Anyone following this polygamy mess in Texas? (1203 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.61 on 73 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by loki (View user info) at 2008-04-22 22:10:00 EDT
The story started with a frantic 911 phone call from a 16-year-old girl who told police that she had been raped and beaten by a man in his 50's she had been forced to marry. Police stormed in and seized over 400 children from the compound.
Then it got funky.
There is apparently no 16-year-old girl who called the police. They are still investigating it but it would appear that the call was made by a social worker or some such person who was frustrated with the fact that authorities have known what was going on at this compound for several years but would not move against the cult. I don't know why exactly. I saw an interview with one of the authorities in the area who claimed that they have been investigating it but I think it was probably one of those religious freedom issues.
Now they have all these kids in protective custody. These kids have never been outside of the compound, do not trust outsiders, and won't even answer the most basic questions concerning their names and ages.
Enter teams of lawyers, some of whom are clearly trying to use this case to make their careers. I have to admit that if I were a lawyer looking for fame and fortune I might be tempted to get involved too. The book rights alone would be worth millions and that's even without what I'm sure will inevitably turn into a television mini series.
The judge has ordered DNA testing for everyone in the compound. The claim is that this is to sort out parentage. I can't WAIT to see how that turns out. I will be shocked if there are discrete branches on those family trees. The lawyers are expressing concern that these tests will be used for prosecution purposes because several of the young teenage girls in protective custody are pregnant. Yea and? Even in Texas the age of consent is 16 so if a 13-year-old is pregnant then at the very least you have a case of statutory rape on your hands.
Isn't science fun.
How much for the leetle girl?
The phone call that got this whole hornet's nest stirred up is interesting. That person is probably going to be prosecuted for making a false claim and yet she has probably saved countless girls from abuse.
What do you suppose happens to the boys? If you consider that roughly half the babies born are going to be boys and older men are snagging up 4 or 5 women each, that would seem to leave a certain surplus of men. Are they beta males or something and not allowed to breed? I know that some of these cults kick them out into a cold, cruel world they have been taught to fear. I'm sure they do just lovely what with the extensive education that I'm sure they are getting.
To me the biggest shock has been the number of letters to the editor I've seen in the paper demanding respect for these people's religious freedom. I am all for religious freedom to a point. Peyote perhaps but child rape, not so much.
It's like watching a train wreck that I can't tear myself away from.
When the mini serious comes out I know I'm going to watch it and yet hate myself for doing so.
User Reviews
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2008-04-27 02:04:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ratio, not ration*
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2008-04-27 02:03:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I didn't read the responses, but they've actually brought boys from the compound and abandoned them to keep the male:female ration low.
Of course, deciding which boy gets the boot is based on how well he fits in with the community. Mothers are actually leaving their sons at the side of the road because chief told them to.
It's all pretty nauseating.
Submitted by Ejryuu (user info) at 2008-04-25 14:19:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It really is a messy situation with both sides having a plethora of arguments. Sex has always been a touchy (no pun intended!) issue in this country and I think that's where we're running into a problem. If this group was out murdering people or stealing, even under the guise of freedom of religion, there wouldn't be any questions. But because it has to do with sexual intercourse and questionable ages, it's a mess.
Strange times, these are! But it definately makes for interesting discussion.
Submitted by sideshow (user info) at 2008-04-25 13:30:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If they want to live in the USA or in Canada, or in any other civilized country in the world, then these people must obey the laws of the land. If their beliefs go against these laws, the GTF outta my country! Go somewhere where you are free to do as you please.
Fuckers.
I hate people exploiting and taking advantage of children, especially the creepy old men who are banging these young girls who are too young to realize how fucked up in the head they are becoming because they've bene misguided, misinformed, and brainwashed / coerced into the situation they curently live in.
I hope those guys get treated the good old fashion Texas way: punishment by death. I know we don't really hand people any more, but they do keep the electric chair in Texas nice and toasty for such occasion, don't they?
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2008-04-25 09:09:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Read "Under the Banner of Heaven", by John Krakauer. It will scare the living shit out of you when you read about the LDS and the FLDS. I'll never look at Mormonisn the same way.
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/0385509510
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-24 23:31:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DangerPants (user info) at 2008-04-24 16:39:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
i haven't had a chance to read all the reviews just yet, but I had to pause and interject: The sexual age of consent in Texas is 17. An individual can get MARRIED as young as 16, with parental consent. Legally married. As recognized by the state. If you do not have legal marriage documentation on file with the state, and you're 40 and bangin a 16 year old, that's statutory.
Sorry if anybody's already said that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The age of consent is 18, and as in most states you can become emancipated at 16 (though it's not a terribly simple process). That said, there's a world of difference between 12 and 10. The more I look into it, the more I believe we'd be doing the world a favor by Sweeny Todding the bearded freaks.
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-04-24 22:22:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ian Astbury probably got a lot of girls pregnant - lighten up. Fire Woman and Sun King, She Sells Sanctuary, were deliberate and unabandoned reflections/pleas.
"the sparkle - in your eyyyes
keeps me aliiiive
and the sparkle, in. your. eyes....
keeps me alive, keeeeps a me alive
the WORLD [FBI]
and the worrrrld [fascist, unrelenting feds] that turns around
the WORLD [fbi] - yeah.
the world [you know it] drags me down.."
oh wait, wrong post. you know this sort of thing would never happen in Australia.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-24 21:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There was an article in the paper today about a woman who lives here in town who grew up in this cult. It was rather freaky stuff. So far the claim is that there are at least 20 underage girls who are pregnant. I just don't see how those girls' parents could stand by and allow this. Cults are a fascinating and bizarre dynamics.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-04-24 17:22:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I really don't care about polygamy, if consenting adults want 1/3 of a marriage that's fine. Marry whoever you like, for whatever reason you like; but I have a serious issue with minors being sold off for marriage. I have an even more serious problem with child molestation.
Hang 'em high. If they were right then their "God" will sort them out.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2008-04-24 17:02:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-23 19:32:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If so, what is exactly do you consider to be the qualifications for a cult? Funny beards? Dumb outfits?
=========================
Yes. ----> http://www.ubersite.com/m/108713
Submitted by DangerPants (user info) at 2008-04-24 16:39:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
i haven't had a chance to read all the reviews just yet, but I had to pause and interject: The sexual age of consent in Texas is 17. An individual can get MARRIED as young as 16, with parental consent. Legally married. As recognized by the state. If you do not have legal marriage documentation on file with the state, and you're 40 and bangin a 16 year old, that's statutory.
Sorry if anybody's already said that.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-24 15:55:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-04-23 17:46:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So nobody was raped or beaten? Some 50 year old guy gets to bang teenagers? I honestly don't care. Those are the kind of people that believe protected sex is the work of the devil. These girls probably think they see Jesus when they screw. By age ten those girls are so warped and ignorant that any kind of change in environment would be traumatic. Let ignorant people be ignorant for their own sake. Tell regular people to stay away from that forgotten, remote dust-ball of a town in Texas.
---------------
Actually if you read up a little you can find interviews with people who fled this cult. When your parents start raping you when you are 10 or so and tell you that if you get preagnant it was because you didnt pray enough so they have to give you an abortion sans anesthesia I would care.
Letting ignorant people be ignoratn would be akin to the north saying tot he south go ahead and keep your slaves it is ignorant, but who are we to judge.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-24 14:16:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's real simple. If you're going to be permissive with one group, you have to be permissive with all groups. Not 200 years ago, the people on my ojibwa side were scalping people and peeing in the river. Not 1,000 years ago, my French and British sides were burning witches and slaughtering non-believers, practices, I may add, that are still carried out by some cultures. If you're going to advocate one group be allowed to rape and enslave children based on their 'culture', you're saying, by precedent, that other groups should be allowed culturally-based liberties.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-24 14:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Section 22.011 (a) (2) of the Texas Penal Code provides that a person who has sexual relations with a child younger than 17 years of age is guilty of Sexual Assault. Under this section of the Penal Code, "sexual relations" may include conventional sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex and/or oral-anal sex.
You're right, statutory rape does (now) exist, but is in the 16-17 age group. Since these girls were well under that, t would be considered sexual assault -- effectively rape.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-04-24 12:19:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Texas has statutory rape and the legal age of consent is 18.
However, a girl is allowed to wed at age 13 with parental consent. That seems to be the legality of this case. I don't really care. I think it's getting far more news coverage than it should but, then again, that's how I feel about most news stories.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-24 12:05:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't know that Texas has statutory rape. From my years in social work, I believe it would be aggravated sexual assault if the girl was under 14, so basically rape in the multiple degree without the PC qualifier. And that's supposing that most of the rags are wrong, and that people were not enslaved. If that's the case, in Texas, the bearded freaks will be lucky to see the morning rush hour.
If you don't care, then what difference does it make if the law was called in? The police are dealing with it, and you can carry on with your life.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-04-24 01:55:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think statutory rape is on par with stoning someone to death or waging a small war.
I understand where you're going with that but initially, my main point was 'I don't care'.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2008-04-23 21:55:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I might have a modicum of sympathy for these guys if they weren't leaching the welfare system at the same time they're claiming they're not subject to the laws of the US...Google "Mormonism" and "bleeding the beast."
That, and the whole kicking out the adolescent males to make sure there are enough females around for the older men... eh, fuck those guys. They've got a warped view of piety.
Jon Krakauer (Into Thin Air, Into the Wild) wrote an awesome book called "Under the Banner of Heaven" that takes a pretty compelling look at Mormonism and Mormon Fundamentalism.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-23 19:32:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-04-23 17:46:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
An interesting thought...
Of course there have been thousands of cultures and hundreds of millions of people throughout history that have believed women old enough to bear children are old enough for marriage. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment but it's enough of a counter point to make me indifferent to the whole situation.
---------------
Let's say we allow *this cult to get away with *this crime because you're pretty sure it's culturally acceptable in some part of the world. Suppose the next cult wants to sanction stoning. Stoning is still acceptable in some parts of the world. Thousands of cultures have done it. Do we get to be indifferent towards it? Let's suppose whacko Christian group A wants to wage war on whacko Muslim group B on the other side of town. Holy wars are SOP in many parts of the world. Are we going to condone it next?
If so, what is exactly do you consider to be the qualifications for a cult? Funny beards? Dumb outfits? I believe we should ressurect the practice of dueling, which, I must point out, was prevalent in both my British and French ancestry as little as 200 years ago. Can I skewer my next door neighbor and blame it on my "culture"?
Submitted by adamleathertramp (user info) at 2008-04-23 18:43:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Always err on the side of caution when dealing with children. Always. I applaud the local authorities that have risked their careers to help those poor children.
Are they being abused? If so, thank God they stopped them, I don't care how.
If they weren't abused, everyone can return to their normal lives, no matter how fucked up it was. I would rather see a clusterfuck like this than hear about this mess of a cult five years from now and that the suspicions were true and there was a chance to stop this today.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2008-04-23 18:11:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Beat you, HAHA!!!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/115986
Criminal acts should not be allowed to occur under the guise of "Religious Freedom."
This is the 21st century.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-04-23 17:46:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
An interesting thought...
Of course there have been thousands of cultures and hundreds of millions of people throughout history that have believed women old enough to bear children are old enough for marriage. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment but it's enough of a counter point to make me indifferent to the whole situation.
So nobody was raped or beaten? Some 50 year old guy gets to bang teenagers? I honestly don't care. Those are the kind of people that believe protected sex is the work of the devil. These girls probably think they see Jesus when they screw. By age ten those girls are so warped and ignorant that any kind of change in environment would be traumatic. Let ignorant people be ignorant for their own sake. Tell regular people to stay away from that forgotten, remote dust-ball of a town in Texas.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-23 17:41:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love the cries of "who are YOU to subject your biases and opinions on these people?" every time the government steps in.
You know who I am?
I'm a fucking native. The government, as a broad entity, killed off about 95% of my ancestors and shoved us on tiny parcels of land. And while I take some issue to that, I still live by "our" rules. Granted, the rules aren't always 100% fair. If I were running things, parents wouldn't get a tax bonus for pumpin pumping out crotch-fruit; they'd be taxed more to make up for the added load to the educatonal system. Still, at least they ARE rules, and they're what keep the freeways and hospitals running. If you're going to live in the group and accept the benefits of the group (seems like the cultists had no problem accepting fire and police protection, to say nothing of the welfare system,) you need to accept the rules of the group. Otherwise things don't work.
Plain and simple, the cult broke the rules. You can't marry thirteen year old girls. You cannot use the threat of force to coerce people into having sex with you. You cannot force people into servitude. I don't see as how their motivation, "cultural" or otherwise, makes a bit of difference.
I'd say the men belong in jail, but I'm really not interested in my dime supporting them. A few CC's of urine injected directly into the jugular would probably be enough to deal with them.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2008-04-23 17:17:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
*** mind boggles ***
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-04-23 17:14:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
maybe the people who called are the same people who called from the 9/11 towers who aren't really dead because they were in fact planting explosives.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2008-04-23 17:02:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I've been watching it... heartsick.
the surplus boys are kicked out for various reasons in thier mid-teens. Often they're thrown onto the welfare system, and/or sent to towns far far far away.
it's disgusting, and high time something was done about all the victims, even the "grown" women who were born into the society and therefore don't really know any better..
gah. this sickens me.
I'll tell you one thing, though.. if they need foster homes for any of kids, or kids with thier babies, and they're willing to ship 'em out of state, I'm opening my home to them.
and did you read about the under-age canadian girls (some now already mothers) that were shipped down from the "clan" in Bountiful to be plural wives of some of the Texan men? Doesn't that smack JUST a lil of white slavery?
I get that the gov't had to have SOME reason to go in, but I think WHOEVER made the phone call is a hero.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2008-04-23 15:27:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i should probably stop fucking on my bare mattress. the stain in the corner is quite suspicious looking
sorry, i just dont have anything to add.
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2008-04-23 15:27:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting comments on this one.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-23 15:23:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2008-04-23 14:47:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I am all for religious freedom to a point."
---
What point?
---------
the point where they diddle kids or block them from any access to the outside world.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-23 15:21:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ilikesteak,
"There may be overwhelming circumstantial evidence to support your defence, but I maintain that it is still purely circumstantial. It is not illegal for a thirteen year old child to have sex with another thirteen year old child, and it is just as likely that it was a legal, though morely questionable, action. What I maintain is that they are innocent until proven guilty, so I have to support them until actual evidenciary proof or honest testimony is given before I can support that is blaringly obvious."
They are innocent until proven guilty, I am not advocating throwing all the men under a bus, but it does bear looking into. Given past complaints from "runaways" or "escapees" about this groups and others like it not investigating this futher would be criminally negligent.
"Until I see proof, despite the obviousness of what actually went on there, I cannot find these people guilty or at fault."
they may be upright people, and the women who fled with stories of forced marriages may have been nuts looking for attention. Like I said I don't want them crucified, but the police should look into it. Does the forced seperation cross the line, maybe, but sitting there and hoping a kid runs from the only society they have ever known is a worse plan.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2008-04-23 15:19:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The whole story would make for a good Punisher comic book. I doubt that will happen, but I bet in 3 or 4 weeks a new Law and Order episode will be be loosely based around these events.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2008-04-23 15:03:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I blame men for all of this.
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2008-04-23 14:47:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I am all for religious freedom to a point."
---
What point?
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2008-04-23 14:44:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
indoninja
"The actions of the police are not illegal, but the circumstances they acted under were. What I'm arguing is the point preceedes the action."
If I call in a fake robbery report to a bank and the cops run in guns drawn yelling freeze and actually stop a bank robbery, was it illegal for them to enter the bank. No. They acted on good faith with the info on hand. Nothing the police did was illegal (well at least not in terms of entering the compound)
I maintain that their actions are not illegal, but they should not have been there in the first place to take non-illegal action. It may have been benificial, but it still remains that these people should not have been interrupted in the first place.
"Who said they forced the kids? I'll admit that the children probably don't fully understand the commitment and what it means, but there isn't any actual evidence that there was force involved. I'm also not seeing any evidence that any of these people were actually married. My real source of support here is people marrying younger or older people happens in our society, it just so happens that we start marrying at 18, and they apparently start it at around 13, the time when females are physically women."
If they weren't legally married and there are 13yr olds running around preganant, then yes a law was broken. Also there are plenty of people who have fled cilts like this telling of how they were forced into marriage.
There may be overwhelming circumstantial evidence to support your defence, but I maintain that it is still purely circumstantial. It is not illegal for a thirteen year old child to have sex with another thirteen year old child, and it is just as likely that it was a legal, though morely questionable, action. What I maintain is that they are innocent until proven guilty, so I have to support them until actual evidenciary proof or honest testimony is given before I can support that is blaringly obvious.
"I in no way condone actual slavery in the faction that you're thinking of, but what I am doing is trying to see things the way they see it. There is no "modern" culture that hasn't used some form of slavery somewhere along the line, wether it be social, mental, political, or physical. So far, I'm not seeing any actual evidence yet, that there was any slavery existing there. What I am seeing is willing community action to get things done, with voluntary participation. They had actions defined as wrong within their own culture as all cultures do, and they had a method of punishment, wether it be physical punishment or not. What you seem to be doing is drawing their line in the sand for them, and I'm not about to agree with you putting it there."
Yes you are. When you say we can't judge them and we can't impose our morals on them, then how can we impose our morals on a group that supports slavery.
And as far as saying it is only slavery in our eyes, but they are happy there, what about the people who have fled the cult?
If someone had 12 daughters and kept them locked in their house 24/7with tales of evil outside and stories about their only hope of salvation was to sleep with him whent hey turned 17, would that be ok in your eyes?
Once again you seem to think there is problem with drawing a line in the sand for everyone. There isn't. As I said before if you really believe that you have no right to complain about a neighbor who beats his wife and/or sexually abuses his children. You have no right to complain about cultures that practice genital mutilation or honor killings. You have no right to complain abotu cultures where slavery is ok, or killing fags is legal. Any moral code you have that allows those things for anyone, that allows double standards on what is right and wrong is broken.
I'm not saying we can't judge them and impose our morals on them, because it's exactly what we're doing. As far as we know, there was nothing actually going on, but our assumptions based on poor, although highly probable, circumstantial evidence and heresay cannot overrule logical thinking based on facts and law. Prove to me that there was actual wrongdoing, and I will admit wrongdoing.
These people are not locked in, nor are they prevented from leaving. You just said there were people who left the compound. It is a free society with different values than your own.
You're drawing their line, and doing it before you actually know where the sand is. The line cannot be the same for everyone, because not all people are the same. The best you can do is give a broad outline of where that line is for the general population, but there are major differences between society and the individual, and the rules of society cannot be considered absolute. Situational circumstances must be considered, and you're ignoring them altogether, as opposed to seeing things from all points of view.
Until I see proof, despite the obviousness of what actually went on there, I cannot find these people guilty or at fault.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-04-23 13:45:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that's not clear enough for me
and I only get jizzed in the mouth
my eyes are for looking into your soul
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-04-23 13:41:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
stop getting jizzed in the eyes and perhaps you will see the " "
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-04-23 13:28:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you guys have to do a better job of separating your comments like use
=====
or
-----
or *******
something so i can follow along.
thank you in advance
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-23 13:16:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ilikesteak
"The actions of the police are not illegal, but the circumstances they acted under were. What I'm arguing is the point preceedes the action."
If I call in a fake robbery report to a bank and the cops run in guns drawn yelling freeze and actually stop a bank robbery, was it illegal for them to enter the bank. No. They acted on good faith with the info on hand. Nothing the police did was illegal (well at least not in terms of entering the compound)
"Who said they forced the kids? I'll admit that the children probably don't fully understand the commitment and what it means, but there isn't any actual evidence that there was force involved. I'm also not seeing any evidence that any of these people were actually married. My real source of support here is people marrying younger or older people happens in our society, it just so happens that we start marrying at 18, and they apparently start it at around 13, the time when females are physically women."
If they weren't legally married and there are 13yr olds running around preganant, then yes a law was broken. Also there are plenty of people who have fled cilts like this telling of how they were forced into marriage.
"I in no way condone actual slavery in the faction that you're thinking of, but what I am doing is trying to see things the way they see it. There is no "modern" culture that hasn't used some form of slavery somewhere along the line, wether it be social, mental, political, or physical. So far, I'm not seeing any actual evidence yet, that there was any slavery existing there. What I am seeing is willing community action to get things done, with voluntary participation. They had actions defined as wrong within their own culture as all cultures do, and they had a method of punishment, wether it be physical punishment or not. What you seem to be doing is drawing their line in the sand for them, and I'm not about to agree with you putting it there."
Yes you are. When you say we can't judge them and we can't impose our morals on them, then how can we impose our morals on a group that supports slavery.
And as far as saying it is only slavery in our eyes, but they are happy there, what about the people who have fled the cult?
If someone had 12 daughters and kept them locked in their house 24/7with tales of evil outside and stories about their only hope of salvation was to sleep with him whent hey turned 17, would that be ok in your eyes?
Once again you seem to think there is problem with drawing a line in the sand for everyone. There isn't. As I said before if you really believe that you have no right to complain about a neighbor who beats his wife and/or sexually abuses his children. You have no right to complain about cultures that practice genital mutilation or honor killings. You have no right to complain abotu cultures where slavery is ok, or killing fags is legal. Any moral code you have that allows those things for anyone, that allows double standards on what is right and wrong is broken.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2008-04-23 11:29:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The discrimination card always comes into play someone wants to do something really, really stupid. Don't want your tax dollars going to teach kids ebonics? You're a fucking racist. Think the Muslim extremists are taking it a tad far with this whole "kill the cartoonist" thing? You're a hate-mongering, capitalist crusader pig-infidel. Don't think forced marriages and knocking up 13-year-olds is cool? YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEIR RELIGION AND CULTURE, YOU FAGGOT.
What it comes down to is:
A. They broke the law.
B. Come on, you bleeding-heart pussies. It's common fucking sense.
C. I'm not paying taxes to support their downer flipper kids.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-04-23 10:53:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What polygamy mess?
*scuttles back under rock*
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-04-23 10:31:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i've heard about this.
i'm always amazed how those sects even manage to exist and how their leaders find their followers in this modern world.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:15:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am a liberal and as such believe in the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. A 13-year-old is not an adult.
--
Well, only for the last 200 years or so... in the western world, anyway.
===
has your zoophilia finally mutated into pedophilia?
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2008-04-23 10:21:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It cracks me up when people think God talks to them and tells them stuff like "Marry a bunch of underage girls." Religion is so weird.
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2008-04-23 10:15:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja,
"My stance on it is this: The phone call was not from a victim, nor a person having full detail of the situation. That makes the entire search of the compound unlawful to start with."
No it doesn't. The police were acting in good faith. It was only illegal if they knew it was a fake call.
The actions of the police are not illegal, but the circumstances they acted under were. What I'm arguing is the point preceedes the action.
"The issue of polygamy is essentially a non-issue for the government to be concerned with. The rule is that a man cannot take on more than one civil union at a time. It does not state that he can't live with more than one person, or that he cannot have sex with more than one person. With the distrust for the government within the compound, I doubt that any of them are actually legally married, thus eliminating the polygamy issue from discussion."
I agree, but the issue of forcing kids to marry adults is wrong.
Who said they forced the kids? I'll admit that the children probably don't fully understand the commitment and what it means, but there isn't any actual evidence that there was force involved. I'm also not seeing any evidence that any of these people were actually married. My real source of support here is people marrying younger or older people happens in our society, it just so happens that we start marrying at 18, and they apparently start it at around 13, the time when females are physically women.
"The real issue seems to be that we refuse to allow any other culture than our own to exist. This self sufficient colony of people have the potential for holding entirely different morals and beliefs than the ultra-conservative christianity around them, so destruction of that small society was the only way for them to handle the situation. They saw that with so many children already existing, breeding, sustaining itself for a long time, that it works. The belief that their way is the only right way means that everything else is bad, and must be destroyed."
So you are fine with a culture that allows slavery? After all cultures like that existed, thrived, and sustained themselves for a long time. Everybody should have a line in the sand where they can define an action as wrong, society should have one where most of us agree, and if you cross it you should be punished.
I in no way condone actual slavery in the faction that you're thinking of, but what I am doing is trying to see things the way they see it. There is no "modern" culture that hasn't used some form of slavery somewhere along the line, wether it be social, mental, political, or physical. So far, I'm not seeing any actual evidence yet, that there was any slavery existing there. What I am seeing is willing community action to get things done, with voluntary participation. They had actions defined as wrong within their own culture as all cultures do, and they had a method of punishment, wether it be physical punishment or not. What you seem to be doing is drawing their line in the sand for them, and I'm not about to agree with you putting it there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2008-04-23 10:11:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
HOLY FUCK SINCE WHEN DID TEXAS BECOME A STATE?????
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2008-04-23 09:30:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
they've fucking RUINED it.
i move all this way, grow a beard, hang around the compound gates looking hopeful and non threatening and JUST when they are about to let me in and taste the sweet, sweet, religious nut the fucking FBI show up all swat teamed up.
Now I'll have to move to Utah.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-04-23 08:13:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's a cheerful book
"God's Brothel" http://tinyurl.com/5tlqdz
Every so often my mother gives me a box of books she's read that have rattled her. I call them 'Margaret's box o' horrors.' I did actually read this one though. Pretty rank and disgusting stuff in there.
The way I see it is 1) the government done fucked up. Again. Big surprise, eh? 2) some fucked up shit has been known to go on in those compounds. 3) In situations like these, NO ONE is correct.
Ick
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-04-23 08:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ilikesteak ,
"My stance on it is this: The phone call was not from a victim, nor a person having full detail of the situation. That makes the entire search of the compound unlawful to start with."
No it doesn't. The police were acting in good faith. It was only illegal if they knew it was a fake call.
"I continue with defending the pregnant thirteen year olds. There is no evidence that an adolescent didn't impregnate any of these girls, that being fully legal if consent is given."
This is the only reason I can support the DNA testing.
"The issue of polygamy is essentially a non-issue for the government to be concerned with. The rule is that a man cannot take on more than one civil union at a time. It does not state that he can't live with more than one person, or that he cannot have sex with more than one person. With the distrust for the government within the compound, I doubt that any of them are actually legally married, thus eliminating the polygamy issue from discussion."
I agree, but the issue of forcing kids to marry adults is wrong.
"The real issue seems to be that we refuse to allow any other culture than our own to exist. This self sufficient colony of people have the potential for holding entirely different morals and beliefs than the ultra-conservative christianity around them, so destruction of that small society was the only way for them to handle the situation. They saw that with so many children already existing, breeding, sustaining itself for a long time, that it works. The belief that their way is the only right way means that everything else is bad, and must be destroyed."
So you are fine with a culture that allows slavery? After all cultures like that existed, thrived, and sustained themselves for a long time. Everybody should have a line in the sand where they can define an action as wrong, society should have one where most of us agree, and if you cross it you should be punished.
Submitted by MudWhistle (user info) at 2008-04-23 07:52:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
wasn't this the whole theme to last season of Big Love?
Submitted by moneyshotforyou (user info) at 2008-04-23 07:03:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
loki=auto+2
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2008-04-23 05:54:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The case against the FLDS is way older than this. It shouldn't have taken a fucking phone call to force action against these cunts.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2008-04-23 05:12:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5722875.html
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-04-23 03:51:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think separating those children from their parents is far more traumatic and devastating than the implied moral and criminal abuse they have been subjected to by virtue of being born to members of some reclusive conservative cult.
That said, we have a moral code that society has arrived at through our collective experience and to govern that code we have laws. These laws are imperfect and constantly evolving BUT they are ultimately in place to protect us from ourselves. The way those people live their lives, however religiously justified, breaks some fundamental laws that have been established specifically to keep our children 'safe'.
But at what cost?
Freedom of Religion vs. Progressive Societal Morality.
Submitted by czwij (user info) at 2008-04-23 03:19:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
how come shit like this always happens in texarse?
i'm beginning to think its a state full of malcontents and slack jawed half wits.
could i be incorrect in my presumption?
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2008-04-23 02:40:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
was waiting for it to degenerate into: Waco-2 The Redemption
Submitted by Titus (user info) at 2008-04-23 02:25:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Let these people observe their religious practices in peace. Who are you to judge?
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2008-04-23 00:13:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So in summary; Americans are all a bunch of fucking retards.
We already knew that, assclown.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:48:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
MLW is seven years younger than I. She was in Singapore (with her family on business) at the same time I was (while serving in the US Navy), in 1983, and as it happens may have been at the American Club at the same time, like on the same day and hour, as I was. In a conversation where that possible brush came out, her mom said that it would have been magical if we'd seen each other and known that we were destined to be together. I didn't argue, but I thought, "No, well, see, I was 21 and your daughter was 14 at the time, so that little hookup would have put me in a Singapore jail long enough to develop a secret fondness for forcible anal rape of little Asian guys and completely prevented me from regularly rooting her now". I didn't say it, of course, but I thought it.
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:46:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:46:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm following it fairly closely, merely through interest. It's going to be a landmark, so I had damned well best pay attention to the details. This one may get a little long-ish.
My stance on it is this: The phone call was not from a victim, nor a person having full detail of the situation. That makes the entire search of the compound unlawful to start with.
Morality has no place in the realm of logic, reasoning, and reality.
My next objection to this would be the forced DNA tests. Everyone within the society knows who belongs to who. It's really a privacy issue, and by doing this and making it public record, it is a violation of personal privacy. If one of these people reject their birth parents, and wish to break all ties from them, making the connection public is a direct violation of private intention.
I continue with defending the pregnant thirteen year olds. There is no evidence that an adolescent didn't impregnate any of these girls, that being fully legal if consent is given.
The issue of polygamy is essentially a non-issue for the government to be concerned with. The rule is that a man cannot take on more than one civil union at a time. It does not state that he can't live with more than one person, or that he cannot have sex with more than one person. With the distrust for the government within the compound, I doubt that any of them are actually legally married, thus eliminating the polygamy issue from discussion.
The real issue seems to be that we refuse to allow any other culture than our own to exist. This self sufficient colony of people have the potential for holding entirely different morals and beliefs than the ultra-conservative christianity around them, so destruction of that small society was the only way for them to handle the situation. They saw that with so many children already existing, breeding, sustaining itself for a long time, that it works. The belief that their way is the only right way means that everything else is bad, and must be destroyed.
The distrust of society mindset is this - Do not trust the outsiders. They want to destroy our families, steal from us, capture us, enslave us, torture us, scare us, and break what we have worked so hard to accomplish. Their ways are evil, dressed as pure. Their people know nothing, and parade it as everything. Their things are ill-gotten, from the slavery of others. They cannot be trusted.
Capture - Everyone was arrested or displaced.
Steal - Things kept as evidence.
Enslave - Prison.
Torture - Interrigation for hours on end.
Destroy families - Everyone was seperated upon capture.
Scare - Between arrests, raids, and long interrogation with little to no actual recording made available.
Break accomplishments - A seperate society.
Ill gotten things - Most of what we own is produced from what is essentially the slavery of children or people without options.
Their morality - What was the actual crime rate inside the compound compared to outside the compound?
Explains why nobody will talk to the police. The police are outsiders.
-------------------
Homer: correcting a superior officer Nu-cu-lar. It's pronounced nu-cu-lar.
Submitted by Fungah (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:44:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:38:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That was pretty much Phallic's point, I think Jack. But this is Loki. She knows what is right for everyone.
-----------------
HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE HERE FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE, ALRIGHT?
Loki's a she?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:38:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That was pretty much Phallic's point, I think Jack. But this is Loki. She knows what is right for everyone.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:15:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am a liberal and as such believe in the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. A 13-year-old is not an adult.
--
Well, only for the last 200 years or so... in the western world, anyway.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:11:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am a liberal and as such believe in the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. A 13-year-old is not an adult.
-----
So when your live-in doormat looks at a kid at Walmart and wonders what is wrong with him and that kid follows him out to the parking lot and shoots hi, he should serve his 5 or 6 years in juvie and get out with a clean record?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:10:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No. So shut up.
Submitted by X54 (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:07:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They're a bunch of religious nuts. Who cares what happens to them?
Submitted by DonovanMD (user info) at 2008-04-22 23:06:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am a liberal and as such believe in the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. A 13-year-old is not an adult. We don't give Catholic Priests a pass to molest children so why should we allow cults to marry them off to pedophiles under the guise of freedom of religion?
--
Very well said. I agree, its sick that freedom of religion can be used as an excuse to molest and basically enslave young girls, often by people within their own families, not that that is worse just more disgusting.
I hate religion.
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:46:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm following it fairly closely, merely through interest. It's going to be a landmark, so I had damned well best pay attention to the details. This one may get a little long-ish.
My stance on it is this: The phone call was not from a victim, nor a person having full detail of the situation. That makes the entire search of the compound unlawful to start with.
Morality has no place in the realm of logic, reasoning, and reality.
My next objection to this would be the forced DNA tests. Everyone within the society knows who belongs to who. It's really a privacy issue, and by doing this and making it public record, it is a violation of personal privacy. If one of these people reject their birth parents, and wish to break all ties from them, making the connection public is a direct violation of private intention.
I continue with defending the pregnant thirteen year olds. There is no evidence that an adolescent didn't impregnate any of these girls, that being fully legal if consent is given.
The issue of polygamy is essentially a non-issue for the government to be concerned with. The rule is that a man cannot take on more than one civil union at a time. It does not state that he can't live with more than one person, or that he cannot have sex with more than one person. With the distrust for the government within the compound, I doubt that any of them are actually legally married, thus eliminating the polygamy issue from discussion.
The real issue seems to be that we refuse to allow any other culture than our own to exist. This self sufficient colony of people have the potential for holding entirely different morals and beliefs than the ultra-conservative christianity around them, so destruction of that small society was the only way for them to handle the situation. They saw that with so many children already existing, breeding, sustaining itself for a long time, that it works. The belief that their way is the only right way means that everything else is bad, and must be destroyed.
The distrust of society mindset is this - Do not trust the outsiders. They want to destroy our families, steal from us, capture us, enslave us, torture us, scare us, and break what we have worked so hard to accomplish. Their ways are evil, dressed as pure. Their people know nothing, and parade it as everything. Their things are ill-gotten, from the slavery of others. They cannot be trusted.
Capture - Everyone was arrested or displaced.
Steal - Things kept as evidence.
Enslave - Prison.
Torture - Interrigation for hours on end.
Destroy families - Everyone was seperated upon capture.
Scare - Between arrests, raids, and long interrogation with little to no actual recording made available.
Break accomplishments - A seperate society.
Ill gotten things - Most of what we own is produced from what is essentially the slavery of children or people without options.
Their morality - What was the actual crime rate inside the compound compared to outside the compound?
Explains why nobody will talk to the police. The police are outsiders.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:40:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think "rape" and "paedophile" are overly emotive and fail to acknowledge the fact that all those involved would have grown up in the sort of ideological construct whereby such behaviour would be perfectly normal.
I am hesitant about pulling these people from one ideological framework, throwing them into ours (the Millsian liberal world of personal autonomy, freedom and Human Rights) and telling them that our ideoogy is better than theirs.
No-on has asked the girls if they had particular problems with what was going on.
I would equate it to human rights 'crusaders' who try to evoke feelings of oppressive injustice in poorly paid third world workers when the workers themselves adhere to a societal caste system and are perfectly satisfied fulfilling their societal role, whether we percieve them as oppressed or not.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am a liberal and as such believe in the rights of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. A 13-year-old is not an adult. We don't give Catholic Priests a pass to molest children so why should we allow cults to marry them off to pedophiles under the guise of freedom of religion?
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:28:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
National borders now determine moral supremacy?
And i thought you were liberal...
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:27:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes my culture trumps this advocacy of child rape especially when this cult is located within the boundaries of These United States.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:22:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You mean "I don't care what culture you were raised in, MY culture's conception of adulthood is correct"
How open minded.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:19:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't care what culture you're raised in, a 13-year-old is a child.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-22 22:17:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"yet she has probably saved countless girls from abuse."
What abuse? The girls have grown up in that environment and would not share your views on autonomy, sexual freedom and consent. Telling them they have been raped when they would not themselves characterise it that way amounts to ideological imperialism, something the PC army is very good at while at the same time denigrating US cultural imperialism.
Hypocrites.