Texas Authorities Raid Polygamist Compound(400 kids taken from a polygamist compound)

Kaethy, unfortunately, this position isn't consistent. It's not just "nit picky".

The FLDS being subject to the law, well Buddhists are subject to Chinese law. Does that make their situation right?

Variances between jurisdictions is exactly why the "law argument" should be tossed out on it's ear. There are countless good laws, and even more bad laws. To argue that if something is law, that makes it right, fails all kinds of tests.

As far as "current morality", that's a game. Right and wrong don't change over time, our understanding of them do.

And I'm not looking for the lowest standard, but I am pointing out, that there is no consistent standard. Hey, I agree with you. Old men having sex with young girls is creepy and shouldn't be done. That's a personal opinion of mine. It's completely different from what the law says. It's completely different (separate) from what the (sic) majority says.

Breaking the law might be illegal, but it is not immoral, and people would be wise to remember the difference. Laws have persecuted a lot of people. From military drafts, to seizure of property, to racial and religious discrimination. Texas raising it's law is foolish, and probably pleases only a small minority. If two 16 year olds want to get married and start a family, who are you or I to stop them? I might not think it's a good idea, but that doesn't give me a right to tell other people how to live, or to say they can only do this, or that.

The highest law in this situation, is that no one should harm another. If any harm has been done, there is a crime. If there is no victim, then there is not a crime. To blame these particular people, for what Warren Jeffs did, or what may have been done by specific members of their group, is discrimination. It's no different than blaming Jews, or Blacks or the French for something. As a species, I hope we're beyond broadly classifying and judging people.

 

In the minds of most and with regard to maintaining a level of society the law does reign over an individual's concept of morality.

Each individual's concept of morality does not reflect a societal view. A societal view, as more or less represented by the law at a particular point in time, is subject to review and change. It is a healthy and mature way of reflecting issues such as protecting the rights of minors, reflecting rights as described in the constitution, which is again a societal perspective.

The actions taken by the Texas authorities are representative of a societal view, not Guerilla's view.

And for that I'm sure many young girl's should be thankful.

 

What I consider meritless sophistry aside, it always comes to this, for this poster, it seems to me.

Why is this simple concept so hard to grasp?

Kids raised in an environment, from birth, where boys and girls are declared to have different roles in life; with girls being told to "stay sweet" and obey, or face brutal punishment on earth now and eternal damnation in the hereafter; and boys are raised to become abusers themselves, or face excommunication and banishment. THIS IS THE ANTITHESIS OF "VICTIMLESSNESS." When such girls are indoctrinated into believing their role in life - the summit of their existence - is to bow to the sexual whims of those in authority over them, and to then be impregnated by those in authority over them, is a CRIME. No tortured construction by some agenda otherwise can hide this simple, bald fact.

Guerilla has also stated that child porn should not be made illegal, for the same reasons he repeats what I call his sophistry here - "consented to." It doesn't withstand even cursory scrutiny by any standard of reasonableness.

Astounding. Leaping from tactic to tactic once the original point is refuted (South Carolina - SEEEEEEEEEE!!!!..oh, wait...uh...Statuory rape laws do not deal with age gaps, SEEEEEEEEE! oh, wait....), and all to what cause? Nothing new here with the poster's views and means, in my opinion. But nothing improved, either.

Particularly funny that the poster is vigorously defending the crimes committed by this group, while concomitantly giving a pass to the group's widely known abuse of welfare monies, when "welfarism" seems to have formerly been the poster's bugaboo. Great scheme - since single moms get more money than married moms, the FLDS scheme of "spiritual" marriages really brings in the dough, since on paper, these girls are mothers who are not legally married.

But then, consistency isn't exactly Guerilla's strong suit, in my experience, so again nothing new here as well - in other words,

Yep, comes through loud and cloudy.

Man, I know, there aren't any objective standards of morality. Except when there are, for things like kids doing porn, or girls indoctrinated into sexual abuse. Wait, wha?

 

Maybe I didn't make my position completely clear. I am consistent in my beliefs on this issue. I am not relying solely on law in my argument.

I believe the FLDS are WRONG MORALLY, and they are doing things that are ILLEGAL according to the law in the time a place they live in.

It's both, immoral and illegal.

We are not discussing Buddhists in China. And if we were, we could talk about whether or not the law is right. But that's not the discussion thread we are on.

I do not agree that current morality is a game. It's what people have always done. Different peoples, at different times, in different places, have defined morality differently. That's what people do, redefining morality all the time, in an effort to be more right than they were in the past. In fact, that's all people CAN do. Because there's no big book that spells it all out clearly for everyone. There are several books, but only some people read some of the books, and they seem to be out of date....

Fine, so there's no consistent standard from place to place or from time to time. That's reality. In this case, were are talking about people living in Texas in 2008. We are following the Texas current law, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BEST THE HUMAN RACE CAN DO. I don't hear a better or clearer idea from you.

Again, I say, I believe what the FLDS are doing is both illegal AND immoral.

Not only do we have the right to say how these people should live, because the abuse involves children, we have a LEGAL AND MORAL OBLIGATION to interfere with how they live.

Warren Jeffs DID HARM to minor children, THAT'S WHY HE'S IN JAIL !!! And the other men in the FLDS cooperate, conspire, and continue to commit the same abuse pattern Jeffs established.

Remember, before Warren Jeffs institued new practices, they were left alone. He started abuse of girls at younger ages. He also started the practice of reassigning wives and their children to different men. Those children are also being abused by being separated from their fathers.

I don't see this as broadly classifying people. I see it as widespread abuse that Texas has attempted to put a halt to.

The children can be returned to their parents. The parents will have to learn, acknowledge, and promise to follow Texas law. Remember, some of the men were interviewed and said they didn't know "marrying" underage girls was illegal! Somehow the mothers know, they had to cast their faces down in shame as they lied, saying they didn't know it was going on.

A few men will be prosecuted, once all the tangled DNA testing is done. And they should be.

 

There is only one person both saying it and defending the behavior. One has to wonder why.

Even when the actual definition is presented as a complete contradiction to Guerillas previous statements, he still ignores reality.

Either way you slice it, it's pedophilia being disguised as or justified by a religious belief.

When Guerilla grows up and has kids of his how, perhaps he will change his tune. If he keeps defending the behavior, it can mean only one thing... For those children that fit the definition lets hope for their sake, the defensive behavior is nothing more than the undying urge to continually argue.

 

These cults almost always exist so that some middle aged weirdo(s) can get young poon and justify it with some screwed up version of religion.

 

The rights of an individual should always be protected from abuse. To argue otherwise is to argue for tyranny.

So the Nazi's had a healthy view when they gassed Jews in concentration camps? How about when blacks were slaves in America? How about the Jim Crow laws? Was society making the right move, by treating blacks as property. If not, what is the difference from those laws and other laws?

I'll ask the question that is continually dodged in this thread, yet again. Which girls? You're so quick to cry foul, surely you have a crime and a victim to cry about. Who is it? What was the crime?

 

Right, but that's like saying, I feel good, and btw the weather is nice today.

If the law was different, you would still feel it was morally wrong, correct? That's why I'd like to drop arguing the law in this altogether, because it's not consistent, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, meaning there is no empirical standard for when young people are ready for sex, and in lieu of how many bad laws there are, particularly related to sex, and consent, arbitrarily picking one Texas law that backs you up, when you might not agree with others, is cherry picking your position.

I'm ok with you being against it morally. I mean, as much as possible. I think I have made my position really clear.

1) There has to be a victim to be a crime
2) The age of consent is not the best determinant of when people are ready for sex
3) The age gap appears to be the bigger issue, than whether or not the girls were ready. If 15 year olds were having sex with 13 year olds, then I'm not sure we would be seeing this level of passion for punishment.
4) The state cannot hold people indefinitely without charging them for crimes. Now it appears the state is holding adult women from the ranch and treating them like minors. It's a massive gong show that went sideways when the original complainant turned out to be a mentally unstable prank caller.
5) Until the government presses charges, this is another instance of religious harassment IMO. I'm not religious, this is not my religion, but I believe in religious freedom.

Please see my comments to Earl re: Jews and Blacks.

Right, but do you really, rationally believe that a crime in Texas isn't a crime in South Carolina, and this makes sense? If you are morally against it, it's a crime everywhere. Regardless of the law. Which has been my point. I wish people would abandon the law in this argument.

THE BEST THE HUMAN RACE CAN DO? Bombing innocent people, and Senators who grandstand over baseball steroid commissions when veterans are living on the street? Please, we can do a hell of a lot better. If this is the best we can do, I'm outta here, because the only reason I get up each day is hoping I (we) can do better.

As far as a better idea, I haven't even been in a position in this thread to present such. I'm accused of supporting rape, now Mia is implying that I am a pedophile. Just posting to this thread, tears me up inside. I unsubscribed from it earlier today, because it makes me sick.

Personally, I don't believe you have a right to tell me how to live, and I don't have a right to tell you how to live. Now, I don't have a right to hurt or coerce anyone, but if you think that you or in the abstract, society, owns me, you're very wrong. I am a free man. And I will fight to make sure you are a free woman, to pursue life on your own terms provided you cause no harm to others.

The legal and moral scratch legal please. As far as moral, that's the same excuse the religious nuts use to cram religion down people's throats. In fact, the FLDS folks morality may differ from yours, and who is to say they can't impose their morality on you? Controlling people, and setting standards for others, this how it works. It's really f**king messy. And as I have continually pointed out, the notion of "the majority" has done a lot of evil sh1t in the past. Majority means nothing when you're in the minority and being forced to do something against your will.

My point was that to date, the Texas government has not charged these people. They don't even know how many underage girls they have, let alone who got them pregnant, or if they are married, or whatever. They are totally, absolutely clueless, 6 weeks after the raid.

I'm not super familiar with Jeffs, except he seemed to be a creepy f*** who probably should have been put down. But conflating him with these individuals isn't fair. To them.

Difference of opinion. I'd like to believe Texas was doing something noble. By the way they have carried this out, it looks a lot more like religious persecution to me.

Can you guarantee all of the children will be returned to their mothers? A 100% certainty?

Personally, I doubt that will happen. The idea is to discredit, separate, punish and humiliate this group, even if members were unaware of the law, or unaware of any wrongdoing. This isn't about justice at all.

If they are married to the girls, and the fathers of these children, do you really believe it is in their best interest to have the children growing up with Daddy in jail for conceiving them?

I'm surprised no one is holding the parents accountable for the law being broken. I imagine within the sect, they would have been aware of, and approved of any marriages/relations. Btw, have we confirmed that all of the girls were married before having sex? It makes a difference if the man has committed to being a husband and raising the children over a casual or forced sexual encounter, does it not?

No one yet has touched that argument in this thread. It's fine and dandy to pound our chests and cry JUSTICE PUNISHMENT GOODNESS. Has anyone thought about the long term consequences to these families? What about the short term consequences of being in Texas' atrocious state care?

I made a mistake up-thread, of trying to engage the philosophical argument of who has consent for a 14 year old girl. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anyone courageous or intelligent enough to have the debate without cheap tactics like accusing me of being pro-rape. The topic is valid, but it's inappropriate for this audience.

Anyway, if a crime was committed, then it's a crime, and I don't have a problem with that. But as far as I am concerned about people's personal sexual habits, decisions etc, if it is consensual, it's not a crime. And as distasteful as young girls having sex is, throughout history, this isn't an abnormal occurrence. If the girls weren't forced into it, is it such a great idea to break up the family, and cause the small children potentially a lot more grief down the road?

I'm done with this thread. For the most part Kaethy, you've been pretty mature about the discussion, and if you have something you want to reply with, feel free to PM it to me. I'm really trying to avoid encouraging my stalker and immature people like Mia.

 

This is low. Even for you.

Based on the logic of your peers in this thread, someone could grab a picture of your son off the net, photoshop it, and send it to your local CPS.

They could take you, your wife, and child into custody, separating all 3 of you. For 6 weeks, they could piss around, until you and the missus lost your jobs, your reputations were ruined, and your child had some creepy stories from being in state care.

Of course, you'd be innocent, as would your family, but based on the logic here, this is perfectly acceptable if someone cranks the cops on you, and hey, they have to investigate completely, destroying your lives or they aren't doing their job.

The assumption that I am arguing for the guilty is stupid and childish. I'm arguing for the rights of the innocent, and a little bit of sanity in our culture of police abuse and moral harassment.

I'm out.

 

Talk about low... Dude, you've gone completely mad. Perhaps its time to take a break from posting here?

 

LOL....

 

Update hot off the presses. This is why I advised people not to argue their position based on the law. The law and morality are two different things.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POLYGAMIST_RETREAT?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

 

Good news for people that think it's ok to have sex with 13 year old girls... Guess you're in luck!

 

i did not keep track of this but it seems that the texas authority were on the wrong side of the law.
maybe they should have investigated more before removing them or some other stuff.
maybe they sect can take them to court for damages.
of course i am against any form of child abuse, but how do we know that this was going on.

 

I look at it this way.. Better to be safe than sorry.. At least this time around there was no Federal Government and Janet Reno (super shaker) at the helm...

At least these are 400 LIVE children, and not 400 Dead, Burned, and Shot Children like in WACO when Super Shaker Reno to Dog Mutt got all trigger happy!

 

I can understand this, but that instance is precisely why I have issue with this. Not that they might find 4 or 6 or 20 cases that should be addressed.

The government has a bad habit of escalating these situations until innocent people die.

 

Texas appeals court said Thursday that the state had no right to take more than 400 children from a polygamist sect's ranch, a ruling that could unravel one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080522164909reye.nb

 

Is it true that , in Spain 13 year is legal age for sex ?

 

None of us actually know what evidence the lower court had in place to make its decision. I have made my conclusion, based on what evidence I have seen. The appellate court reversed on precisely these grounds, and it has been kicked up to the state supreme court. We will all know more shortly.

 

Well gee, I thought it was so simple. FLDS bad, burn the ranch, take away the children, jail all of the men.

You mean the courts are actually going to debate if the law has been followed and make a judgment on the rights of these people, innocent and guilty alike?

Amazing. gworld must have been a prophet.