PDA

View Full Version : Does the TX FLDS story kill any possibility for Romney as POTUS


memyselfI
04-18-2008, 09:46 PM
I'm not saying he's one of them or in any way condones or believes what is going on in TX or at any FLDS compound. But when people hear about how this is an extreme and fundamentalist sect within the Mormon religion does that make Romney susceptible to guilt by association even if he's not?

I'm just wondering how glad he might be feeling that he's not in the race at the moment and having to explain how he's different. Can you imagine if this story broke the first week of February 08 instead of April 08.

CHIEF4EVER
04-18-2008, 09:48 PM
FLDS isn't part of the Mormon religion (similar name notwithstanding).

NewChief
04-18-2008, 09:56 PM
FLDS:Mormonism:Branch Davidians:Christianity

There are quite a few more FLDS than there were Branch Davidians, but mainstream Mormons look on them as kooks. Under the Banner of Heaven does draw out some disturbing instances where the mainstream CLDS have stood by the FLDS, but I think that by and large they're pretty shunned by the majority of Mormons.

memyselfI
04-18-2008, 09:57 PM
FLDS isn't part of the Mormon religion (similar name notwithstanding).

Hum. Thanks for the correction. But, they were at one time, right?

I mean they were not born out of a religion other than Mormonism. Yes?

Adept Havelock
04-18-2008, 10:05 PM
FLDS:Mormonism:Branch Davidians:Christianity

There are quite a few more FLDS than there were Branch Davidians, but mainstream Mormons look on them as kooks. Under the Banner of Heaven does draw out some disturbing instances where the mainstream CLDS have stood by the FLDS, but I think that by and large they're pretty shunned by the majority of Mormons.

That's my understanding of it as well. That was a disturbing book.

NewChief
04-18-2008, 10:08 PM
Hum. Thanks for the correction. But, they were at one time, right?

I mean they were not born out of a religion other than Mormonism. Yes?

Yes. They are an offshoot of mainstream Mormonism. Read Under the Banner of Heaven if you want a really nice examination of fundamental Mormonism. I've had similar thoughts that this would have been bad for Romney. I think he could have quelled them pretty easily with the analogy that I listed below. The problem, as Krakauer outlines in the aforementioned book, is that many times the mainstream CLDS have been hesitant to outright turncoat on the FLDS and really denounce them to outsiders. Within the church, they don't like them and will ostracize them, but the institution of the church has a shoddy history of being reluctant to completely denounce them (similar to their position on polygamy). Whether it would have played out badly for Romney or not really depends on how willing he would have been to take a strong stand against them. I imagine he would have, but he might have been hesitant, as many in the church have been in the past.

irishjayhawk
04-18-2008, 11:50 PM
FLDS:Mormonism:Branch Davidians:Christianity

There are quite a few more FLDS than there were Branch Davidians, but mainstream Mormons look on them as kooks. Under the Banner of Heaven does draw out some disturbing instances where the mainstream CLDS have stood by the FLDS, but I think that by and large they're pretty shunned by the majority of Mormons.

I saw a magazine, I forget which one, that was covering the event. I just laughed a bit in amazement at when they decide to throw out the word "cult".

Mormonism isn't a cult, but FLDS is. "Religion" isn't a cult. But Scientology is. It's really strange when people snap out of "religion" and begin labeling or being labelled "cult".

jAZ
04-19-2008, 12:08 AM
It's a fair question and I'm not sure if it has or not.

I think the right Mormon candidate can overcome this. I'm not sure Romney is that guy though. I bet it hurts his chances of VP more than anything right now.

Four or eight years from now is a long way away.

Personally, I hope it doesn't cause any problems. It's obviously not what Romney believes, and I hope people are smart enough to figure out the difference.

HolmeZz
04-19-2008, 03:09 AM
I don't see Mormonism as a huge obstacle and think Romney wouldn't have had much trouble overcoming it with the Right if he had had consistent conservative positions. It was just obvious to anyone with a brain that his stances were dictated by whoever's votes he needed.

BucEyedPea
04-19-2008, 06:26 AM
FLDS was kicked out of mainstream Mormonism

BucEyedPea
04-19-2008, 06:34 AM
It's really strange when people snap out of "religion" and begin labeling or being labelled "cult".

All the word "cult" means is following or devotion to a certain person, leader or beliefs. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult Doesn't even have to be religious.

It's become a derogatory term for those religions the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream. It's really just BS. All religions per the original definition of the word can be considered a cult when first started as Christianity was until they're accepted.

It's used in an arbitrary fashion.

chiefforlife
04-19-2008, 09:38 AM
"Does the TX FLDS story kill any possibility for Romney as POTUS?"


NO......Romney did that himself.

BucEyedPea
04-19-2008, 10:04 AM
I heard last night that this report about FLDS was a false report by a women. Anyone else hear that?

Taco John
04-19-2008, 10:53 AM
FLDS:Mormonism:Branch Davidians:Christianity

Not even close.

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 11:00 AM
Not even close.

:hmmm:

Both groups are devoted to somewhat odd (to the mainstream members) interpretations of their faith, live in isolated communities, shun outsiders and cultivate a sense of paranoia towards the outside world, ostracize regular members who choose to interact with the outside world, and are have leaders that appear to have more than a bit of megalomania. Both leaders claimed to be divinely inspired prophets with the power to bind and loose over their groups. Both leaders also appear to have supported marrying off underage children to grown men, or other forms of child abuse.

Where's the vast difference? What makes them "not even close"? I'm quite serious. I'd like to know what you're basing that on.

Taco John
04-19-2008, 11:03 AM
I saw a magazine, I forget which one, that was covering the event. I just laughed a bit in amazement at when they decide to throw out the word "cult".

Mormonism isn't a cult, but FLDS is. "Religion" isn't a cult. But Scientology is. It's really strange when people snap out of "religion" and begin labeling or being labelled "cult".


About every Christian denomination in existence teaches their youth that Mormonism is a cult. These religions don't recognize Mormonism as a competing point of view (i.e. denomination), but as a radical addition to the Bible by a man who was trying to make money. Whatever the truth is, I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself -- I'm just trying to shed light on why you will see the word cult when used to describe Mormonism in some publications.

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 11:06 AM
About every Christian denomination in existence teaches their youth that Mormonism is a cult. These religions don't recognize Mormonism as a competing point of view (i.e. denomination), but as a radical addition to the Bible by a man who was trying to make money. Whatever the truth is, I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself -- I'm just trying to shed light on why you will see the word cult when used to describe Mormonism in some publications.

Not unlike some Protestant groups and leaders like Mr. Hagee who claim Catholicism is a cult.

Taco John
04-19-2008, 11:17 AM
:hmmm:

Both groups are devoted to somewhat odd (to the mainstream members) interpretations of their faith, live in isolated communities, shun outsiders and cultivate a sense of paranoia towards the outside world, ostracize regular members who choose to interact with the outside world, and are have leaders that appear to have more than a bit of megalomania. Both leaders claimed to be divinely inspired prophets with the power to bind and loose over their groups. Both groups also appear to have supported marrying off underage children to grown men.

Where's the vast difference? What makes them "not even close"?

I never said there was a vast difference between FLDS and Branch Davidians. There doesn't appear to be. But Branch Davidians believed that David Koresh was the messiah. That's not Christianity. Branch Davidians weren't practicing an odd interpretation of Christianity. They were practicing Branch Davidianism.

The FLDS on the other hand, believe in the stuff that the Mormon religion has gravitated away from because it made it hard for them to integrate into society. They may not believe the stuff now, but much of the stuff that the FLDS stuff is stuff that used to be mainstream in mormonism. It's never been mainstream thought in Christianity that David Koresh is the messiah.

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 11:18 AM
I never said there was a vast difference between FLDS and Branch Davidians. There doesn't appear to be. But Branch Davidians believed that David Koresh was the messiah. That's not Christianity. Branch Davidians weren't practicing an odd interpretation of Christianity. They were practicing Branch Davidianism.

The FLDS on the other hand, believe in the stuff that the Mormon religion has gravitated away from because it made it hard for them to integrate into society. They may not believe the stuff now, but much of the stuff that the FLDS stuff is stuff that used to be mainstream in mormonism. It's never been mainstream thought in Christianity that David Koresh is the messiah.

Thanks for the clarification, mea culpa.

irishjayhawk
04-19-2008, 11:20 AM
About every Christian denomination in existence teaches their youth that Mormonism is a cult. These religions don't recognize Mormonism as a competing point of view (i.e. denomination), but as a radical addition to the Bible by a man who was trying to make money. Whatever the truth is, I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself -- I'm just trying to shed light on why you will see the word cult when used to describe Mormonism in some publications.

I have no qualms with Mormonism being a cult. The problem I have is its inconsistent use. If Mormonism is a cult, Christianity branches (and itself) are a cult too. But it isn't seen that way and isn't printed that way.

It's like BEP said earlier. It's almost as if it's a cult until it becomes mainly accepted. And that's just another lie society tells itself. That's what I have a problem with - the dishonesty.

Taco John
04-19-2008, 11:21 AM
Not unlike some Protestant groups and leaders like Mr. Hagee who claim Catholicism is a cult.

Indeed. From a base fundamental point of view of protestant christianity, it is. Protestant Christianity finds the worship of Mary to be extra-biblical. Most Protestant Christians, however give Catholicism the benefit of a doubt though.

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 11:30 AM
Indeed. From a base fundamental point of view of protestant christianity, it is. Protestant Christianity finds the worship of Mary to be extra-biblical. Most Protestant Christians, however give Catholicism the benefit of a doubt though.

I suspect a "base fundamental" POV for Catholicism views Protestantism in a similar light.

I loves me some schisms! Grab the popcorn, and watch the apostates fly! Great fun for a heathen like me. :D

NewChief
04-19-2008, 12:38 PM
I never said there was a vast difference between FLDS and Branch Davidians. There doesn't appear to be. But Branch Davidians believed that David Koresh was the messiah. That's not Christianity. Branch Davidians weren't practicing an odd interpretation of Christianity. They were practicing Branch Davidianism.

The FLDS on the other hand, believe in the stuff that the Mormon religion has gravitated away from because it made it hard for them to integrate into society. They may not believe the stuff now, but much of the stuff that the FLDS stuff is stuff that used to be mainstream in mormonism. It's never been mainstream thought in Christianity that David Koresh is the messiah.

Point taken. I still think that it would be a passable analogy for Romney to use if he had to. I did seriously wonder about Romney's true chances in the general. As you said, there are many Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, who are taught that Mormonism is a cult. I know that's how it was always taught to me in the Southern Baptist church in which I grew up.

NewChief
04-19-2008, 12:41 PM
I have no qualms with Mormonism being a cult. The problem I have is its inconsistent use. If Mormonism is a cult, Christianity branches (and itself) are a cult too. But it isn't seen that way and isn't printed that way.

It's like BEP said earlier. It's almost as if it's a cult until it becomes mainly accepted. And that's just another lie society tells itself. That's what I have a problem with - the dishonesty.

It's just like any historical trend. Today's terrorist, should he win, will be labeled a freedom fighter in retrospect. Religions, once they become accepted into the mainstream fold, escape the cult label. That being said, Christianity is pretty quick to label all other religions cults, heh. I was certainly taught that Hinduism was a "cult" growing up.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:45 PM
I don't see Mormonism as a huge obstacle and think Romney wouldn't have had much trouble overcoming it with the Right if he had had consistent conservative positions. It was just obvious to anyone with a brain that his stances were dictated by whoever's votes he needed.

Yeah, it showed his true colors when one of his top foreign policy advisers secretly went to the Canadians and told them not to worry about the protectionist noises he was making over NAFTA on the campaign trail.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:48 PM
:hmmm:

Both groups are devoted to somewhat odd (to the mainstream members) interpretations of their faith, live in isolated communities, shun outsiders and cultivate a sense of paranoia towards the outside world, ostracize regular members who choose to interact with the outside world, and are have leaders that appear to have more than a bit of megalomania. Both leaders claimed to be divinely inspired prophets with the power to bind and loose over their groups. Both leaders also appear to have supported marrying off underage children to grown men, or other forms of child abuse.

Where's the vast difference? What makes them "not even close"? I'm quite serious. I'd like to know what you're basing that on.

And in addition, while there was limited justification for law enforcement to focus some attention on both, the government erred on the side of heavy handed tactics when something less dramatic would probably have sufficed.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:50 PM
I have no qualms with Mormonism being a cult. The problem I have is its inconsistent use. If Mormonism is a cult, Christianity branches (and itself) are a cult too. But it isn't seen that way and isn't printed that way.

It's like BEP said earlier. It's almost as if it's a cult until it becomes mainly accepted. And that's just another lie society tells itself. That's what I have a problem with - the dishonesty.

I think everyone understands that you want all religious groups to be considered cults. We get it.

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 01:03 PM
And in addition, while there was limited justification for law enforcement to focus some attention on both, the government erred on the side of heavy handed tactics when something less dramatic would probably have sufficed.

If you don't think institutionalized child abuse on a massive scale is worth an "extreme" reaction, I suppose so.

Sorry, I don't see anything overly heavy handed about how the FLDS situation is being handled, especially given their proved past history of this type of abuse.

However, I'm not defending the idiots that mismanaged Waco into a funeral pyre.

JMO.

BucEyedPea
04-19-2008, 01:37 PM
:hmmm:

Both groups are devoted to somewhat odd (to the mainstream members) interpretations of their faith, live in isolated communities, shun outsiders and cultivate a sense of paranoia towards the outside world, ostracize regular members who choose to interact with the outside world, and are have leaders that appear to have more than a bit of megalomania. Both leaders claimed to be divinely inspired prophets with the power to bind and loose over their groups. Both leaders also appear to have supported marrying off underage children to grown men, or other forms of child abuse.

Where's the vast difference? What makes them "not even close"? I'm quite serious. I'd like to know what you're basing that on.

The Amish don't interact with the outside world either or even use modern conveniences. But that gets called a sect instead?

As for marrying underage children to grown men that was the norm, and legal for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. That's not the current custom and is reflected in our laws. So they have to abide by general laws.

BucEyedPea
04-19-2008, 01:41 PM
That being said, Christianity is pretty quick to label all other religions cults, heh. I was certainly taught that Hinduism was a "cult" growing up.

That's true about Christians. I was told by a devout RC that Mormonism was Satan though. Oh! Same person feels the same about the Muslim faith. It was born from Satan to halt the spread of the original Church back in 700 AD. Hence, today is just another attempt to establish a ww caliphate.

NewChief
04-19-2008, 01:43 PM
The Amish don't interact with the outside world either or even use modern conveniences. But that gets called a sect instead?

As for marrying underage children to grown men that was the norm, and legal for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. That's not the current custom and is reflected in our laws. So they have to abide by general laws.

Cult is a relative term by nature. I think we all agree on that. That being said, I think that one of the primary characteristics of a cult, in modern times, is devotion to a central leader. Another characteristic, it seems, would be that the cult's origins are traceable within fairly recent history. One of the things that makes Mormonism (and Scientology, though I don't want to equate the two) so attackable is the fact that it was founded about 150 years ago. I imagine that Christianity was labeled a cult (or whatever the Latin equivalent would have been) back in its early stages as well.

Taco John
04-19-2008, 01:49 PM
Point taken. I still think that it would be a passable analogy for Romney to use if he had to.


That would sink his campaign to the bottom of the ocean if he had tried to pass off what you said as a valid analogy. There were Christians willing to plug their nose and vote for a Mormon, but the minute he might have tried to equate Branch Davidianism to Mormonism is the minute his campaign is dead in the water.

Religion is a very sensitive subject. His best bet would have been to use the opportunity to draw distinctions between modern mormonism - a religion of peace and family - and this fundamentalist sect. If he had to. This thread is actually a stupid topic, because Romney has already killed any possibility of being the president by pulling out. Four or eight years aren't going to change that. There are much better up and comers in the Republican party than milquetoast Mitt.

NewChief
04-19-2008, 01:51 PM
That would sink his campaign to the bottom of the ocean if he had tried to pass off what you said as a valid analogy. There were Christians willing to plug their nose and vote for a Mormon, but the minute he might have tried to equate Branch Davidianism to Mormonism is the minute his campaign is dead in the water.

Religion is a very sensitive subject. His best bet would have been to use the opportunity to draw distinctions between modern mormonism - a religion of peace and family - and this fundamentalist sect. If he had to. This thread is actually a stupid topic, because Romney has already killed any possibility of being the president by pulling out. Four or eight years aren't going to change that. There are much better up and comers in the Republican party than milquetoast Mitt.

I suppose I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge on what it takes to sink a campaign. :p

Taco John
04-19-2008, 01:52 PM
If you don't think institutionalized child abuse on a massive scale is worth an "extreme" reaction, I suppose so.



Oh, they were abusing the kids? How so? I admittedly haven't been following the details of the story very closely. As far as I know, it's a voluntary polygamist sect. I hadn't heard anything about child abuse.

Taco John
04-19-2008, 01:53 PM
I suppose I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge on what it takes to sink a campaign. :p

You should... Especially if you think your analogy would have passed the religious right smell test.

NewChief
04-19-2008, 01:59 PM
Oh, they were abusing the kids? How so? I admittedly haven't been following the details of the story very closely. As far as I know, it's a voluntary polygamist sect. I hadn't heard anything about child abuse.

They were marrying minors and impregnating them. They claim that no one under 16 was married or pregnant, but past reports dispute that claim with some claiming girls as young as 12 would be married. There are also reports from people who left the church that they beat kids, but one person's "beating" is another person's discipline. The pregnant 16 year olds is admitted fact, though. Also, these 16 year olds were married to men in their 40s.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 02:05 PM
If you don't think institutionalized child abuse on a massive scale is worth an "extreme" reaction, I suppose so.

Sorry, I don't see anything overly heavy handed about how the FLDS situation is being handled, especially given their proved past history of this type of abuse.

However, I'm not defending the idiots that mismanaged Waco into a funeral pyre.

JMO.

I'll reserve final judgment until I hear more about the kind of evidence they have of "institutionalized child abuse on a massive scale". It's going to take quite a bit to convince me that taking 400+ children from their homes is warranted. I haven't followed the story too closely, but my understanding is that they had a very limited number of complaints before they raided the compound and removed all the children.

I'm a pretty strong advocate of letting parents have a free hand in raising their children unless there is abuse. And by abuse, I'm talking about something I'd consider abuse, not some of the things that pass for abuse in some circles. For example, I'm pro-spanking. OTOH, anything worse than waterboarding would clearly be abuse. ;)

Adept Havelock
04-19-2008, 09:59 PM
They were marrying minors and impregnating them. They claim that no one under 16 was married or pregnant, but past reports dispute that claim with some claiming girls as young as 12 would be married. There are also reports from people who left the church that they beat kids, but one person's "beating" is another person's discipline. The pregnant 16 year olds is admitted fact, though. Also, these 16 year olds were married to men in their 40s.

They've proved involvement younger than that. That's one of the reasons Warren Jeffs is where he belongs, festering in a prison cell.
Oh, they were abusing the kids? How so? I admittedly haven't been following the details of the story very closely. As far as I know, it's a voluntary polygamist sect. I hadn't heard anything about child abuse.

I'll reserve final judgment until I hear more about the kind of evidence they have of "institutionalized child abuse on a massive scale". It's going to take quite a bit to convince me that taking 400+ children from their homes is warranted. I haven't followed the story too closely, but my understanding is that they had a very limited number of complaints before they raided the compound and removed all the children.
I'm a pretty strong advocate of letting parents have a free hand in raising their children unless there is abuse. And by abuse, I'm talking about something I'd consider abuse, not some of the things that pass for abuse in some circles. For example, I'm pro-spanking. OTOH, anything worse than waterboarding would clearly be abuse. ;)

I've been aware of these folks for quite some time, well before "Under the Banner of Heaven" came out.

First, consider their history of forcing 13-14 year olds to marry guys in their 40's and 50's. The vast majority of these men already have multiple wives, some underage. Their leader is in prison for organizing those marriages, sexual assault on a minor, aiding and abetting sexual assault on a minor, etc. Young girls are indoctrinated all their lives to believe it's God's will (as expressed through their "Divine Prophet" Jeffs), to submit to that abuse. As for the boys, many are pushed out into the larger world as early teens, uneducated and unprepared to deal with the larger world. Why? So they don't compete with the older and prosperous men for young girls.

Adding to that the presence of a "consummation bed" in their temple, I find "institutionalized child abuse" to be a very appropriate and reasonable term to use.

Given all that, and the other incidents with this group, I don't see anything wrong with the State removing those children from that environment. Some might want more than "a few" complaints before they act. IMO, considering the testimony of woman who left the group over the years, the Krakauer book exposing them, etc. no informed and reasonable person would have much doubt what was going on beyond the compound gates. I believe the Texas Authorities have been aware for a long time, but were unable to legally act until they received these "few" complaints.

I suppose that qualifies as "religious freedom" to some, but to me (and I strongly suspect an overwhelming majority of people) it's absolutely sickening and reprehensible behavior.
If people are OK with leaving children in that kind of an environment... :shake: :Lin:

Actually, those emoticons don't even come close to describing the utter disgust I feel towards people who would defend leaving a child in that environment. I'm not sure those words exist in the English language.

I strongly suspect the genetic testing ordered by the judge is also going to turn up many more underage marriages and births than they already have. As closed a society as the groups are, and given their condoning of this form of sexual abuse, I also won't be surprised if they find instances of incest.

I'm all for allowing people of majority age to get as freaky or as weird as they want. However, when kids are dragged into it like this I don't have any problem with the State putting the hammer down on those sickos and getting those kids away from them and the other adults who were willing to stand by and let it happen.

Perhaps I'm overreacting due to my own long-term relationship with a victim of quite horrific sexual abuse, but considering all this I really don't think so. I may be a Hedonist, but this behavior is completely beyond the pale.

I agree uprooting children from their family isn't something to be done lightly. In this instance, I see no other way for the State to protect those children, as that adults of the community are either actively involved, or condone it by their silence.

My most sincere hope out of all of this is the state will prevail in ending this abuse, which will lead to future actions against the larger FLDS communities (practicing the same sickening behavior) in Colorado City, AZ./Hilldale, UT. Jeffs had hand picked the Eldorado group from among the "most loyal" (to Jeffs, I suspect), so a successful rescue of these children may lead others in the larger community to speak out as well.

I hope so, for the sake of those kids.

The Amish don't interact with the outside world either or even use modern conveniences. But that gets called a sect instead?
The Amish don't f*ck children.
Koresh and Jeffs did. Jeffs led others to do the same, under the guise of religion. :shake: :Lin:


Anyone with a serious interest in these folks and how they work should pick this up. It's an excellent starting point for your own research, and well worth the Ten Bucks.

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/1400032806/ref=ed_oe_p

BucEyedPea
04-19-2008, 11:28 PM
I have a better idea than taking these children away from their mothers at gunpoint on the basis of a contrived report which makes the warrant illegal. wtf? Remove the men instead. The worst thing for the children is state foster care, such as in Texas which has had scores of children killed, poisoned, beaten, raped and otherwise abused each year. The main ages betwen 12 and 15 but even 3 years old. It's much worse. The state won't make things better for those kids.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cDDXY5KHMqA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cDDXY5KHMqA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 12:18 AM
Oh, they were abusing the kids? How so? I admittedly haven't been following the details of the story very closely. As far as I know, it's a voluntary polygamist sect. I hadn't heard anything about child abuse.

I'll reserve final judgment until I hear more about the kind of evidence they have of "institutionalized child abuse on a massive scale". It's going to take quite a bit to convince me that taking 400+ children from their homes is warranted. I haven't followed the story too closely, but my understanding is that they had a very limited number of complaints before they raided the compound and removed all the children.

I'm a pretty strong advocate of letting parents have a free hand in raising their children unless there is abuse. And by abuse, I'm talking about something I'd consider abuse, not some of the things that pass for abuse in some circles. For example, I'm pro-spanking. OTOH, anything worse than waterboarding would clearly be abuse. ;)


The whole reason this is a major story is because a girl made a call outside the compound to the authorities. I had read that as young as 8 were being married and forced into sex and many were pregnant at 12.

That's the ENTIRE reason it was a huge raid and huge deal.

HolmeZz
04-20-2008, 12:24 AM
Yeah, it showed his true colors when one of his top foreign policy advisers secretly went to the Canadians and told them not to worry about the protectionist noises he was making over NAFTA on the campaign trail.

Deflection's a beautiful thing. I'll take that as an admission that you knew you were backing a pretty rotten candidate.

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 12:25 AM
I have a better idea than taking these children away from their mothers at gunpoint on the basis of a contrived report which makes the warrant illegal. wtf? Remove the men instead. The worst thing for the children is state foster care, such as in Texas which has had scores of children killed, poisoned, beaten, raped and otherwise abused each year. The main ages betwen 12 and 15 but even 3 years old. It's much worse. The state won't make things better for those kids.

Sadly, the mothers are co-participants in the abuse. If not directly, than by condoning it by their silence. I pity them, as most were likely indoctrinated since earliest childhood with the same ideals. Hopefully something can be salvaged of the families. In spite of it's many faults, foster care is a superior option to leaving these children in a cycle of sexual abuse.

I suspect as this progresses, if it becomes necessary to divide families, enough good people will step forward from other churches and secular groups to care for them, much as the religious communities of Eldorado have tried. It will take an effort on multiple levels, public and private to help these children.

It's beyond tragic. I've seen interviews and read accounts of other women who escaped with their kids in past years. They speak of a years-long process to break free of that cycle of abuse. Institutionalized sexual abuse is akin to a cancer on society, and there is no easy or painless way to remove the malignancy.

Baby Lee
04-20-2008, 09:15 AM
Ears perked up when they revealed they hadn't found the 'anonymous tipster' among those brought in. Now this;

http://www.keyetv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=247fdf95-4688-41f5-8b97-66be59f555ff

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 09:29 AM
Ears perked up when they revealed they hadn't found the 'anonymous tipster' among those brought in. Now this;

http://www.keyetv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=247fdf95-4688-41f5-8b97-66be59f555ff

Oy.
So Warren Jeff's merry bunch of child abusers will likely get to resume their "religious practices". :Lin:

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 09:31 AM
Ears perked up when they revealed they hadn't found the 'anonymous tipster' among those brought in. Now this;

http://www.keyetv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=247fdf95-4688-41f5-8b97-66be59f555ff

Well your eyes will be perked as well after you see this. Check out whose name is listed among the Obama delegates:

http://www.peakdems.org/obama_state_del.asp

Obama State Delegates-Colorado

Name Pct.#
Adams, Deborah R 133
Adams, Susan Elaine 076
Ageton, Arthur Ainslie Jr 135
Albrecht, Gerald A 016
Anthony, Shannon Kay 322
Armenta, James P 161
Authier-friedman, Marcelle Y 027
Ayers, Patrick L 025
Bacalane, Judy Marie 177
Baker, Carrie Danielle 289
Baldwin, Kathleen K 099
Barber, Jennifer M 337
Barnes, Tony Raimon 059
Beal, Jack H 055
Beasley, Judith Annette 301
Begin, Raymond J 342
Bell, Essie M 201
Bell, Lucille C 276
Benson, David A 067
Berkbigler, Jane Elizabeth 010
Bernard, Marc 101
Blakely, Frank Warren 272
Boedeker, Linda J 022
Bolden, Karen G 168
Borrell, Linda N 232
Botoman, Maureen Katherine 386
Bowers-mccathen, Lisa N 329
Bradshaw, Francesca I 109
Brandt, Richard S 058
Brown, Ann P 162
Brown, Lynne E 289
Brown, Queen E 160
Brown, Stefanie Martha Helene 339
Byers, James F 101
Cabrera, Leah Gold 102
Caicedo, Gregory Byron 357
Caldwell, Lesley R 379
Camley, Caroline M 213
Campbell, Charles L 133
Caplan, Carolyn A 106
Carlson, Christine W 278
Carter, Beulah L 063
Carter, Jerome A 039
Cervantes, Emily Michelle 096
Chamberlin, Dorothy C 188
Chan, June S 153
Chandler, Judith Ann 037
Chong, Jonathan J 030
Cisneros, Daniel E 173
Clark, Boyd N 121
Clark, Patricia A 121
Clausen, Pamela H 023
Cockrell, Renee Marie 292
Cole, Amber Suzanne 208
Collins, Paula N 034
Colon, Carmen Moserrate 077
Cook, Howard Emeizson 357
Cook, Suzanne E 357
Cornish, Amy Lueen 213
Cote, Brooke Shikles 069
Crawford, Melissa Yvonne 034
Cromer, Teresa Ardell 074
Cronin, Thomas Edward 258
Dambrosio, Ernest Joseph 295
David, Rozanne K 153
Day, Jennifer M 336
Dejarnette, Frances M 250
Dellinger, Janine M 336
Demanett-marin, Julia A 375
Denaray, Samantha Garland 025
Dewitty, Delbert Overton 382
Dostal, James Stephen 068
Draving, Cindy G 271
Driver, Beau Gregory 040
Exline, Chyrese S 360
Farris, Monica 327
Fawcett, John Merle 010
Feder, Elizabeth 069
Flores, Marsha L 113
Foley-wallace, Sheila Marie 011
Fornander, Garold A 023
Fornander, Lois A 023
Francis, Janice R 028
Friedman, Sandy L 027
Gallant, Nancy Carter 355
Gamble, William R 313
Gathings, Ruth P 211
Gentzler, Peter A 076
Gibbs, Rene K 042
Goldsborough, Michael L 053
Graf, George Burket 387
Granderson, Karesa C 345
Grant, Gail Q 365
Green, Carolyn L 089
Gregor, Joanne L 313
Grice, Barbara 289
Gubrath, Nicole D 004
Gustafson, Melody A 105
Han, Son H 383
Handke, Jan L 024
Hanson, Elana Lee 028
Hardy Jones, Kathryn D 274
Harmon, Joe Mitchell 370
Harris, Margaret R 191
Havel, James Thomas 145
Haverluk, Julie Woodward 323
Hayes, Doris L 168
Henshaw, Sherry L 321
Herdt, Jonathan G 229
Higgins, Robert T 199
Hoyt, Deborah Ann 185
Hunt, Stuart Griggs 177
Ibarra, Monica Elizabeth 203
Ingersoll, Nelson E 136
Jaramillo, Jacqueline L 041
Jedrejcic, David 368
Jefferson, Beatrice Dinkins 229
Jimenez, Leonelo Carlos 384
Johnson, Dixie M 154
Johnson, Gloria G 211
Johnson, Jessica Ann 206
Johnson, Ken Evans 206
Johnson, Kolleen J 106
Johnson, Vonvonuela Vonchet 240
Johnson, Walter H 154
Jones, Annie L 340
Kearns, Clara L 342
Kerwin, Betty Ann 053
Killeen, Shirley A 275
Kinder, Frank T 273
Komada, Benjamin Harrison 158
Konopka, Virginia A 332
Koonce, Robin Rene 320
Kortman, Edward W 371
Lardie, Dorothy German 011
Lariva, Rosa M 076
Larson, Elisabeth M 152
Laughlin, Kirk Anthony 034
Lee, Gerard H 069
Limardo, Chris 292
Limardo, Mary Renee 292
Limas, Margarita 355
Limas, Ricardo 355
Losey-miller, Kathryn Macon 158
Lougeay-benson, Jessica Marie 067
Loureiro, Henry 354
Lovell, Thomas Bernard 011
Loy, Ann Evans 334
Lucas, Jeffrey P 140
Lusey, Rodney S 158
Maday, Nancy D 053
Magee, Debra Lynn 224
Malachi, Diane Ruth 370
Marchman, Cleasther B 162
Martinez, Robert Manuel 116
Mather, Ty Howard 132
Maxson, Richard Grant 283
Mayfield, Edward Joseph 135
Mcauley, James Kenneth 034
Mcclung, Steven Robert 219
Mcdowell, Larry J 168
Mcmearn, James H 130
Meldon, Robert C 135
Mendenall, Michael G 048
Miksche, Diana Roebuck 298
Miller, Birdie M 203
Miller-pouppirt, Caryl Louise 248
Moore, Terrence Lee 273
Moran, Patrick T 135
Morgan, Justin Michael 339
Morgan, Virginia Rosamond 023
Morris, Calvin N 327
Motyl, Matthew Steven 020
Murray, Diane 068
Murriel, Yolundus Renee 264
Nemanich, Robert William 147
Neuman-lee, Mark Edward 386
Newborn, Robert E 242
Nickle, Kathleen A 170
Nitzberg, Jeanneatte T 235
Nunez, Grace Marie Blea 232
Otero, Raymond M Zurinaga 077
Pahk, Joseph H 368
Palomino, Gerald J 297
Pardo, Jesus R 148
Parkinson, Flora DEnise 297
Patterson, Roger V 139
Pavlica, Susan Kaye 177
Peterson, Maria D 332
Pettingill, Shirley A 022
Pettus, Patricia A 095
Poe, Jennifer Marie 055
Porter, Troy A 047
Pouppirt, Wayne J Jr 248
Quintana, Barbara J 132
Qureshi, Khurshid 354
Ramsay, Susan C 169
Randall, Deborah M 368
Raye, Edward V 338
Reid, Sheryl H 028
Richie, Donald Everett 125
Rickard, Jacqueline L 152
Roberts, Yolanda L 048
Robinson, Catherine Durkin 359
Rudd, Mark A Sr 299
Ruppert, Matthew Thomas 201
Ruybal, Janice Lynn 305
Salmore, Daniel L 126
Salsgiver, Michaele R 307
Sanchez, Wendi Lynn 348
Sato, Terry George 054
Schlabaugh, Natalie R 320
Schmitt, Teresa K 372
Schroeder, Kathleen A 051
Scott, Susan Jean 094
Seiler, Julie A 155
Shott, Dorothy S 276
Simmons, Christine Marie 183
Sims, Thomas E Iii 183
Singleton, Timothy Paul 381
Smith Lewis, Peggy M 258
Smith, Eugene R 221
Smith, Johnnie R 207
Snodgrass, Victor W 384
Stevens, Bradley E 327
Stevens, Patrick Henry 011
Suhr, Alice R 333
Surat, Deborah Jo 013
Swinton, Rozita E 269 (WTF????)
Taber, Benjamin Nathanial 044
Taylor, Justin A 123
Taylor, Silena C 123
Tencick, Casey Lynn 094
Tesmer, Nick Thomas 139
Tetreau, Deanna J 024
Thomas, Mark Edward 058
Thornton, Wilfred R 185
Thummalapally, Barbara 190
Tillar, Melva J 341
Travis, Taylor Loren 015
Trigg, Rose C 095
Trione, Jim Michael 188
Trujillo-sanchez, Jennifer L 280
Tucker, James 110
Uribe, Maria 279
Uribe, Rick 279
Vick, Edward E 061
Villescas, David Jr 215
Wallace, Ann Marie 387
Warren, Carol C 181
Warthaw, Michael J 328
Wasil, Aaron Michael 050
Wasil, Douglas M 050
Weaverling, Mark F 058
Wheatley, Jeremy H 037
Wheaton, Jean A 333
White, Joann Q 262
White, Ronald 034
White, William Crombie 140
Whitney, Claudia L 136
Wildenstein, Lee A 102
Williams Balcom, Vivian A 203
Williams, Martha C 225
Williams, Michael Bruce 155
Wilson, Susan J 242
Wisler, Gary L 067
Wolfensperger, Loren Lee 192
Woolridge, Uriah Elease 264
Wuerth, Jonathan M 053
Young, Juanita W 112
Young, Lynn M 153

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 09:34 AM
Well your eyes will be perked as well after you see this:

Swinton, Rozita E 269 (WTF????)


:shake:

Several hundred children are likely to be throw back into a cycle of sexual abuse, and your only comment is trying to slam your political nemesis of the moment by drawing some linkage between them.
You are one of the most vile and reprehensible people I've ever encountered on the net or in real life.:Lin:

As I said in an earlier post, emoticons cannot begin to communicate the disgust I feel.

For your children's sake, I sincerely hope the way you conduct yourself here doesn't carry over into real life.

Baby Lee
04-20-2008, 09:38 AM
Oy.
So Warren Jeff's merry bunch of child abusers will likely get to resume their "religious practices". :Lin:

Perry, who's an expert on children in cults, says while the teen girls believed they were marrying out of free choice, it's a choice based on lessons they've had from birth.

Perry interviewed three girls removed during the raid.

He also said that many of the adults at the Yearning For Zion Ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy when he interacted with them.

But he says the sect's belief system "is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian."
Everyone says they're happy, but I'm an expert and I don't think they can be.

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 09:40 AM
Everyone says they're happy, but I'm an expert and I don't think they can be.

:shake:

I guess you don't consider what the FLDS does as child abuse. After everything I've read and seen about it over the years, I can't come to any other conclusion.

There's a damn good reason Warren Jeffs is where he belongs, in a prison cell.

I think I'll leave this topic alone from now on. I've said my piece, and I really don't want to be any more disgusted than I already am with people defending these sick individuals.

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 09:42 AM
:shake:

Several hundred children are likely to be throw back into a cycle of sexual abuse, and your only comment is trying to slam your political nemesis of the moment by drawing some linkage between them.
You are one of the most vile and reprehensible people I've ever encountered on the net or in real life.:Lin:

As I said in an earlier post, emoticons cannot begin to communicate the disgust I feel.

Oh BS. Obama's :deevee: appears contagious. The link is apparently there. I didn't make it up or put it there. I simply bring it to your attention. At which point you can choose to deflect (certain Obamabot ploy) or address it.

There are many elements to the FLDS story. If you want me to comment on the religious (which I have not on purpose) then you should know that I find these people to be nutjobs no different than any other religions nutjobs. EVERY religion has them on the fringes.

What is hypocritical is that in the US we find the parents of these children more acceptable and less reprehensible for sexually enslaving them in the name of God than we do strapping a bomb to them for the same reason... :rolleyes::cuss::spock:

There, did you really want me to open that pandora's box???? The political one is MUCH safer.:doh!:

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 09:47 AM
Oh BS. The link is apparently there. I didn't make it up or put it there. I simply bring it to your attention. At which point you can choose to deflect (certain Obamabot ploy) or address it.

First off, if you think I'm an Obamabot or supporter, you're far more ignorant than I gave you credit for.


There are many elements in this story. [B] If you want me to comment on the religious (which I have not on purpose) then you should know that I find these people to be nutjobs no different than any other religions nutjobs. EVERY religion has them on the fringes.

Yes, they do. However, it's very telling that your only comment on the entire affair was a shot at your political nemesis of the moment. Actions speak louder than words, and you've only shown your true colors once again. Don't get sandyvag with me. It's not like I made it up or put it there. I just brought it to people's attention. :spock:

Granted, I'm not showing any regular DC types anything they don't already know.

Baby Lee
04-20-2008, 09:50 AM
:shake:

I guess you don't consider what the FLDS does as child abuse. After everything I've read and seen about it over the years, I can't come to any other conclusion.

There's a damn good reason Warren Jeffs is where he belongs, in a prison cell.

I think I'll leave this topic alone from now on. I've said my piece, and I really don't want to be any more disgusted than I already am with people defending these sick individuals.

I just try to be equal opportunity nonjudgmental of other people's definition of happiness.

If one says 'a dude can't possibly be happy sucking another dude's cock,' he's a homophobe.
But if he says 'a 15 year old can't possibly be happy married to a middle-aged man,' he's some champion.

Naw, in both instances he's just applying his own perspective from outside the situation.

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 09:52 AM
I just try to be equal opportunity nonjudgmental of other people's definition of happiness.

If one says 'a dude can't possibly be happy sucking another dude's cock,' he's a homophobe.
But if he says 'a 15 year old can't possibly be happy married to a middle-aged man,' he's some champion.

Naw, in both instances he's just applying his own perspective from outside the situation.

Happy or not, in our system of law, it qualifies as sexual abuse.

I really wish I believed in an afterlife where Warren Jeffs would pay for what he's done. As I don't, I'll content myself with hoping he's getting regular "service" from the local Boggs Diamond.

Baby Lee
04-20-2008, 09:53 AM
Happy or not, in our system of law, it qualifies as sexual abuse.

Yes, and until, what, five years ago, cuck-sucking was a criminal offense in that state as well.

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 09:55 AM
Yes, and until, what, five years ago, cuck-sucking was a criminal offense in that state as well.

Hey, if you want to defend something so vile, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to.

Baby Lee
04-20-2008, 09:56 AM
Hey, if you want to defend something so vile, go right ahead.

Which 'vile thing' are you talking about, gays or fundamentalists?

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 09:58 AM
Which 'vile thing' are you talking about, gays or fundamentalists?


First, consider their history of forcing 13-14 year olds to marry guys in their 40's and 50's. The vast majority of these men already have multiple wives, some underage. Their leader is in prison for organizing those marriages, sexual assault on a minor, aiding and abetting sexual assault on a minor, etc. Young girls are indoctrinated all their lives to believe it's God's will (as expressed through their "Divine Prophet" Jeffs), to submit to that abuse. As for the boys, many are pushed out into the larger world as early teens, uneducated and unprepared to deal with the larger world. Why? So they don't compete with the older and prosperous men for young girls.

Adding to that the presence of a "consummation bed" in their temple, I find "institutionalized child abuse" to be a very appropriate and reasonable term to use.


Jeffs fu*ks children. Jeffs led others to do the same, under the guise of religion. :shake: :Lin:

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 09:58 AM
Yes, they do. However, it's very telling that your only comment on the entire affair was a shot at your political nemesis of the moment. Actions speak louder than words, and you've only shown your true colors once again. Don't get sandyvag with me. It's not like I made it up or put it there. I just brought it to people's attention. :spock:

Granted, I'm not showing any regular DC types anything they don't already know.

Give me a break. I have no particular fondness for organized religion. Most people here know that. Thus, I'm unwilling to categorize levels of acceptability of the fringe nutjobs based on their choice of religion as many religious folks are willing to do.

This will ultimately boil down to a church vs. state issue which itself is political.

banyon
04-20-2008, 10:08 AM
Give me a break. I have no particular fondness for organized religion. Most people here know that. Thus, I'm unwilling to categorize levels of acceptability of the fringe nutjobs based on their choice of religion as many religious folks are willing to do.

This will ultimately boil down to a church vs. state issue which itself is political.

Give you a break? Why? Adept's political cheap shot analysis was 100% accurate. Your reply doesn't touch on that point at all. You wanted to hold one person who contributed 269$ to Obama's campaign against him as if he is supposed to track down everyone who has ever given him a dollar, follw them around, and make sure they don't ever do anything wrong. I'll bet dollars to donuts you lifted this info straight from Hannity or some similar zombie.

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 10:12 AM
Give you a break? Why? Adept's political cheap shot analysis was 100% accurate. Your reply doesn't touch on that point at all. You wanted to hold one person who contributed 269$ to Obama's campaign against him as if he is supposed to track down everyone who has ever given him a dollar, follw them around, and make sure they don't ever do anything wrong. I'll bet dollars to donuts you lifted this info straight from Hannity or some similar zombie.

Ah, but I did not make a comment on it at all. I simply posted the link to the web page and the reference to the delegate with the comment WTF??? I am not holding anyone accountable for anything.

Any additional commentary on the possible linkage has been projected by those reading the post.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 10:13 AM
Sadly, the mothers are co-participants in the abuse. If not directly, than by condoning it by their silence.
The same could be said about the German people when the Nazi's came to power.

You do not know all the dynamics or details. Since you've admitted that other mothers have escaped with their children, then it seems reasonable that removing the men would go a long way to curbing the influence on the women since the men dominate the women as well. At least that wouldn't be punishing children. Change of environment can do wonders provided it targets those who are doing the harm and not the victims. Punishing everyone
else but the main culprits is not justice but typical of states.

My neighbor is a therapist and deals with abused children. She says that these kids still love their mothers, and I am certain their mothers love them. No substitute family will be an improvement once that bond is severed.


Bottom line: the state will make their lives worse not better.

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 10:15 AM
Bottom line: Jeffs fu*ks children. Jeffs led others to do the same, under the guise of religion.

Those mothers stood by and let it happen.

It's too nice a day to ruin by getting my blood up over people who will defend a kidfu*er's supporters and enablers.

Type at you folks later.

banyon
04-20-2008, 10:24 AM
Ah, but I did not make a comment on it at all. I simply posted the link to the web page and the reference to the delegate with the comment WTF??? I am not holding anyone accountable for anything.

Any additional commentary on the possible linkage has been projected by those reading the post.

That's the clearly implied purpose given the context. Were you offering some alternative reason for your posting?

And for the love of God, would people stop using the word "projection" if they don't know what it means?

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 10:25 AM
The same could be said about the German people when the Nazi's came to power.

You do not know all the dynamics or details. Since you've admitted that other mothers have escaped with their children, then it seems reasonable that removing the men would go a long way to curbing the influence on the women since the men dominate the women as well. At least that wouldn't be punishing children. Change of environment can do wonders provided it targets those who are doing the harm and not the victims. Punishing everyone
else but the main culprits is not justice but typical of states.

My neighbor is a therapist and deals with abused children. She says that these kids still love their mothers, and I am certain their mothers love them. No substitute family will be an improvement once that bond is severed.


Bottom line: the state will make their lives worse not better.

Buc, are you willing to make the same allowances for mothers who give their up their children to become religious suicide bombers? If not, why not?

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 10:28 AM
That's the clearly implied purpose given the context. Were you offering some alternative reason for your posting?

And for the love of God, would people stop using the word "projection" if they don't know what it means?

It is part of the story. Granted the media isn't covering it yet but isn't it a bizarre coinky dinky if she is a delegate. On the flip side, are you saying it shouldn't be covered at all? If she were a Clinton delegate should that be ignored as well?

The possible link is what should be the story and it would be if it were by any other poster. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 10:40 AM
First, consider their history of forcing 13-14 year olds to marry guys in their 40's and 50's. The vast majority of these men already have multiple wives, some underage.
I think you already posted this.
I don't have an issue with girls that age marrying older men per se. It's just not the norm today. It was the norm for hundreds of years. Whether it's good or bad, right or wrong is a matter of opinion and different eras look at these things differently.

Their leader is in prison for organizing those marriages, sexual assault on a minor, aiding and abetting sexual assault on a minor, etc. Young girls are indoctrinated all their lives to believe it's God's will (as expressed through their "Divine Prophet" Jeffs), to submit to that abuse.
Then their leader should be punished—not the children despite the women's inability to stand up to it for whatever reason.

Adding to that the presence of a "consummation bed" in their temple, I find "institutionalized child abuse" to be a very appropriate and reasonable term to use.
Iirc you also take issue with those religions that believe in faith healing too.

Given all that, and the other incidents with this group, I don't see anything wrong with the State removing those children from that environment.
That's a straw man because it wasn't my argument.

My argument is if you really want to protect the children you'd want to do it in the least destructive way. I simply fielded what I see as a better idea: to remove and limit the rights of those in power for creating such conditions. As opposed to the Texas state foster system which is rife with worse abuse including sexual, and even deaths. That's where you're sending these children because making a point of these people by the state is more important to some.

Some might want more than "a few" complaints before they act. IMO, considering the testimony of woman who left the group over the years, the Krakauer book exposing them, etc. no informed and reasonable person would have much doubt what was going on beyond the compound gates. I believe the Texas Authorities have been aware for a long time, but were unable to legally act until they received these "few" complaints.
It doesn't matter. Just as we have cultural and moral norms ( some of which you oppose for your own reasons that others may consider perverted) we have standards of justice in our system to protect people from abuse by the state too. Guilty by association is not adequate proof and they are innocent in the eyes of the law until all is known...including who is really responsible.

This was still based on a false report from a person that can't even be found.
How do we know this wasn't some sort of set up by someone who wanted to
"get them" because they don't like their beliefs? That even happens in other cases brought to the courts by activists.

I just find it odd that you won't hold the state to the same strict standard when it comes to a fringe religion as you would for some gay man's right to his privacy, or peering in bedrooms such as the Lawrence versus Texas case. I mean really running morality on another is still just that. I'm glad to see that you do feel that some law is based on someone's idea of what is moral.

I'm all for protecting these kids, but in a way that will still do the most to benefit them or with the least destructive solution. I have no axe to grind with a fringe belief system...and I don't want to see that become routine in this country.

We don't remove children from schools due to predatory teachers. We remove the teacher. That profession has per the APA a 13% rate of sexual abuse.

If people are OK with leaving children in that kind of an environment... :shake: :Lin:
You're getting like penchief and/or some of the lawyers here. I did not say that. It's a straw man.

The Amish don't f*ck children.
Koresh and Jeffs did. Jeffs led others to do the same, under the guise of religion. :shake: :Lin:
The Amish have also had sexual abuse cases. The Amish have been taken to court for removing their kids from school before age 16 to apprentice.

This is the first I heard about Koresh. Or I vaguely recall something on it but iirc there wasn't any proof. It may have just been another prejudiced to religion type wanting to the believe the worse because they didn't like them. It happens.


Anyhow, you missed what I actually posted.

mlyonsd
04-20-2008, 10:45 AM
This whole issue is just a fricking mess. More info is needed before real decisions for the kid's welfare are made, but if the government thought there was abuse they had to step in.

In regards to Romney....in the real world this shouldn't affect him but a presidential election isn't all about the real world most of the time.

banyon
04-20-2008, 10:46 AM
I think you already posted this.
I don't have an issue with girls that age marrying older men per se. It's just not the norm today. It was the norm for hundreds of years. Whether it's good or bad, right or wrong is a matter of opinion and different eras look at these things differently.


Then their leader should be punished—not the children despite the women's inability to stand up to it for whatever reason.


Iirc you also take issue with those religions that believe in faith healing too.


That's a straw man because it wasn't my argument.

My argument is if you really want to protect the children you'd want to do it in the least destructive way. I simply fielded what I see as a better idea: to remove and limit the rights of those in power for creating such conditions. As opposed to the Texas state foster system which is rife with worse abuse including sexual, and even deaths. That's where you're sending these children because making a point of these people by the state is more important to some.


It doesn't matter. Just as we have cultural and moral norms ( some of which you oppose for your own reasons that others may consider perverted) we have standards of justice in our system to protect people from abuse by the state too. Guilty by association is not adequate proof and they are innocent in the eyes of the law until all is known...including who is really responsible.

This was still based on a false report from a person that can't even be found.
How do we know this wasn't some sort of set up by someone who wanted to
"get them" because they don't like their beliefs? That even happens in other cases brought to the courts by activists.

I just find it odd that you won't hold the state to the same strict standard when it comes to a fringe religion as you would for some gay man's right to his privacy, or peering in bedrooms such as the Lawrence versus Texas case. I mean really running morality on another is still just that. I'm glad to see that you do feel that some law is based on someone's idea of what is moral.

I'm all for protecting these kids, but in a way that will still do the most to benefit them or with the least destructive solution. I have no axe to grind with a fringe belief system...and I don't want to see that become routine in this country.

We don't remove children from schools due to predatory teachers. We remove the teacher. That profession has per the APA a 13% rate of sexual abuse.


You're getting like penchief and/or some of the lawyers here. I did not say that. It's a straw man.


The Amish have also had sexual abuse cases. The Amish have been taken to court for removing their kids from school before age 16 to apprentice.

This is the first I heard about Koresh. Or I vaguely recall something on it but iirc there wasn't any proof. It may have just been another prejudiced to religion type wanting to the believe the worse because they didn't like them. It happens.


Anyhow, you missed what I actually posted.

The kids aren't being punished. They are removed from their homes pending further investigation. If the mothers aren't to blame, then the children will be returned to them. When you have substantial allegations of abuse, you don't leave kids there when you don't know exactly how it happened. If you did, you'd be recklessly exposing them to further abuse.

Please don't turn this serious subject into another factless anti-government tirade.

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 10:51 AM
I think you already posted this.
I don't have an issue with girls that age marrying older men per se. It's just not the norm today. It was the norm for hundreds of years. Whether it's good or bad, right or wrong is a matter of opinion and different eras look at these things differently.



Do you approve of this? It appears to religious basis as well. It certainly has a culturally accepted basis in parts of the culture.

8-year-old girl's divorce is finalized while a law to prevent early marriage stalls

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1147&p=front&a=1

8-year-old girl's divorce is finalized while a law to prevent early marriage stalls
By: Hamed Thabet

Eight-year-old Nojoud is now safe after an anonymous donor paid her 30-year-old husband to divorce her. Although this chapter of her life has closed, there are many other Yemeni girls who still suffer from early marriage and its consequences. Feminist groups in Yemen are urging the Parliament to legally define a minimum marriage age. However, there is a long way to go before girls like Nojoud can be free from detrimental early marriages.



SANA’A, 16 April — A few months ago, Nojoud was an average 8-year-old girl from a poor family. Then Nojoud’s father decided to marry her off to a man more than three times her age. Overnight, Nojoud became a wife, enduring physical and sexual abuse for two months until she ran away with the help of her uncle and filed a court case against her father and her husband.

On April 15, with support from her lawyer Shatha Mohammed Nasser and Judge Abud Al-Khaleaq Ghowber, Nojoud paid her way out of marriage with YR 100,000 from an anonymous donor in the Emirates and happily became an 8-year-old divorcee.

“This was the first time a girl came to us for a divorce. We are going to do our best to push the parliament to change the marriage law,” said Judge Ghowber.

“I am so happy to be free and I will go back to school and will never think of getting married again," Nojoud said joyfully. "It is a good feeling to be rid of my husband and his bad treatment.”

She said that she felt lucky that she did not have to continue in such a marriage and a live out a life similar to her sisters, who had been married young [though not as young as Nojoud] and have already bore children.

“Although Nojoud does not know her real birthday, I believe this day she was born again and it would be apt to celebrate this day as the first day of her new life,” said Nasser.



Early marriage in Yemen:

According to the International Center for Research on Women’s 2007 statistics, Yemen is one of 20 developing countries where early marriage is common. Nearly half of all Yemeni girls are married before the age of 18.

Most women have their first child immediately after their first menstruation cycle and are likely to have a child every 12 months during their reproductive lifespan. Yemen's fertility rate is extremely high, with an average 6.3 children per each woman, and the country also has some of the highest mother and infant mortality rates worldwide.

According to research on early marriage in Yemen from Oxfam and the United Nations Population Fund, there are severe physical consequences that result from early marriage and subsequent early childbirth such as nutritional anemia, post-partum hemorrhages, obstetric fistula (a disorder that affects the bladder and causes leaking of urine or feces), plus mother and infant mortality.

Additionally, many girls like Nojoud develop irreparable psychological complexes from early marriage and the forced sexual encounters that accompany it. Early marriage also contributes to divorce and family problems.<
br>
“I hated nights because they usually meant that my husband would come to my bed. I used to run from him and he would chase me and beat me and do his thing. I pray that my younger sisters do not face the same fate,” said Nojoud. Now the 8-year-old is living with her uncle and his family in relative safety.



A divided society

The Yemeni personal status law stipulates that a girl cannot be wed until she is ready for intercourse, which in essence leaves the judgment up to the girl's parents or guardians.

Judge Ghowber explained that early marriages are usually the fault of the parents. He insisted that there must be increased awareness among Yemeni families in order to avoid these serious mistakes.

A number of Yemeni religious scholars, including some in the Evaluation and Jurisprudence Committee in the Parliament, say that since there is no religious statement defining a minimum age for marriage, then early marriage is perfectly fine if not desirable.

Other scholars and religious authorities, like Judge Hamoud Al-Hitar, the Minister of Endowment, want to create legislation to prevent parents from marrying their girls off at a young age and to prevent religious sheikhs from endorsing such marriages.

“Those who approve of girls marrying at 13, 14 or even below 18, are barbaric men who abuse childhood and are irresponsible,” said religious scholar Yahiya Al-Najar, the former Minister of Endowment.

He explained that there should be a minimum age for boys and girls to marry in order to complete their phys
ical and mental development and so that they can manage the responsibilities of marriage and raising a family.

Al-Hitar said that the minimum age of marriage should be 16-years-old, no less. He added that previous religious bodies in charge of jurisprudence wrote such laws in 1976 and in 1988.

"Those who say that defining a minimum age for marriage is un-Islamic do not understand the religion at all," said Al-Hitar. "Defining a minimum age of marriage is a need dedicated by life’s nature.”

The Yemeni parliament is equally divided between MPs who believe in safe motherhood (and thereby banning early marriage) and those who don’t. Deputy speaker of Parliament, MP Himyar Al-Ahmar, said that he supports the creation of legislation against early marriage, requested by the Women's National Committee, but prefers to forward the issue to the Evaluation and Jurisprudence Committee, which is strongly against such legislation.

Rasheeda Al-Hamadani, chair of the Women's National Committee, promised to continue to raise awareness about the issue by holding workshops soon with religious leaders, MPs and decision makers.

banyon
04-20-2008, 10:52 AM
It is part of the story. Granted the media isn't covering it yet but isn't it a bizarre coinky dinky if she is a delegate. On the flip side, are you saying it shouldn't be covered at all? If she were a Clinton delegate should that be ignored as well?

The possible link is what should be the story and it would be if it were by any other poster. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Unless there's something to suggest that it is more than a coincidence, then yes, it should be ignored.

memyselfI
04-20-2008, 10:57 AM
Unless there's something to suggest that it is more than a coincidence, then yes, it should be ignored.

Well how will it be known if there is more than a coincidence if the story is not disseminated and dug into deeper?

Ah, I see why you would want the story ignored. :doh!:

patteeu
04-20-2008, 11:24 AM
Deflection's a beautiful thing. I'll take that as an admission that you knew you were backing a pretty rotten candidate.

You shouldn't.

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 11:26 AM
I think you already posted this.
I don't have an issue with girls that age marrying older men per se. It's just not the norm today. It was the norm for hundreds of years. Whether it's good or bad, right or wrong is a matter of opinion and different eras look at these things differently.


Then their leader should be punished—not the children despite the women's inability to stand up to it for whatever reason.


Iirc you also take issue with those religions that believe in faith healing too.


That's a straw man because it wasn't my argument.

My argument is if you really want to protect the children you'd want to do it in the least destructive way. I simply fielded what I see as a better idea: to remove and limit the rights of those in power for creating such conditions. As opposed to the Texas state foster system which is rife with worse abuse including sexual, and even deaths. That's where you're sending these children because making a point of these people by the state is more important to some.


It doesn't matter. Just as we have cultural and moral norms ( some of which you oppose for your own reasons that others may consider perverted) we have standards of justice in our system to protect people from abuse by the state too. Guilty by association is not adequate proof and they are innocent in the eyes of the law until all is known...including who is really responsible.

This was still based on a false report from a person that can't even be found.
How do we know this wasn't some sort of set up by someone who wanted to
"get them" because they don't like their beliefs? That even happens in other cases brought to the courts by activists.

I just find it odd that you won't hold the state to the same strict standard when it comes to a fringe religion as you would for some gay man's right to his privacy, or peering in bedrooms such as the Lawrence versus Texas case. I mean really running morality on another is still just that. I'm glad to see that you do feel that some law is based on someone's idea of what is moral.

I'm all for protecting these kids, but in a way that will still do the most to benefit them or with the least destructive solution. I have no axe to grind with a fringe belief system...and I don't want to see that become routine in this country.

We don't remove children from schools due to predatory teachers. We remove the teacher. That profession has per the APA a 13% rate of sexual abuse.


You're getting like penchief and/or some of the lawyers here. I did not say that. It's a straw man.


The Amish have also had sexual abuse cases. The Amish have been taken to court for removing their kids from school before age 16 to apprentice.

This is the first I heard about Koresh. Or I vaguely recall something on it but iirc there wasn't any proof. It may have just been another prejudiced to religion type wanting to the believe the worse because they didn't like them. It happens.


Anyhow, you missed what I actually posted.

Now that I'm a little calmer, and am back from a nice walk in the sunshine...

Speaking of "missing what I actually posted": :spock:

Why don't you sack up and acknowledge that regarding my post you quoted and dissected, the initial time I made that statement and the time I quoted it I wasn't talking to you.

The first time, I was responding to Newphin, TJ, and Patteeu. The second time, to Baby Lee.

I've gone back over this thread, and the only comments I've made in this thread directed towards you are:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4696356&postcount=42

Sadly, the mothers are co-participants in the abuse. If not directly, than by condoning it by their silence. I pity them, as most were likely indoctrinated since earliest childhood with the same ideals. Hopefully something can be salvaged of the families. In spite of it's many faults, foster care is a superior option to leaving these children in a cycle of sexual abuse.

I suspect as this progresses, if it becomes necessary to divide families, enough good people will step forward from other churches and secular groups to care for them, much as the religious communities of Eldorado have tried. It will take an effort on multiple levels, public and private to help these children.

It's beyond tragic. I've seen interviews and read accounts of other women who escaped with their kids in past years. They speak of a years-long process to break free of that cycle of abuse. Institutionalized sexual abuse is akin to a cancer on society, and there is no easy or painless way to remove the malignancy.

and

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4696727&postcount=61

Bottom line: Jeffs fu*ks children. Jeffs led others to do the same, under the guise of religion.

Those mothers stood by and let it happen.

It's too nice a day to ruin by getting my blood up over people who will defend a kidfu*er's supporters and enablers.

Type at you folks later.


So much for me attributing strawmen to you. :harumph:

I have zero tolerance for kidf*ckers and their enablers, and I personally don't give a flying fu*k where you think that lack of tolerance stems from. :D

If you wanted to address that post, the least you could have done was be intellectually honest enough to address the fact it was in response to other posters. Instead you chose to climb on a cross and play the victim card claiming I had hung multiple strawmen on you.

Congrats, I believe you're the first poster to whom I can say "Welcome to iggy.".

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 12:27 PM
This whole issue is just a fricking mess. More info is needed before real decisions for the kid's welfare are made, but if the government thought there was abuse they had to step in.


I (obviously) wholeheartedly agree. :clap:

banyon
04-20-2008, 12:29 PM
Well how will it be known if there is more than a coincidence if the story is not disseminated and dug into deeper?

Ah, I see why you would want the story ignored. :doh!:

I don't really give a s*** either way. If there's something to it, then post that instead, if not, then who cares.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 02:09 PM
Buc, are you willing to make the same allowances for mothers who give their up their children to become religious suicide bombers? If not, why not?

That's outside the jurisdiction of my country. Children have fought in wars in the past.

I also have not made allowances for these men abusing their children. I simply provided a better way to separate the kids from the actual offenders because the state system is worse despite the mother's beliefs/ Afterall, if there are no men on the grounds what kind of sex abuse can take place?

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 02:13 PM
Now that I'm a little calmer, and am back from a nice walk in the sunshine...

Speaking of "missing what I actually posted": :spock:

Why don't you sack up and acknowledge that regarding my post you quoted and dissected, the initial time I made that statement and the time I quoted it I wasn't talking to you.

The first time, I was responding to Newphin, TJ, and Patteeu. The second time, to Baby Lee.

I've gone back over this thread, and the only comments I've made in this thread directed towards you are:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4696356&postcount=42



and

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4696727&postcount=61




So much for me attributing strawmen to you. :harumph:

I have zero tolerance for kidf*ckers and their enablers, and I personally don't give a flying fu*k where you think that lack of tolerance stems from. :D

If you wanted to address that post, the least you could have done was be intellectually honest enough to address the fact it was in response to other posters. Instead you chose to climb on a cross and play the victim card claiming I had hung multiple strawmen on you.

Congrats, I believe you're the first poster to whom I can say "Welcome to iggy.".

You don't have to get angry over my making a mistake. I clicked the quote button because the latter part of your post was directed to me. Once inside the response window I lost site of who those posts were written because those quotes aren't in there to see. I thought you had posted it to the others and then again to me was all because the quotes were gone. I wasn't playing the victim card either...I thought you really were misposting to what I said.It' was an easy and honest error.

I just came in from a walk too. ;)

banyon
04-20-2008, 02:14 PM
That's outside the jurisdiction of my country. Children have fought in wars in the past.

I also have not made allowances for these men abusing their children. I simply provided a better way to separate the kids from the actual offenders because the state system is worse. Afterall, if there are no men on the grounds what kind of sex abuse can take place.

http://www.andypryke.com/twiki/pub/Andypublic/BlogJuly2005/naive_water.jpg

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 02:17 PM
Is anyone aware that there is a movement in this country, also in Europe to lower the age of consent—much lower? It's coming from the left and even from gay activists.

It already differs depending on where you live let alone different eras. In fact in Roman Catholic Mexico it's age 12. In many countries it’s age 13 and there’s a push in European countries to make it age 12. Some people want to get rid of consent altogether and leave it up to parents and maturity.

WW Age of Consent (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm)

Rethinking the Age of Consent (http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/)
The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12. In 1885, Britain and the states began raising the age to 16, ostensibly to protect girls' natural innocence. This moral idea was later bolstered by scientific reference to the onset of puberty.

Abuse and the Age of Consent (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/5471.htm)

First things first - what are the current laws and what is the proposed change? As the law stands now (May 2003), the legal age of consent for heterosexual sex is 16 for boys and girls. The legal age of consent for gay sex is 18, and for lesbian sex is 16.


Age of Cosent Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform)
The concept of deviance varies from person to person, according to his personality, opinion, culture, or worldview;


Miranda Sawyer British journalist Miranda Sawyer maintains that the age of consent should be lowered to 12 in the United Kingdom, arguing that the criminalization of all sexual activity for ages under 16 is “laughably unrealistic”.[40][4]

Sex is not just for grown ups--by Miranda Sawyer (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0Hello - commatard on the loose.1075928,00.html)


Me, I'm opposed to this.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 02:18 PM
This whole issue is just a fricking mess. More info is needed before real decisions for the kid's welfare are made, but if the government thought there was abuse they had to step in.
Provided they meet the standard for probable cause and not base it on a false report. That can be abuse too.

banyon
04-20-2008, 02:26 PM
Provided they meet the standard for probable cause and not base it on a false report. That can be abuse too.

If you can't see that it's better to err on the side of caution in these scenarios because of your anarchophilia...

banyon
04-20-2008, 02:27 PM
Is anyone aware that there is a movement in this country, also in Europe to lower the age of consent—much lower? It's coming from the left and even from gay activists.

It already differs depending on where you live let alone different eras. In fact in Roman Catholic Mexico it's age 12. In many countries it’s age 13 and there’s a push in European countries to make it age 12. Some people want to get rid of consent altogether and leave it up to parents and maturity.

WW Age of Consent (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm)

Rethinking the Age of Consent (http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/)
The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12. In 1885, Britain and the states began raising the age to 16, ostensibly to protect girls' natural innocence. This moral idea was later bolstered by scientific reference to the onset of puberty.

Abuse and the Age of Consent (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/5471.htm)

First things first - what are the current laws and what is the proposed change? As the law stands now (May 2003), the legal age of consent for heterosexual sex is 16 for boys and girls. The legal age of consent for gay sex is 18, and for lesbian sex is 16.


Age of Cosent Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform)
The concept of deviance varies from person to person, according to his personality, opinion, culture, or worldview;


Miranda Sawyer British journalist Miranda Sawyer maintains that the age of consent should be lowered to 12 in the United Kingdom, arguing that the criminalization of all sexual activity for ages under 16 is “laughably unrealistic”.[40][4]

Sex is not just for grown ups--by Miranda Sawyer (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0Hello - commatard on the loose.1075928,00.html)

Yes, they are a small group of kooks (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141533)that in no way justify what was going on here.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 02:29 PM
If you can't see that it's better to err on the side of caution in these scenarios because of your anarchophilia...
I have nothing against caution but it goes both ways. I just don't think the means justifies the ends. Ya' know things like making a false report. That's the same thinking, caution, that took us into Iraq. The state usually makes a mess of things more often than than the other way around....and abuses too.

Oh and I didn't make a case for anarchism. I made a case for the state being held to the same laws.

banyon
04-20-2008, 02:32 PM
I have nothing against caution but it goes both ways. I just don't think the means justifies the ends. Ya' know things like making a false report. That's the same thinking, caution, that took us into Iraq. The state usually makes a mess of things more often than than the other way around....and abuses too.

They've discovered more evidence than just that one lady's phone call.

Are you trying to say that the state's efforts to curb child abuse and incest are worse than the abuse itself? :spock:

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 02:33 PM
Did you say something?

banyon
04-20-2008, 03:04 PM
Did you say something?

OMG OH NOES WHAT WILL I DO HAVING BEEN THREATENED WITH PSEUDO IGNORE FOR THE 50TH TIME IN A ROW BY BEP??

I guess I'll just keep pointing out when you make stuff up to suit your extremist agenda.

:rolleyes:

banyon
04-20-2008, 03:17 PM
Please don't turn this serious subject into another factless anti-government tirade.

I guess this was too much to hope for. :huh:

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 03:21 PM
OMG OH NOES WHAT WILL I DO HAVING BEEN THREATENED WITH PSEUDO IGNORE FOR THE 50TH TIME IN A ROW BY BEP??

I guess I'll just keep pointing out when you make stuff up to suit your extremist agenda.

:rolleyes:

ROFL
:clap:

Adept Havelock
04-20-2008, 03:26 PM
OMG OH NOES WHAT WILL I DO HAVING BEEN THREATENED WITH PSEUDO IGNORE FOR THE 50TH TIME IN A ROW BY BEP??


If you're really that irritated...

:shrug:
.

banyon
04-20-2008, 03:37 PM
If you're really that irritated...

:shrug:
.

I'm not irritated, she is. Easily.

irishjayhawk
04-20-2008, 03:37 PM
I'm not irritated, she is. Easily.

http://www.boredtodeath.co.uk/pictures/29.04.06/mrostrich.jpg

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 04:31 PM
'eh the only time I see a post of banyon's these days is when my log in falls out which is does nearly once a day. So I see a random post of his on occasion. No biggie! Otherwise I haven't see any of my snarky, let's-debate-on-a-personality-level, stalker's posts for months. He's actually on permanent where he will remain. Unless my log in falls out and I see something.

BucEyedPea
04-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Do you approve of this? It appears to religious basis as well. It certainly has a culturally accepted basis in parts of the culture.
I only skimmed it to get the basic idea. I applaud the efforts in that society to reform that. It's not a matter of if I approve it or not. It's a different culture with different values. In fact I see the ME culture as similar to what medievel culture once was in the west. Cultures change slowly.

BTW, I didn't use the word approve on such things. I said I didn't have a problem with it per se. (per se - with respect to its inherent nature) I was referring to the different values and pov's of different belief/cultural systems during different eras and different places. I wouldn't want that legal here.
All religions here have to follow our general laws.

banyon
04-20-2008, 07:37 PM
'eh the only time I see a post of banyon's these days is when my log in falls out which is does nearly once a day. So I see a random post of his on occasion. No biggie! Otherwise I haven't see any of my snarky, let's-debate-on-a-personality-level, stalker's posts for months. He's actually on permanent where he will remain. Unless my log in falls out and I see something.

ROFL There's about 1 person who posts in this forum that believes this, and you can find her by looking in your bathroom mirror. ROFL I'd bet if Icould still run a search I could find that silly "did you say something" quote posted about twenty-thirty times just in the last couple of months. You respond to things I post at least four or five times a week.


And pointing out that you can't or don't back up any of the BS you post here isn't "stalking" or "debating-on-a-personality-level". It's just calling a spade a spade. Since you like to throw around particularly loony theories about economics and government that happen to also be interests of mine , I imagine I'll continue to post in some of the same threads as you and point out rumormongering and willful misrepresentation when I see it.

ClevelandBronco
04-21-2008, 12:12 AM
I'm not saying he's one of them or in any way condones or believes what is going on in TX or at any FLDS compound. But when people hear about how this is an extreme and fundamentalist sect within the Mormon religion does that make Romney susceptible to guilt by association even if he's not?

I'm just wondering how glad he might be feeling that he's not in the race at the moment and having to explain how he's different. Can you imagine if this story broke the first week of February 08 instead of April 08.

Forgive me for addressing the OP instead of going off in any of the several directions the discussion quickly devolved to.

Are you really suggesting that Mitt Romney should never be considered as a viable presidential candidate simply because the name of his church shares words that are in another church's name? If that is the case, then none of the current "Christian" candidates should be elected.

You need look no further than Fred Phelps to discredit any Christian then, and if you do wish to go beyond that, there's the whole problem with Christian Identity's unfortunate choice of name.

It's a pretty silly question, meme.

ClevelandBronco
04-21-2008, 12:15 AM
Yes, they are a small group of kooks (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141533)that in no way justify what was going on here.

Indeed, small groups of kooks should never define anyone outside the small group of kooks.

Caveat: penchief may be the exception to that rule.

memyselfI
04-21-2008, 06:45 AM
Forgive me for addressing the OP instead of going off in any of the several directions the discussion quickly devolved to.

Are you really suggesting that Mitt Romney should never be considered as a viable presidential candidate simply because the name of his church shares words that are in another church's name? If that is the case, then none of the current "Christian" candidates should be elected.

You need look no further than Fred Phelps to discredit any Christian then, and if you do wish to go beyond that, there's the whole problem with Christian Identity's unfortunate choice of name.

It's a pretty silly question, meme.

No, that wasn't my suggestion at all. Thank you for asking rather than assuming it was the case. He shouldn't be POTUS because he's a MORON not because he's a MORMON.

I was asking the question in a broader context. The public doesn't have the time or inclination to choose to separate a religion's whackos as we see from many people's beliefs that Islam is full of suicide bombers.

he same dynamic will be hard for Romney to overcome when the perception of the difference in the religions relies upon a mere letter. :spock: