape has vindicated that decision.
5. And others that I've forgotten but I'm sure others will remind you of.

Afraid you're out of time on the Texas-Muslims-terrorists point, however. I'll take that as your concession.


yes yes yes. Well you see the state of Texas overstepped the boundaries. It declared that everyone was guilty without giving them a trial. Most of the parents were not even allowed to testify, only people supporting the state were allowed to testify. Those parents who did testify, told the court they were either monogamous or that they were divorced single mothers.

The state does have a job to remove children from abusive homes, if abuse is actually happening. But the state did not do that. Instead the state removed nonabused children from nonabused homes where there was no imminent threat of abuse. Therefore, the state had no just cause for removing all 460 children. There was only justification for removing 30 children. Instead the state said, because this is your religious beliefs, we are taking your kids and banning you from having children ever again.

There is no generally applicable law that allows the state to remove every single child, including newborns, from a community even if there is no evidence of abuse. No such law whatever.

Most Americans and American legal experts and civil rights activists are crying foul. They strongly believe the state has not met the strict constitional requirements in this case.

The state found evidence that 30 children had been abused or were in immenint danger of abuse. They did not find any evidence that 460 children were abused or in immenint danger of abuse.

I'm sure the appeals court will rule the mass removal at gunpoint was unwarranted.

Religious RIGHTS?

I'm appalled these fanatics have been allowed to abuse their children for so long!
Read the news that is coming out of the case. Only 30 children out of 460 were abused or in danger of abuse. That does not warrant the removal children from nonabusive families.

Just because I'm picky and feel like addressing this:

All Indians born in US territory are automatically citizens, just like everyone else. Indians may become US citizens like everyone else.

Indian Reservations are not US territory. They are sovereign territory and not under US jurisdiction, and to that end Indians born in a reservation are not automatically US citizens.

I would agree with that but try telling it to the state of california. LOL

The land is US Territory.
What the native Americans have is called limited national Sovereignty.
The Reservations are managed by tribes under the department of the interior.
For instance sometimes the laws of the US do take precedence of local native laws. Also these tribes can not conduct treaties with any nation other then the USA.

Perhaps you could explain then how it is that the Iroqouis, were able to declare war on the Germans during the 2nd world war.

Perhaps you would care to explain how it is that the tribes were able to make agreements with Venezuela in return for heating oil from Venezuela????

They can make agreements with other nations as long as those agreements are not harmful to the US.

Swing and a miss no. 2

If only individuals can break laws, how can companies be sued? Or governments? How can countries be sanctioned? Also, and I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but if every member of a group or organisation has committed the same crime, how can you possibly say that the group has not broken the law?

If 15 people out of say 5,000 broke the law then should all 5,000 be punished for it?

What the state is doing here is punishing the entire population for the crimes of the few.

The parents do not have the right to throw their children away.

You would think that if the children are banned, the parents would get the hint to move instead of just sending the kids off on their own.

so you think religious persecution by the government is ok?

I think that's terribly simplistic and argumentative.

They are free to believe in underaged and polygamist marriage. They just can't act on those beliefs, because to do so is illegal.

Perhaps you could explain then how it is that the Iroqouis, were able to declare war on the Germans during the 2nd world war.

Perhaps you would care to explain how it is that the tribes were able to make agreements with Venezuela in return for heating oil from Venezuela????

They can make agreements with other nations as long as those agreements are not harmful to the US.

Those agreements were most likely sanctioned by the US government. Much like the President can "declare war" on a country, but it doesn't mean anything until congress ratifies the action.

If 15 people out of say 5,000 broke the law then should all 5,000 be punished for it?

What the state is doing here is punishing the entire population for the crimes of the few.

The state is investigating the entire population because of their association to the proven cases of abuse, which includes taking custody of the children until they are acquitted. Even if the entire community is not guilty of abuse, if the community was aware of the abuse they can be prosecuted.

You would think that if the children are banned, the parents would get the hint to move instead of just sending the kids off on their own.

Yes, you would think.

But that's not what happened.

Which is why they can be legally prosecuted for abandonment and/or abuse.

The accused are innocent until proven guilty. However, given the evidence against them, children cannot be reasonably left in their custody. If they are acquitted, the children can be returned to their custody.



From what I understand, the children are intentionally being kept out of mainstream culture. They are being placed in foster homes together, with no other children. They are not being taken to public schools and the state is ensuring that their clothing is delivered to them so that they do not have to wear more contemporary (and typically more revealing) styles.

It appears that the state is doing everything it can to preserve the lifestyle they are used to, short of putting them back into a possibly abusive situation until the facts are determined.

That ignores the fact the state has admitted it has no evidence to warrant the removal of all 460 children.

CPS says they keeping them seperate from mainstream culture for now but that later they will begin exposing the children to it.

I got bored after page 27...

I figure I can read the rest later... now, onward-ho with my post!

I would like to make one thing clear before I go into my tirade, I am not anti-polygamy, I am against the sexual exploitation of any individual. I am against the forceful indoctrination that comes with most religions. I do not care if more than two CONSENTING adults (ie: 18+) are engaged in a relationship like this. It is their business. The problem comes from when younger girls and boys (in this case, both being minors) are forced into it and they are only "willing" participants because they have been mislead into thinking it is acceptable.



Actually, while the person may have been in violation of the US law, they didn't actually break the law while on US soil. Even if they did engage in sexual relations while in Germany, they can't be charged with breaking the law in the US because they weren't engaging in the activity in the US. Hence, there is no grounds for it.

It's like when I was in Amsterdam. Possession and use of pot is perfectly legal there. I could have some on my person. If I was stopped, there would be no issue, and I could smoke without issue. When I returned to Canada, if I had the substance on me, I would have been in deep shit with the law. However, because I had none on me, I am not breaking the law.

Your logic fails.

Further, in regards to your claims that religious freedom is being violated, I refer to something that Anderson Cooper on CNN said in regards to this. He had stated that the state was going about this the smart way and not targeting polygamy itself, as it would be a muddy quagmire. Instead, the direct charges were related to child abuse and sexual exploitation of minors.

The adults in the polygamous relationships are left to engage in those relationships. The people are only separated due to the complex nature of the community's hierarchy and the fact that the authorities are having a difficult time figuring out which kid belongs to which two people.

Some people were reluctant to come forward, which was creating problems. Evidently, being scared of the raid is the biggest reason. Also, haven't you considered that these people may have been groomed to be heavily suspicious of those outside of their community, hence are not likely to fully assist authorities and will deny wrong doing because they have been mentally coerced into believing that while a certain act is illegal under the eyes of US criminal law, that it is perfectly legal for them?

If you've observed this carefully, the only reason the families were broken up is because they are primarily concerned with determining if there are children in forced marriages, and are minors who have been abused either physically, mentally and/or sexually.

The only reason this is a problem because the media frequently cites the fact that these people are part of the FDLS sect and are actively engaged in a religious act being called polygamy. If the media didn't harp on this fact, there would not be such a huge controversy.

If we strip away the fact that there is a religion and view it from a secular perspective and ask ourselves, is this legal, and are the minors involved fully aware and not just unwilling participants, like their parents, heavily indoctrinated from birth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVGK2Aa4uEk - This video is interesting. I was listening to these women of the sect talk. I found the way they spoke to be very disturbing. They either have the mental capacity of a child, or they are severely brainwashed. Their voices are extremely haunting. I got the feeling from the way they spoke that they are from an unhealthy environment. Not because it is religious but because of the nature of the community that demands that these women "keep sweet".

It seems to me that these people are being kept wilfully ignorant by leaders desperate to cling to power. The children were pulled from the public schools and they attend their own home schools. They are being deprived of an education and not given the freedom to make the choices that the rest of us can in life.

Every child in the UN is guaranteed a certain number of rights, but these rights are being trampled. And this isn't a backwater nation we're talking about, this is the US, and the US is supposed to part of the modern, western world. How is it almost every other goddamn religion in the US can keep its faith while sending its children to school and affording them the right to make their own choices while this one can't? There is something wrong there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights

There is something inherently wrong with assigning women to an husband; something horribly archaic about it. There is a lack of choice. Or what of when a woman is taken because that man is deemed not worthy? There is no choice left.

The religion itself is not a problem. The fact that it's taking away the freedom for people to make their own life choices is disturbing, and it happens when young girls are forced to marry without being given the choice to decide. They are told from birth that this is their purpose. It's morbid really.

You're defending a form of slavery.

You can say they're willing all you want till the cows come home but it won't change a thing. They have been indoctrinated from birth and bound by these rules without given a reason why.

Another inherent issue with polygamy is equality and fair treatment of all spouses, as well as the ability of the spouses to get along with the others. There are issues that can arise with favouritism, which is why you see a religion like Islam where there is almost no polygamy because while the religion allows for it, the Qu'ran specifically states that the man can take up to three wives but must provide for all three and treat all three equally, love all three equally.

while the marriages were arranged, the women have the right to say no. In fact, many of the women said no to the first marriages that were arranged for them.
They are not forced to marry.

They can leave the religion at any time.

while the marriages were arranged, the women have the right to say no. In fact, many of the women said no to the first marriages that were arranged for them.
They are not forced to marry.

They can leave the religion at any time.

Way to ignore 90% of that post.

Once again, the members of the People's Temple could "leave the religion at any time." That's what they said. The truth was that they were forced to stay.

You.

Are.



Wrong.








Very wrong.

That is possibly the most disturbing video I have seen in 2008, definitely in the top two. What is wrong with those women? It really is painful to watch - they seem to be bordering on retardation.

Bah. Have you ever talked to a mainstream mormon girl who was trying to proselytize you into the Mormon faith?? They talk the same way.

The way they answered at the beginning, in unison, reminded me of the movie The Stepford Wives.

Then again, the one voice sounds broken. Of course it would sound broken. Every mother who has had her children seized by the state or kidnapped or who has had a child disappear under mysterious circumstances would speak with weak, broken voices. These women sound the way they do because they are on the verge of breaking into tears.

Miss Jessop looks like one of those psychopath female villains you see in the movies. She even talks like one. Her voice is very manipulative.

The women in the case are scared. That comes through in their voices also.
I don't know if this is because they are scared of the state or if they are scared of the church leadership.

You can tell the heartbreak they are experiencing from their voices.

The fact that at times they spoke in unison indicates that there was some attempt at collaboration for the purposes of the interview. Groups always do this kind of thing for the media but they don't talk in unison. Some one gave these ladies some really horrible advice on how to present themselves to the media. For example, they were apparently told not to cry on television, that explains the way their voices sounded. They were trying to act unemotional. And when you do that, you tend to come off as kind of creepy.

Interesting you should mention that. The close community of the FDLS sect is the only in the world with the highest documented (and think about how many are possibly undocumented) cases of Fumarase deficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase_deficiency), which can lead to severe mental retardation amongst other issues. Outside of it, there are only about 40 known cases. Some are able to reach mild functioning capacity even if the IQ is only around 25 or so.

It's a problem because there are only two real bloodlines, both able to trace back to Smith. They refuse to outbreed as it were. Then again, who from the modernised world unless really desperate would want to live like that? The mutation occurs on the first chromosome and is an hereditary condition. (if you don't want to read the link and want the short version).

You keep saying the members of the FLDS are all mentally retarded and that they all have a genetic disorder yet you provide no evidence for this.

Those agreements were most likely sanctioned by the US government. Much like the President can "declare war" on a country, but it doesn't mean anything until congress ratifies the action.



The state is investigating the entire population because of their association to the proven cases of abuse, which includes taking custody of the children until they are acquitted. Even if the entire community is not guilty of abuse, if the community was aware of the abuse they can be prosecuted.

The Iroqouise declaration of war was not sanctioned by the US government, it was just tolerated. In fact the Iroqouis declared war on Germany before the US government itself did.

If there are 5,000 people in the community, then how can assume they all know each other and hence that member 78 knows everything all the other 4,999 members are doing with their families.
When you are spending time with your own family, or you are working 20 hours a day giving you only 4 hours with your family, then how is Jed supposed to know what Tom, who he doesn't even know, is doing????

Yes, you would think.

But that's not what happened.

Which is why they can be legally prosecuted for abandonment and/or abuse.

Unless I'm wrong, the state is not prosecuting them for those evictions.

Though, I agree that that is just wrong. Especially since the primary point of the eviction was so they could not hook up with the girls.

The Iroqouise declaration of war was not sanctioned by the US government, it was just tolerated. In fact the Iroqouis declared war on Germany before the US government itself did.

If there are 5,000 people in the community, then how can assume they all know each other and hence that member 78 knows everything all the other 4,999 members are doing with their families.
When you are spending time with your own family, or you are working 20 hours a day giving you only 4 hours with your family, then how is Jed supposed to know what Tom, who he doesn't even know, is doing????

First of all, are there actually 5000 people there? I was under the impression that it was in the hundreds, not thousands.

That said, you've obviously never been to a large church. People know each other. Rumors get around. People talk. Even in a church of 2000 people, everyone may not know everyone, but everyone knows someone. People heard about things. I would believe that even 5000 people in such a close community would know if there was abuse going on.

You.


Are.





Wrong.

Still waiting to find out why the weight and skin color of the girl who called in the tip was relevant . . .

This is going to go like the "Texas said all Muslims are terrorists" issue isn't it?

Still waiting to find out why the weight and skin color of the girl who called in the tip was relevant . . .

This is going to go like the "Texas said all Muslims are terrorists" issue isn't it?

You think you're going to get a rational, timely, and valid response to your own entirely valid point? In this thread?

Perhaps you could explain then how it is that the Iroqouis, were able to declare war on the Germans during the 2nd world war.

Perhaps you would care to explain how it is that the tribes were able to make agreements with Venezuela in return for heating oil from Venezuela????

They can make agreements with other nations as long as those agreements are not harmful to the US.

first it is Iroquois
second the Iroquois Confederacy is not entirely on US soil about half of it is in Canada.

I have declared war on Taiwan, however with out the military might to back it up and actually invading, that declaration is a means of free speech not a declaration of war.
A declaration of war is really meaningless since said Indians have no means to get to Germany.
The Venezuelan deal LoL. first you have to under stand the situation in Venezuela, if you haven't noticed the oil industry there is controlled by the goverment. In fact a great many number of businesses deal with the goverment of Venezuela to purchase oil, so what you've given claims of national action is simply a business deal that you could do if you had enough money.

also during both World Wars natives tribes the declaration of war as a means to institute a internal draft.

while the marriages were arranged, the women have the right to say no. In fact, many of the women said no to the first marriages that were arranged for them.
They are not forced to marry.

They can leave the religion at any time.If they've been indoctrinated to believe that they will suffer eternal damnation if they say no, then they aren't capable of making an informed choice. Funnily enough, that's exactly what happens to the kids.

The Iroqouise declaration of war was not sanctioned by the US government, it was just tolerated. In fact the Iroqouis declared war on Germany before the US government itself did.

If there are 5,000 people in the community, then how can assume they all know each other and hence that member 78 knows everything all the other 4,999 members are doing with their families.
When you are spending time with your own family, or you are working 20 hours a day giving you only 4 hours with your family, then how is Jed supposed to know what Tom, who he doesn't even know, is doing????What's more realistic? That no one saw anything, that everyone saw everything, or that some people saw something and aren't talking about it? Consider that "things" have happened, in this situation. There have been underage weddings. The women have been claiming they never saw any, which, quite frankly, seems highly unlikely in a close-knit community closed off from the rest of the world that goes to the same church.

while the marriages were arranged, the women have the right to say no. In fact, many of the women said no to the first marriages that were arranged for them.
They are not forced to marry.

They can leave the religion at any time.

Source that because I find that very hard to believe. I did extensive reading before I posted. I didn't just post out of the blue. What I want is for you to source your claim because it sound entirely implausible given the general nature of this particular sect.

After all, with a sect that has pulled its children from the public system thus depriving them of an education (yes there are others as well, so this isn't exclusive to the FDLS sect), how is it possible to claim that they are able to say "no" and leave the religion at any time if they only have access to the spiritual leaders?

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1672757&page=1

I will not deny that a few have left voluntarily, however that many young boys have been forcefully ex-communicated (though only because they were teenage boys whose misdemeanours are nothing more than watching TV, a movie or talking to a girl, and because the leaders needed to ensure that the more "pious" men got the plural marriages they needed for salvation), the VAST majority lack the necessary will to do so. The women who have left, did so under pressure, not choice.

Being forcefully ex-communicated is not the same as being free to leave whenever one wants to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy
http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/8828
http://www.slate.com/id/2189181/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/14/usa.julianborger


You keep saying the members of the FLDS are all mentally retarded and that they all have a genetic disorder yet you provide no evidence for this.

I am not saying they are all mentally retarded. If you had consulted an earlier post of mine where I was explaining how it has an unusually high occurrence in the FDLS sect when compared to the rest of the world where is it EXTREMELY rare with only 40 cases, you would note I was talking of the Fumarase deficiency condition, and saying how well there are a lot of carriers, a few of them wind up being the victims of this condition due to the desire to maintain a pure bloodlines. The sect is not willing to outbreed.

Saying that there are likely undocumented cases is not the same as saying they are retarded, though there are those who are evidently so.

The video wasn't meant as evidence. In response to the person who had said the three women sounded like they bordered on mental retardation, I had explained why it was possible for that. Giving a possible explanation is not the same as making a claim that X group is all (blank).

As you have failed to actually realise that I put a link in that post, I will again provide it for the you. Though I see no reason to because it was provided before I made those posts.

Three links about the topic. Though there are easily more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase_deficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/2
(this above link was provided earlier, this just points to a specific page)

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635182923,00.html

Those are all the links I feel like digging up. You have a internet access. Google is your friend.

<snip>

Why are you still arguing when you've already conceded?

If 15 people out of say 5,000 broke the law then should all 5,000 be punished for it?

What the state is doing here is punishing the entire population for the crimes of the few.

I find it to be a frightening prospect that many people seem to be heading this way, all in the interest of security for themselves or their neighbors. While I believe that they are well meaning, they are also setting the stage for major abuse of innocent individuals' liberties.

I believe that many actions such as this are little more than state sanctioned kidnapping (albeit with alleged legal backing, although fraud might fit the term)...perhaps my neighbors that live in the gated communities or walled town-home complexes might feel a bit different if the whole community was rounded up because something fishy was going on in unit #1210? Oh, yeah, maybe the rest of the residents should have known what was going on and said something about it? Being a resident definitely does not mean you know all the muck next door.

Some believe that belonging to the same church qualifies as knowing about the misdeeds of your neighbor...Funny, some people can't even tell you what their pastor preaches about, even though they might attend the same church for years.

So arrest everyone to catch the bad person in the neighborhood...sure, right after those that believe this nonsense procedure volunteer themselves for incarceration every time some criminal really does act up.

Finally, the prospects of acting upon allegation and informing on your neighbor, simply because of allegation, is a dangerous road in this day and age, as it is the gateway to presumption of guilt. When we finally cross that threshold; we are truly damned.

Why are you still arguing when you've already conceded?

Isn't it obvious? A troll attention whore thriving on the publicity.

First of all, are there actually 5000 people there? I was under the impression that it was in the hundreds, not thousands.

That said, you've obviously never been to a large church. People know each other. Rumors get around. People talk. Even in a church of 2000 people, everyone may not know everyone, but everyone knows someone. People heard about things. I would believe that even 5000 people in such a close community would know if there was abuse going on.

You.


Are.





Wrong.
It's less than 5,000 but more than just a few hundred because the number of children was 460.

While Jed may know Bart Simpson, it does not follow that Jed also knows Tom. You hear about rumors every day of the year. It does not mean you are obligated to act on them. None of these people are government officials, they had no right and no authority to act on innuendos or rumors.

But if we follow your logic, since a few Catholic priests abused some kids, then all Catholics are guilty since they all knew someone in the Catholic church. They all knew a priest. Nevermind that the priest they knew may not have been involved in any abuse. The fact that one or two priests engaged in abuse means that all the Catholics are guilty.

When you go above 500, there is less and less likelyhood that everyone knows everything that is going on. Do you really think that all 2,000 people would be unconcerned that abuse was going on? Do you really think that if everyone knew about the abuse, it would not be brought up before the group's leadership or even an anonymous call to the state???

Do you really have such a low esteem of the human race?? I mean if 2,000 people or more are willing to turn a blind eye to things like torture, child abuse, or inhumanities then God help us.

Still waiting to find out why the weight and skin color of the girl who called in the tip was relevant . . .

This is going to go like the "Texas said all Muslims are terrorists" issue isn't it?

Her skin color and her weight are incidental but I would note that fat girls are always trouble makers.

The fact is she lied. She committed a serious act of slander. She is in deep doo doo because of the call she made about the facility in Texas.

She has harmed hundreds of families, many of which are not even polygamous.

Whether it was intended as a sick practical joke or she has an intense hatred of the group (which looks likely since the group has been the victim of previous false calls she had made in the past) is irrelevant. The fact is she committed one of the most egregious crimes in the US and she should lose her freedom for life.

first it is Iroquois
second the Iroquois Confederacy is not entirely on US soil about half of it is in Canada.

I have declared war on Taiwan, however with out the military might to back it up and actually invading, that declaration is a means of free speech not a declaration of war.
A declaration of war is really meaningless since said Indians have no means to get to Germany.
The Venezuelan deal LoL. first you have to under stand the situation in Venezuela, if you haven't noticed the oil industry there is controlled by the goverment. In fact a great many number of businesses deal with the goverment of Venezuela to purchase oil, so what you've given claims of national action is simply a business deal that you could do if you had enough money.

also during both World Wars natives tribes the declaration of war as a means to institute a internal draft.

None of the tribes that accepted the offer of Venezuelan oil are "incorporated" as businesses. They are soverign tribes. Even if Bush does not know what the meaning of soverign is.
They made the treaties, not as a business, but as soverign entities within a soverign entity.

I fail to see what Venezuela's internal policies have to do with Native Americans in the USA.

Her skin color and her weight are incidental but I would note that fat girls are always trouble makers.

The fact is she lied. She committed a serious act of slander. She is in deep doo doo because of the call she made about the facility in Texas.

She has harmed hundreds of families, many of which are not even polygamous.

Whether it was intended as a sick practical joke or she has an intense hatred of the group (which looks likely since the group has been the victim of previous false calls she had made in the past) is irrelevant. The fact is she committed one of the most egregious crimes in the US and she should lose her freedom for life.

One baseless generalization after another to try and distract from the non-existent point you have. Come up with a published state or federal statistics stating the higher involvement of obese females in crime... oh wait it's you.

You won't of course.

Source that because I find that very hard to believe. I did extensive reading before I posted. I didn't just post out of the blue. What I want is for you to source your claim because it sound entirely implausible given the general nature of this particular sect.

After all, with a sect that has pulled its children from the public system thus depriving them of an education (yes there are others as well, so this isn't exclusive to the FDLS sect), how is it possible to claim that they are able to say "no" and leave the religion at any time if they only have access to the spiritual leaders?

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1672757&page=1

I will not deny that a few have left voluntarily, however that many young boys have been forcefully ex-communicated (though only because they were teenage boys whose misdemeanours are nothing more than watching TV, a movie or talking to a girl, and because the leaders needed to ensure that the more "pious" men got the plural marriages they needed for salvation), the VAST majority lack the necessary will to do so. The women who have left, did so under pressure, not choice.

Being forcefully ex-communicated is not the same as being free to leave whenever one wants to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy
http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/8828
http://www.slate.com/id/2189181/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/14/usa.julianborger




I am not saying they are all mentally retarded. If you had consulted an earlier post of mine where I was explaining how it has an unusually high occurrence in the FDLS sect when compared to the rest of the world where is it EXTREMELY rare with only 40 cases, you would note I was talking of the Fumarase deficiency condition, and saying how well there are a lot of carriers, a few of them wind up being the victims of this condition due to the desire to maintain a pure bloodlines. The sect is not willing to outbreed.

Saying that there are likely undocumented cases is not the same as saying they are retarded, though there are those who are evidently so.

The video wasn't meant as evidence. In response to the person who had said the three women sounded like they bordered on mental retardation, I had explained why it was possible for that. Giving a possible explanation is not the same as making a claim that X group is all (blank).

As you have failed to actually realise that I put a link in that post, I will again provide it for the you. Though I see no reason to because it was provided before I made those posts.

Three links about the topic. Though there are easily more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase_deficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/2
(this above link was provided earlier, this just points to a specific page)

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635182923,00.html

Those are all the links I feel like digging up. You have a internet access. Google is your friend.

Children have no right to decide their own religion. They must attend the same faith as their parents. It is the parents who decide. The child has no say until they are 18.

You fail to understand that in the FLDS, watching TV is likely a serious crime, especially when your parents have said they do not want you to watch TV.
If you can't follow the communities rules, you have no right to stay in the community.

The women who left did so because they broke the communities standards and rules.

Excommunication has always been a valid form of punishment for dealing with a member who refuse to comply with a religious group's standards. No one has the right to be Catholic hence the Pope has the authority to ex communicate Catholics who don't follow his dogma. Excommunication is a tool granted to church authorities to deal with miscreants who would otherwise harm the image of the group or the group's moral. This authority of excommunication is found in the Bible for most Christian denominations.

Excommunication of a member of your religious community, whether adult or child is not a crime. What is a crime is child abuse and child negiligence.

OMFG, this is the Thread That Would Not Die! Pretty soon, it'll be lurching around, grunting and wanting braaaaiiins! Don't say I didn't warn you!

OMFG, this is the Thread That Would Not Die! Pretty soon, it'll be lurching around, grunting and wanting braaaaiiins! Don't say I didn't warn you!

Yeah...I'm done post seriously after this. USofA- is just completely ignoring anything of any substance. I had fun there for a while cuz I didn't have to actually think to prove him wrong, but whatever. It's gotten terribly repetitive so fuck it.

With the authority I hold as God of Spam, I declare this thread to be dead and unworthy of further thought. Henceforth, anyone who posts a serious response to USofA- will be laughed at by me. And pointed at (for effect).

Yeah...I'm done post seriously after this. USofA- is just completely ignoring anything of any substance. I had fun there for a while cuz I didn't have to actually think to prove him wrong, but whatever. It's gotten terribly repetitive so fuck it.

With the authority I hold as God of Spam, I declare this thread to be dead and unworthy of further thought. Henceforth, anyone who posts a serious response to USofA- will be laughed at by me. And pointed at (for effect).

Yeah, poking the troll was fun for a while...

Yeah, poking the troll was fun for a while...

He's kind of a crappy troll. Not clever at all.

He's kind of a crappy troll. Not clever at all.

And yet everyone kept arguing with him/her/it!

He's kind of a crappy troll. Not clever at all.

One of the things that made it fun to poke him...

And yet everyone kept arguing with him/her/it!

Speaking for myself, as an English major, I have fun finding flaws in arguments. It just got old, eh?

Speaking for myself, as an English major, I have fun finding flaws in arguments. It just got old, eh?

I don't mind discussing why people believe what they believe in a rational manner, however, argument isn't just the automatic gainsaying of... I'll stop now. Two more finals, and I am DONE with the semester. And maybe my brain will go back to normal...

I don't mind discussing why people believe what they believe in a rational manner, however, argument isn't just the automatic gainsaying of... I'll stop now. Two more finals, and I am DONE with the semester. And maybe my brain will go back to normal...

A ten page paper on Autolycus from Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale and a ten page paper on Bakhtin's Dialogism analyzing Frank Herbert's Dune, both due monday, and I have 6 of the latter done and 1 of the former done. I totally feel you.

Children have no right to decide their own religion. They must attend the same faith as their parents. It is the parents who decide. The child has no say until they are 18.

No, actually. There is no law in the sane parts of the world that mandate such a thing. Children have every right to make their own spiritual decisions even if the parents disagree.

Back up your bullshit claim, but I know you won't because you won't be able to find a legally binding law that mandates what you're claiming.

You fail to understand that in the FLDS, watching TV is likely a serious crime, especially when your parents have said they do not want you to watch TV.
If you can't follow the communities rules, you have no right to stay in the community.

It is still a trivial reason for forcing someone out, and telling them that they are not fit to practice a religion. Whether or not its a sin in the eyes of the religion is not what I'm arguing about. I was answering your insipid claim that people within the FLDS church are free to make their own religious decisions. You're being wilfully obtuse.

The women who left did so because they broke the communities standards and rules.

Because they were not given choice.

You say that not everyone is not polygamous, then why should it matter if the women who they expelled refused to enter a polygamous union? You're contradicting yourself and killing your argument with baseless conjecture.

Excommunication has always been a valid form of punishment for dealing with a member who refuse to comply with a religious group's standards. No one has the right to be Catholic hence the Pope has the authority to ex communicate Catholics who don't follow his dogma. Excommunication is a tool granted to church authorities to deal with miscreants who would otherwise harm the image of the group or the group's moral. This authority of excommunication is found in the Bible for most Christian denominations.

I know full well what it is. But there is a different between using a valid punishment for a relative sin than to use the same punishment for absolutely petty reasons because of a silly rule that requires men to have many wives, at the expense of another's salvation. The problem is, the person ex-communicated may not have done anything wrong than simply exist; that they would have been expelled in false charges. It's easy to do when you have the "authority".

Excommunication of a member of your religious community, whether adult or child is not a crime. What is a crime is child abuse and child negiligence.

It's also a crime if the person expelled is a minor, which they have been in some cases. Hence, this is a form of child neglect.

Let me explain why.

Because in this case, when it happens, the child is not simply prevented from attending the place of worship, they have been expelled from the community and shunned by their own family, let to fend for themselves.

These are the lost boys of polygamy. You would know of this if you even bothered to consult anything I gave you.

Ex-communication is not the issue; the fact that people are completely forced out of their homes because of the community is the issue.

Her skin color and her weight are incidental but I would note that fat girls are always trouble makers.

It's funny, I see these words on the screen but my brain translates them into HURR.

I find it to be a frightening prospect that many people seem to be heading this way, all in the interest of security for themselves or their neighbors. While I believe that they are well meaning, they are also setting the stage for major abuse of innocent individuals' liberties.

I believe that many actions such as this are little more than state sanctioned kidnapping (albeit with alleged legal backing, although fraud might fit the term)...perhaps my neighbors that live in the gated communities or walled town-home complexes might feel a bit different if the whole community was rounded up because something fishy was going on in unit #1210? Oh, yeah, maybe the rest of the residents should have known what was going on and said something about it? Being a resident definitely does not mean you know all the muck next door.

Some believe that belonging to the same church qualifies as knowing about the misdeeds of your neighbor...Funny, some people can't even tell you what their pastor preaches about, even though they might attend the same church for years.

So arrest everyone to catch the bad person in the neighborhood...sure, right after those that believe this nonsense procedure volunteer themselves for incarceration every time some criminal really does act up.

Finally, the prospects of acting upon allegation and informing on your neighbor, simply because of allegation, is a dangerous road in this day and age, as it is the gateway to presumption of guilt. When we finally cross that threshold; we are truly damned.

I agree with you and I think we are seeing that most Americans agree with that line of thinking. The states are doing all they can usurp the freedoms and rights of the American people.
There was an article on Google news about how the federal government is now going to monitor everyone's internet activity without being required to get a warrant to do so.
They can log all your website visits and log all your chat sessions. Especially if you live in the USA.

Big Brother is watching and Big Brother is becoming more and more abusive of toward our rights.

With the authority I hold as God of Spam, I declare this thread to be dead and unworthy of further thought. Henceforth, anyone who posts a serious response to USofA- will be laughed at by me. And pointed at (for effect).

<snip>


HAHAAAHAA!
*point*
HAAAAHAHAA!
*point*
HAAA!
*point*
HAHAHAHAAAHA!
*point*


You have been laughed at. And also pointed at. I hope the experience was enjoyable.

A ten page paper on Autolycus from Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale and a ten page paper on Bakhtin's Dialogism analyzing Frank Herbert's Dune, both due monday, and I have 6 of the latter done and 1 of the former done. I totally feel you.

I finished a ten page paper for Cultural Geography in one day. For some stupid-assed reason, I though it was due this coming Thursday, not this past Thursday. I need to start putting this shit in Outlook... Plus, there was a presentation involved. But I survived!

One baseless generalization after another to try and distract from the non-existent point you have. Come up with a published state or federal statistics stating the higher involvement of obese females in crime... oh wait it's you.

You won't of course.

No I won't because it not relevant to the fact that state of Texas has engaged in kidnapping at gunpoint. It is irrelevant to the fact that state of Texas claims the US constitution does not apply in their state.

I finished a ten page paper for Cultural Geography in one day. For some stupid-assed reason, I though it was due this coming Thursday, not this past Thursday. I need to start putting this shit in Outlook... Plus, there was a presentation involved. But I survived!

Damn, dude. Best I can claim so far is a 5 pager with sources on Mina Loy in 5 hours or so the morning before it was due. Incidentally, I attached that paper in a post a couple pages ago.

Damn, dude. Best I can claim so far is a 5 pager with sources on Mina Loy in 5 hours or so the morning before it was due. Incidentally, I attached that paper in a post a couple pages ago.

Meh. It's on the SCA, a topic with which I'm intimately familiar. It was mostly hunting down sources and documenting them properly (thank you zotero...). Thanks, tho...

Meh. It's on the SCA, a topic with which I'm intimately familiar. It was mostly hunting down sources and documenting them properly (thank you zotero...). Thanks, tho...

Yeah. The Mina Loy paper was actually kind of fun to write because she's frigging crazy.

The Bakhtin paper on Dune is pretty fun to write just because it's just an awesome paper so far. Interesting to analyze Dune with Bakhtin: it works rather well actually.

HAHAAAHAA!
*point*
HAAAAHAHAA!
*point*
HAAA!
*point*
HAHAHAHAAAHA!
*point*


You have been laughed at. And also pointed at. I hope the experience was enjoyable.

Uhm... I don't get it. Seriously... what's your problem?

Uhm... I don't get it. Seriously... what's your problem?

Oh, nothing. This thread is just really not worth the effort anymore. Feel free to ignore me, I'm just havin' fun now.

Oh, nothing. This thread is just really not worth the effort anymore. Feel free to ignore me, I'm just havin' fun now.

Oh, I get it. It's because I'm trying to reason with a brick wall, right?

I get it now... hahaha... :) If I had seen it earlier, I would have said it then...

EDIT - I totally like missed the post where you clarified your stance. No foul on your part.