The Rest of the Story...

[Glow]

I'm not big into feminism either Glow, I think it can go too far the "other" way but I just have a problem with the "structure" amongst many other things within the FLDS. I think for the women and children it may be about following the Bible but for the men I think its less to do with that.
I just want to say aswell that although I disagree with alot of your views on this thread I really appreciate alot of the links that you put up as I have enjoyed reading many of them so Thankyou for that:blowkiss:

Thanks Ciara :blowkiss:

I am learning a lot as I read and talk with others such as yourself about this.

 

[Ciara]

Thanks Ciara :blowkiss:

I am learning a lot as I read and talk with others such as yourself about this.

Me too Glow

 

[Glow]

Pretty much. Polygamy is still illegal. Unless that law is overturned, they will still be breaking the laws of this land. They need to move to a country that has laws more in line with their beliefs. Especially if they don't want outside interference. JMHO.

understand what you are saying and I agree with you. I think I am one of the most law abiding people I know!

The only thing that concerns me is when the law of the land conflicts with the law of "god". If we insist that the law of the land is supreme and the final answer and the scriptures must take a back seat -then that is in effect - making the state "god".

I think most religions are pretty whacky personally but I do see that they seem to provide (for the people within them) a code of ethics to follow as well as some inner comfort. I see that as a good thing as do millions of church going people - obviously.

As much as I personally may not be a big fan of organized religion, I am even less a fan of making the state the one and only supreme decision maker, especially since governments are far less stable than religions are.

So a balance has to be struck. People need to have the freedom to practice their religion but not without any constraints. When and where the government steps in is the big debate.

I totally disagree that any one who has a religious belief that conflicts with the current laws needs to leave the country. This country was settled in part by people fleeing that kind of thinking. In the Texas hill country you will find many remnants of the German people that came and settled there fleeing religious persecution. America was never set up to be a police state and that is exactly what you have if the state determines religious practices with anything other than the minimum of interference.


As an example just suppose that the government decided that circumcision was to be illegal. Their reasoning was that it was a medically unwarranted violation of a childs civil rights. So it was now illegal and a felony. Most people would fuss a little and life would go on. But what about people who follow the Jewish faith? To them it is scripturally mandated and a basic tenet of their faith. If they stop they are disobeying God. If they keep the practice they are breaking the law and could have their children taken away.

This is the kind of dilemmas that the "state" has tried to stay away from in the past and they need to do so in the future as well.

 

[SewingDeb]

The FLDS has been breaking the law for many years but their first raid (and last before this one) was in 1953. They've had plenty of time to clean up their act or move elsewhere.

 

[SewingDeb]

The police are supposed to uphold the laws. I guess you could call us a police state already. I'm not allowed to break the law and neither are you...why should the FLDS be exempt?

 

[Glow]

Its like ice on a pond - some places it is thick and ok to skate. Other places it is thin...

I think when the government is given OR takes upon itself the legislating of religion that we are skating on perilously thin ice.


As far as the YFZ people in Texas, they didnt get welfare. Their only illegalality was the underaged thing and the polygamy right?

They have said they will follow the law. Lets assume they do.

That leaves the polygamy.....

Yes it is illegal but so was homosexuality for a long time. Should homosexuals have had to leave the country?

 

[Pepper]

As much as I personally may not be a big fan of organized religion, I am even less a fan of making the state the one and only supreme decision maker, especially since governments are far less stable than religions are. The law of the land must take precidence over any religious practice or anarchy will result.

So a balance has to be struck. People need to have the freedom to practice their religion but not without any constraints. When and where the government steps in is the big debate. Not to my way of thinking. If a so-called religion breaks the law, then they must be held accountable.

I totally disagree that any one who has a religious belief that conflicts with the current laws needs to leave the country. This country was settled in part by people fleeing that kind of thinking. In the Texas hill country you will find many remnants of the German people that came and settled there fleeing religious persecution. America was never set up to be a police state and that is exactly what you have if the state determines religious practices with anything other than the minimum of interference. I kind of like "America, love it or leave it." No one is forcing you or anyone to stay. You don't like the laws, the way of life, you are free to leave.

As an example just suppose that the government decided that circumcision was to be illegal. Their reasoning was that it was a medically unwarranted violation of a childs civil rights. So it was now illegal and a felony. Most people would fuss a little and life would go on. But what about people who follow the Jewish faith? First of all, that will never happen. To them it is scripturally mandated and a basic tenet of their faith. If they stop they are disobeying God. If they keep the practice they are breaking the law and could have their children taken away. Then according to your logic, if the FLDS, Amish, or any "new" religion decided that the first born male child must be slaughtered within 24 hours of birth, that would be OK with you, because it is a tenet of that religion?

This is the kind of dilemmas that the "state" has tried to stay away from in the past and they need to do so in the future as well.

I'm definitely not in favor of anarchy.

 

[Glow]

I'm definitely not in favor of anarchy.

so how do you feel about fascism?

 

[pamlet]

Great post - I agree with most of what you are saying .. save the parts of organized religion.. I believe a structured faith is HOW you get ethical standards.

I also think that the straying from faith in our nation is what has brought a lot of the lack of standards and ethics to the point we're at...

As to the whole FLDS thing .. I certainly don't agree with abuse of children .. nor do I think polygamy is "proper" .. mostly due to the fact that I believe the Bible (at least the New Testament) teaches monogamy..

HOWEVER - I do think your point on comparing circumcision to polygamy is a great one... for Jewish people it's in their Law .. it's a great comparison.

understand what you are saying and I agree with you. I think I am one of the most law abiding people I know!

The only thing that concerns me is when the law of the land conflicts with the law of "god". If we insist that the law of the land is supreme and the final answer and the scriptures must take a back seat -then that is in effect - making the state "god".

I think most religions are pretty whacky personally but I do see that they seem to provide (for the people within them) a code of ethics to follow as well as some inner comfort. I see that as a good thing as do millions of church going people - obviously.

As much as I personally may not be a big fan of organized religion, I am even less a fan of making the state the one and only supreme decision maker, especially since governments are far less stable than religions are.

So a balance has to be struck. People need to have the freedom to practice their religion but not without any constraints. When and where the government steps in is the big debate.

I totally disagree that any one who has a religious belief that conflicts with the current laws needs to leave the country. This country was settled in part by people fleeing that kind of thinking. In the Texas hill country you will find many remnants of the German people that came and settled there fleeing religious persecution. America was never set up to be a police state and that is exactly what you have if the state determines religious practices with anything other than the minimum of interference.


As an example just suppose that the government decided that circumcision was to be illegal. Their reasoning was that it was a medically unwarranted violation of a childs civil rights. So it was now illegal and a felony. Most people would fuss a little and life would go on. But what about people who follow the Jewish faith? To them it is scripturally mandated and a basic tenet of their faith. If they stop they are disobeying God. If they keep the practice they are breaking the law and could have their children taken away.

This is the kind of dilemmas that the "state" has tried to stay away from in the past and they need to do so in the future as well.

 

[pamlet]

I'm definitely not in favor of anarchy.

You make the statement that circumcision would never be outlawed ... I'll tell you there are VERY strong movements against it .. I know when I was pregnant with my oldest son we had some very vocal people against it in my natural childbirthing class .. and that was roughly 25 years ago .. so never say never.. it COULD happen if a group gets vocal enough.

 

[Glow]

Great post - I agree with most of what you are saying .. save the parts of organized religion.. I believe a structured faith is HOW you get ethical standards.
I also think that the straying from faith in our nation is what has brought a lot of the lack of standards and ethics to the point we're at...

As to the whole FLDS thing .. I certainly don't agree with abuse of children .. nor do I think polygamy is "proper" .. mostly due to the fact that I believe the Bible (at least the New Testament) teaches monogamy..

HOWEVER - I do think your point on comparing circumcision to polygamy is a great one... for Jewish people it's in their Law .. it's a great comparison.

Hi pamlet,

the part I bolded in your statement is true and I agree that you are probably more correct than I am. I will confess I am a tad "jaded" when it comes to organized religion. I am a great admirer of the Bible though and I have a deep respect for those who attempt to live by its standards. That respect that I feel extends to my own deep belief that we must respect the religion of others where at all possible. There are some religious extremists that make it impossible to grant them that courtesy but they are the exception. I think over all the American courts have done an admirable job of balancing religious freedoms with religions responsibility.

 

[SewingDeb]

Its like ice on a pond - some places it is thick and ok to skate. Other places it is thin...

I think when the government is given OR takes upon itself the legislating of religion that we are skating on perilously thin ice.


As far as the YFZ people in Texas, they didnt get welfare. Their only illegalality was the underaged thing and the polygamy right?

They have said they will follow the law. Lets assume they do.

That leaves the polygamy.....

Yes it is illegal but so was homosexuality for a long time. Should homosexuals have had to leave the country?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States

It's still illegal in NC and many other states. If I were homosexual, I would move out of my state.

The FLDS have been given a lot of leeway in Arizona and Utah. Why didn't they stay there?

 

[Glow]

It's still illegal in NC and many other states. If I were homosexual, I would move out of my state.

The FLDS have been given a lot of leeway in Arizona and Utah. Why didn't they stay there?

I dont know. Some have said they moved to Texas because apparently Texas thought that setting the legal age for marriage at 14 was a good idea.

IF you were a homesexual and homosexuality was illegal in every state - what would you do then?

 

[SewingDeb]

I dont know. Some have said they moved to Texas because apparently Texas thought that setting the legal age for marriage at 14 was a good idea.

IF you were a homesexual and homosexuality was illegal in every state - what would you do then?

Move to another country or stay very, very quiet...lol.

I don't think homosexuality has anything to do with polygamy or the FLDS.

 

[Truly]

Its like ice on a pond - some places it is thick and ok to skate. Other places it is thin...

I think when the government is given OR takes upon itself the legislating of religion that we are skating on perilously thin ice.


As far as the YFZ people in Texas, they didnt get welfare. Their only illegalality was the underaged thing and the polygamy right?

They have said they will follow the law. Lets assume they do.

That leaves the polygamy.....

Yes it is illegal but so was homosexuality for a long time. Should homosexuals have had to leave the country?

Talk about skating . You just breezed by the single most important aspect of this case as if it was nothing. The underaged thing? Most of us call that sexual assault on a child. Personally, it turns my stomach to hear someone so lightly and cavalierly dismiss the systematic assault by perverted old men on every virgin girl who has had the misfortune to be born into this cult of sexual slavery. So, you think it would be ok to let them continue to imprison and sexually assault and impregnate all of their daughters...so long as they managed to keep their filthy paws off of them until they turned sweet sixteen? You don't think these girls deserve the right to grow up and decide for themselves who they will marry and have children with?

If the men of the FLDS really thought that having sex with their children was some sort of holy religious thing, why do they tuck their tails and run as soon as they are caught? Why won't they stand and defend the practice? Why do they ditch every aspect of their supposed faith, steal money from the community trust, hop into a red sportscar, and skip town? Why do they point long fingers blaming everything and everyone except themselves for their own actions?

Glow, I challenge you to get on any one of the threads here where CPS has stepped in to remove children from men who were sexually assaulting them and say something like, 'Oh the underaged thing? Is that all they did? Well, they said they wouldn't do it again. Why not let's assume that we can trust the child molestor to keep his hands off the kids?'

Maybe Deb or Pepper or someone can ask you nicely, and you'll answer? I know I have persistently tried to ask you to focus on the sexual abuse of children by the FLDS. I am aware that my comments have at times been downright snarky and at times even rude, and I apologize to you for that. It is just that I feel like I am talking to someone who sees nothing wrong with systematically sexually assaulting every child who is being held in what is essentially a fenced prison with armed guards. It has taken a lot for me to even try to have this discussion with you. It makes my skin crawl to think I may be talking to someone who sees nothing wrong with sexually assaulting a child. Especially on a website which is a haven for victims of such abuse.

 

[Glow]

Move to another country or stay very, very quiet...lol.

I don't think homosexuality has anything to do with polygamy or the FLDS.

LOL

The only thing that homosexuality and polygamy have to "do" with each other is that they are both ways that people have chosen to express their preference in what makes a family to them. In both cases they are considered "not" mainstream and have at times been illegal.

If country wanted to hang tough on the family values thing and NOT allow divorces to be so easy to obtain and ONLY allow one man one women marriages - no living together, no gays, no polygamy...

then I would say this was one tough and conservative country but I would feel that consistency was being demonstrated.

I am stunned to be living in a country where 2 gay people can live together and the "man" can get pregnant and be on Oprah, where we are all encouraged to "be more open minded" and yet a monogamous young married couple with a child, have their home raided and their child taken into custody because they belong to a religion that practices polygamy.

 

[Truly]

LOL

That's all you can do, is laugh out loud? You've just gotta have the last word, and all you can do is veer off on yet another hopelessly inconsequential tangent? I do hope that all of the men in the FLDS who have abused their children die alone and unloved, staring into the hard cold truth that they alone destroyed the most beautiful thing in the world...the trust and the innocence of their own children.

 

[Ciara]

That leaves the polygamy.....

Yes it is illegal but so was homosexuality for a long time. Should homosexuals have had to leave the country?

I snipped your post Glow..hope I did it right.
The problem I have with this arguement is that I have seen paedophiles online using it....saying that homosexuality was illegal and now its not etc so they think its only a matter of time if they campaign for it...that paedophilia will be legal. So where do we draw the line? Polygamy should stay illegal in my opinion.
Ugh..I just read back what I wrote here and I think I have explained badly but its late here and I can't be bothered rewriting it so hopefully you'll understand my point:waitasec:

 

[Ciara]

Oh and Pamlet I agree with your statement that a structured faith is how we get ethical standards. I believe that too

 

[Details]

Pedophiles claiming an argument applies to them doesn't mean that it does, nor that it ever will. Like any sicko, like any criminal, they'll try to take any valid cause they can, and link themselves to it. That doesn't denigrate the real issue they claim to relate to - it's just more evidence of how far they are from reality.

There's a clear, bright line. Anything not harmful to others, that two consentual adults wish to do, should be legal. A marriage is between two consentual adults, any time it is not harmful to others. It's a pretty simple line - and doesn't apply to pedophiles, incest, etc.