|
Author
|
Topic: Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?
|
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: 12-01-2003
|
OT...I know...I'll stop
Catholic Scientist writes: Maybe you should have tried worms instead of flies.... Worms? Are you kidding me. As the name implies....Flies Only baby!! As I always say...if you're not using flies (and preferably those you tied yourself), you might as well be using dynamite.  In my defense...I only saw one steelhead hooked and landed yesterday. And I did catch one Walleye (on a black, bead-headed stone).
|
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: 12-01-2003
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Catholic Scientist writes: The differences between this and the other thread is that in the other thread, the parents chose to offer prayer as a method for treating their child's illness. They tried to help and it was their child. I don't think the gov. should come in and force them to use a different method because of both their religious freedom and family sovereignty. I just think it is their choice. You actually see a "religious freedom" difference between that case and this one? Strange
Catholic Scientist writes: In this case, though, these men are taking the children of other families so the whole family sovereignty thing is out. But what if those "other families" want their children taken and married off to older perverts...oops..I mean older "religious leaders"?
Catholic Scientist writes: Plus, they aren't trying to help the girl by offering some inferior method of something. They are trying to get more 'wives' Inferior method? I asked this in the other thread, and received no answer. Did anyone in Madeline's family wear glasses. And to you, would that have made a difference in their "defense"?
Catholic Scientist writes: So with those differences, I can support the gov. stepping in on this case while not the other. I guess I still cannot see your arbitrary line of approval between killing your kid versus letting your kid get married. Seems like the marriage option is a bit nicer.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 63 of 126 (463020)
04-11-2008 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by FliesOnly
04-11-2008 11:55 AM
|
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
You actually see a "religious freedom" difference between that case and this one? Strange I didn't say that. The previous was a case of religious freedom and family sovereignty. This is a case of religious freedom without the family sovereignty. They're both concerning religious freedom. Where did I show the difference in that?
But what if those "other families" want their children taken and married off to older perverts...oops..I mean older "religious leaders"? If both the child and the parents want the marriage, then I could see allowing it. Its currently legal that way anyways, isn't it? At least to some minimum age (15?)...
Inferior method? I asked this in the other thread, and received no answer. Did anyone in Madeline's family wear glasses. And to you, would that have made a difference in their "defense"? I don't know if they do or not, but I can see a moral difference between resting some glass in front of your eyes and physically injecting chemicals into your body.
I guess I still cannot see your arbitrary line of approval between killing your kid versus letting your kid get married. Seems like the marriage option is a bit nicer. They didn't kill their kid.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by FliesOnly, posted 04-11-2008 11:55 AM | | FliesOnly has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by FliesOnly, posted 04-11-2008 1:38 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5821 days) Posts: 238 Joined: 01-15-2008
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Here is my observation. CS writes
quote:
The differences between this and the other thread is that in the other thread, the parents chose to offer prayer as a method for treating their child's illness. They tried to help and it was thier child. I don't think the gov. should come in and force them to use a different method because of both their religious freedom and family sovereignty. I just think it is their choice. In this case, though, these men are taking the children of other families so the whole family sovereignty thing is out. Plus, they aren't trying to help the girl by offering some inferior method of something. They are trying to get more 'wives'.
But the difference you outlined isn't really there. In the case of Madeline, her parents refused to give the conventional treatment for her illness and instead decided to rely on faith healing because (A) they were worried more for her spiritual well-being, (B) they truly believed that faith healing was going to save her, and (C) they were permitted by law to rely on faith healing rather than conventional medicine. In the case of polygamy that involves child abuse, the parents of the teen girls refused to let them have proper conventional education and instead decided to marry them off to older men into polygamous households because (A) they were worried more for their spiritual well-being, (B) they truly believed that the only way to go to heaven is to be involved in polygamy and "be fruitful and multiply", and (C) they were permitted by law (at least in some states) to marry their daughters off to older men as long as there is pregnancy involved. The only real difference we could draw out is if we nitpick parts C of the two and say that one is permitted by law in more states than the other. CS, I'm sorry but I don't see a consistency in your line of reasoning. Both cases involve religious parents thinking best for their kids based on their particular branch of religion.
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2664 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 65 of 126 (463025)
04-11-2008 12:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by Stile
04-11-2008 9:36 AM
|
|
Re: More proof of my point
Thanks, but I don't think you checked the date of your own source. Oh, man. You don't disappoint. I knew you would move the goalposts. You said one. I provided one.
It's easy to show your stance, all you have to do is show one instance where the US is prosecuting anyone involved in polyamorous activity without being engaged in something else that's also ridiculously evil (like rape and child abuse). All you have to do is find a single instance where the US is persuing someone with polygamy being their greatest illegal activity. FYI. IN 2005, the Utah Supreme Court held that:
(1) The term marry in the phrase "purports to marry another" in the bigamy statute is not limited to State sanctioned marriages: The crux of marriage in our society, perhaps especially a religious marriage, is not so much the license as the solemnization, viewed in its broadest terms as the steps, whether ritualistic or not, by which two individuals commit themselves to undertake a marital relationship . . . The fact that the State of Utah was not invited to register or record [Holm's marriage] does not change the reality that Holm and Stubbs formed a marital bond and commenced a marital relationship. (2) Bigamy in any form is not protected by the Utah Constitution. The irrevocable ordinance, Art. 3 section 1, specifically prohibits the practice of plural marriage. The only plausible interpretation of that article that is consistent with the history of the Utah Constitution is that the framers intended to prohibit not just state sanctioned plural marriage, but plural marriage in practice. And in 2007, the Utah Asst. AG Laura Dupaix said:
Dupaix also argued that the state’s bigamy law is neutral to religion and pointed out that one of the two recent bigamy convictions involved a secular bigamist. ABE:
No one has been prosecuted for polygamy in Utah for nearly 50 years, and the state's power structure has not made enforcement an issue. Last year Gov. Michael O. Leavitt, a Republican who is himself a descendant of polygamists, even said the practice is not often prosecuted in part because "these people have religious freedoms" (a statement he later amended in the wake of a public outcry). When Chief Deputy Attorney General Reed Richards said last year that polygamy was not only nearly impossible to prosecute but, technically, not a crime at all, it took the largely poor and unschooled ex-wives of polygamous men to point out the law to him. Polygamy is in fact covered by the statute that makes bigamy a felony, the women noted, and the law says nothing about a marriage certificate being needed for proof of crime, only that a husband or wife ''purports to marry another person.'' The Persistence of Polygamy - The New York Times This article is from 1999. It is clear that there is a lack of political will in Utah to prosecute polygamists. Despite recent rulings by the UT Supreme Court, despite recent statements by the UT AG. Even the UT cops are polygamists. From 2003:
State officials say they will strip the police certification of officers who practice polygamy, following complaints that officers in Hildale, a town near the Arizona line, were hampering investigations into underage polygamist marriages. One Hildale officer has already been convicted of polygamy and his police certification revoked by the Peace Officer Standards and Training council. National Briefing | Rockies: Utah: Fighting Polygamy - The New York Times Which is why TX made the first move. btw. I've dredged up 3 more convictions "for polygamy only" in this post ... since you've reneged on your "find a single instance" demands, why don't you let me know what you think is an acceptable number? Edited by molbiogirl, : more info
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by Stile, posted 04-11-2008 9:36 AM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by Stile, posted 04-11-2008 12:49 PM | | molbiogirl has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
(A) they were worried more for her spiritual well-being, (B) they truly believed that faith healing was going to save her, That's speculation on your part. How do you know they were more worried for her spiritual well-being? For all you know, they could have been more worried for her physical well being, but were just constrained by their beliefs. Also, you don't know what they truly believed about the efficacy of the prayer. Maybe they were not sure if faith healing was going to work or not, so they offered their hope to god and let nature take its course.
The only real difference we could draw out is if we nitpick parts C of the two and say that one is permitted by law in more states than the other. Or show that you just made up the similarities you offered.
CS, I'm sorry but I don't see a consistency in your line of reasoning. Because your making up inconsistencies....
Both cases involve religious parents thinking best for their kids based on their particular branch of religion. I don't see that in this case. I mean, didn't the girl want to escape!? She at least called the authorities to report the abuse... Does it say that her parents forced her into the marriage? Or does it say that her soon-to-be husband forced her into it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by teen4christ, posted 04-11-2008 12:31 PM | | teen4christ has replied |
|
Stile
Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: 12-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 67 of 126 (463028)
04-11-2008 12:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by molbiogirl
04-11-2008 12:40 PM
|
|
Re: More proof of my point
Look, you've got nothing. But it doesn't matter, I don't want to take over the bigger point of Taz' thread by just repeating my same arguments that you cannot refute. I'll concede everything to you. We both agree that we have people who should go to jail. The people are child abusers, rapists, and polygamists. I think they should go to jail because they are child abusers and rapists. You think they should go to jail because they are polygamists. Okay. Sure. I'll concede to your point as long as they're going to jail. I'm sure anyone can read this and see the sense in it anyway. Now I think the main topic of this thread is much more interesting. That of people defending one area of religious freedom yet not defending this area. CS, FliesOnly and teen4christ have a good discussion, I don't want to get in their way. So I concede this entire argument to you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by molbiogirl, posted 04-11-2008 12:40 PM | | molbiogirl has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by molbiogirl, posted 04-11-2008 4:19 PM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
|
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: 12-01-2003
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Catholic Scientist writes: They're both concerning religious freedom. Where did I show the difference in that? Well, to me at least, you demonstrated that there must be a difference because you're in favor of Government intervention in one case and against it in the other. So you must see a difference somewhere. I just find it odd that you come down on the side of letting your kid die over simply letting your kid get married and have kids.
Catholic Scientist writes: If both the child and the parents want the marriage, then I could see allowing it. Its currently legal that way anyways, isn't it? At least to some minimum age (15?)... Well...perhaps...but I'm pretty sure it's not legal if we're talking about the child entering into a polygamous relationship.
Catholic Scientist writes: I don't know if they do or not, but I can see a moral difference between resting some glass in front of your eyes and physically injecting chemicals into your body. But if they refuse medical treatment(s) because they think prayer will "cure" their ailments...then to me, the wearing of glasses pretty much negates that whole argument. I mean, it becomes patently obvious that they know that God will not necessarily heal, and to allow a sick child to slip deeper and deeper into an illness they KNOW is occurring (and easily treatable), then they are, at best, guilty of negligent homicide. I mean there's are just so many examples I could list showing that this family (likely) accepted numerous scientific advances, that to then argue against using medicines to save their daughter for fear these medicines might have some sort of negative impact on her soul is easily refuted. Did they eat any processed foods, for example? What about store bought vegetables. Did they go to a dentist? The list goes on and on and on. Like I've said from the get go. They either use prayer for everything, or their argument doesn't hold. You can't assume that God will help you out in some circumstances (and that therefore prayer is the only acceptable recourse), but yet ignore your pleas during other circumstances. It makes no sense to me.
Catholic Scientist writes: They didn't kill their kid. Their actions led DIRECTLY to her death.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 69 of 126 (463036)
04-11-2008 2:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by FliesOnly
04-11-2008 1:38 PM
|
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Catholic Scientist writes: They're both concerning religious freedom. Where did I show the difference in that? Well, to me at least, you demonstrated that there must be a difference because you're in favor of Government intervention in one case and against it in the other. So you must see a difference somewhere. If you had read what I wrote in Message 59 well, you would have seen where I state that the difference is with family sovereignty.
quote:
In this case, though, these men are taking the children of other families so the whole family sovereignty thing is out. Plus, they aren't trying to help the girl by offering some inferior method of something. They are trying to get more 'wives'.
I also stated that in the previous case, the family was trying to help the girl and in this case the men are trying to help themselves.
Catholic Scientist writes: If both the child and the parents want the marriage, then I could see allowing it. Its currently legal that way anyways, isn't it? At least to some minimum age (15?)... Well...perhaps...but I'm pretty sure it's not legal if we're talking about the child entering into a polygamous relationship. That's true. The government should certainly step in in this case.
But if they refuse medical treatment(s) because they think prayer will "cure" their ailments...then to me, the wearing of glasses pretty much negates that whole argument. I don't think that the reason they refuse medical treatment is because of their perceived efficacy of prayer. I'm not totally sure, but I thought it has to do with interferring with God's plan and/or putting 'foreign' stuff into your body. (where 'foriegn' is defined as things that they deem as not supposed to be put in)
I mean, it becomes patently obvious that they know that God will not necessarily heal, and to allow a sick child to slip deeper and deeper into an illness they KNOW is occurring (and easily treatable), then they are, at best, guilty of negligent homicide. I can see how is could be considered negligent homicide. I just don't think that I have to consider it that way.
I mean there's are just so many examples I could list showing that this family (likely) accepted numerous scientific advances, that to then argue against using medicines to save their daughter for fear these medicines might have some sort of negative impact on her soul is easily refuted. Did they eat any processed foods, for example? What about store bought vegetables. Did they go to a dentist? The list goes on and on and on. The list contains things that are not a matter of life and death. I think that they believe that they shouldn't be getting in God's way if he wants to take someone from this world. And that putting 'foreign' substances (as defined above) is wrong. And that wearing glasses doesn't "count". But I don't really know their beliefs for sure.
Like I've said from the get go. They either use prayer for everything, or their argument doesn't hold. You can't assume that God will help you out in some circumstances (and that therefore prayer is the only acceptable recourse), but yet ignore your pleas during other circumstances. It makes no sense to me. Why must they use prayer for everything? Why can't their belief be that they must use prayer for some things? Things that are a matter of life and death or that have to do with the intake of chemicals, for example.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by FliesOnly, posted 04-11-2008 1:38 PM | | FliesOnly has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by FliesOnly, posted 04-11-2008 3:13 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: 12-01-2003
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Look, I realize that this mostly comes down to ones opinion...but it seems to me that your "opinion" is primarily based upon what the parents say/use as a defense. Your "sovereignty" defense, as pointed out by teen4christ...just doesn't hold up. If the parents of these molested children truly felt...according to their own religious beliefs...that forcing their kid(s) into some sort of polygamous marriage was the best thing to do, then why do you have a problem with that? You argument seems inconsistent, regardless of your perceived family sovereignty.
Catholic Scientist writes: I also stated that in the previous case, the family was trying to help the girl and in this case the men are trying to help themselves. So says you. But according to them...their religious belief is that it is God's will that these girls be fruitful and multiply. The question is: Why do you agree with letting you kid die, but not with letting her marry a pervert?
Catholic Scientist writes: Why must they use prayer for everything? Why can't their belief be that they must use prayer for some things? Things that are a matter of life and death or that have to do with the intake of chemicals, for example. Because this is the 21st century. Because their supposed "faith in God" shows a level of inconsistency the leads to the killing of a child. Because religious freedom(s) that allow you to kill your child is not a religious freedom. Because it's stupid and ignorant to let your child die needlessly. Because praying for something that shows no evidence of being successful is pathetic, and protecting it by law is absolutely asinine.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 71 of 126 (463047)
04-11-2008 3:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by FliesOnly
04-11-2008 3:13 PM
|
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Why do you agree with letting you kid die, but not with letting her marry a pervert? I guess that it is my opinion that a life with a pervert is worse than death.
Because this is the 21st century. Because their supposed "faith in God" shows a level of inconsistency the leads to the killing of a child. Because religious freedom(s) that allow you to kill your child is not a religious freedom. Because it's stupid and ignorant to let your child die needlessly. Because praying for something that shows no evidence of being successful is pathetic, and protecting it by law is absolutely asinine. Like you said, it mostly comes down to ones opinion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by FliesOnly, posted 04-11-2008 3:13 PM | | FliesOnly has not replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2664 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 72 of 126 (463049)
04-11-2008 4:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Stile
04-11-2008 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: More proof of my point
I'll concede everything to you. As you wish, Stile. But please don't do me the disservice of "agreeing" with me. We do not agree.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Stile, posted 04-11-2008 12:49 PM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
|
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5821 days) Posts: 238 Joined: 01-15-2008
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Going backwards...
quote:
I don't see that in this case. I mean, didn't the girl want to escape!? She at least called the authorities to report the abuse... Does it say that her parents forced her into the marriage? Or does it say that her soon-to-be husband forced her into it?
If you didn't notice, I used plural. They hauled away from the compound several hundred underaged teens, some of them already pregnant. They were "married" off to older men by their parents.
quote:
Because your making up inconsistencies....
How so? On the one hand, you argued with dozens of posts that parents ought to ultimately make the decisions for the physical and spiritual well-being of their kids and that it ought to be something the government should not have a say in. On the other, you agreed to the action of the government of hauling away these very young mothers who were put into such situation in the first place by their parents. So, which is it, CS? Does the government have a right to overrule parents' religious freedom's imposition on their kids for the welfare of the kids or not?
quote:
Or show that you just made up the similarities you offered.
Made up? Which similarity(ies) do you dispute?
quote:
How do you know they were more worried for her spiritual well-being? For all you know, they could have been more worried for her physical well being, but were just constrained by their beliefs. Also, you don't know what they truly believed about the efficacy of the prayer. Maybe they were not sure if faith healing was going to work or not, so they offered their hope to god and let nature take its course.
You are nitpicking a very minor part of my argument. Whether it was spiritual or physical well-being we are talking about, the overall argument stands. The parents of these girls believed that monogamy was the only way they could get to heaven. They also believed monogamy was the only right way they could live their lives. And your whole argument in the other thread was that the parents ought to have the final say in regards to their religious freedom's imposition on their kids.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
On the one hand, you argued with dozens of posts that parents ought to ultimately make the decisions for the physical and spiritual well-being of their kids and that it ought to be something the government should not have a say in. On the other, you agreed to the action of the government of hauling away these very young mothers who were put into such situation in the first place by their parents. I don't think this girl was married by the choice of her parents but by the choice of her future husband. But I don't know for sure. Where did you read how it all went down? Or are you speculating again?
The parents of these girls believed that monogamy was the only way they could get to heaven. They also believed monogamy was the only right way they could live their lives. And your whole argument in the other thread was that the parents ought to have the final say in regards to their religious freedom's imposition on their kids. Psst. Its polygamy, not monogamy. I just see a difference between forcing a girl to enter a marriage and letting one die from natural causes. I don't think that the government should have no say whatsoever. I also don't think it has to be all or nothing. In this case, there were multiple laws being broken, polygamy (sorta), rape, physical abuse. Its not just about "being married".
|
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5821 days) Posts: 238 Joined: 01-15-2008
|
Re: Holmes, Randman, CS?
Going backwards again...
quote:
In this case, there were multiple laws being broken, polygamy (sorta), rape, physical abuse. Its not just about "being married".
Ah, but the issue hasn't been about lawfulness or unlawfulness. The issue has always been the just or unjust nature of such laws.
quote:
I don't think that the government should have no say whatsoever. I also don't think it has to be all or nothing.
From what I read between you, holmes, and randman in the other thread, your whole argument seemed to revolve around a slippery slope, and that any allowance of the government getting involved in a family's religious life would result in something far worse. So, which is it?
quote:
I just see a difference between forcing a girl to enter a marriage and letting one die from natural causes.
We have a word for letting one die of "natural causes". It's called negligent homicide.
quote:
Psst. Its polygamy, not monogamy.
Well, I made a mistake in my train of thought.
quote:
I don't think this girl was married by the choice of her parents but by the choice of her future husband. But I don't know for sure. Where did you read how it all went down? Or are you speculating again?
Speculating? I wasn't talking about this one specific girl that made the phone call. I was referring to the hundreds of young girls that are made by their parents to marry an older polygamist man. Speculating? You should really read that article and perhaps read a few others about polygamist sects. Or are you arguing now that all these men kidnapped all these girls to be their wives? Again, I don't see a consistency in your line of reasoning. You seem to favor one form of religious abuse while condeming another. If you're going to try to use reason and logic to justify one, at least be consistent. These very young pregnant women were married off to much older men by their parents. How did you think they were legally married to these men when they were underaged? Their parents "consented". PS - Don't pay attention to my grammar. It's quite bad. I've been sleep deprived for a couple weeks now. The trade-off? I currently have the top score in all the organic chemistry sections  Basically, I set the curve You'll be seeing me bragging about this for a while. Anyway, I think I'll sleep my way through this weekend. Edited by teen4christ, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2