Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

Hello Taz, because my schedule was becoming so hectic and chaotic, I announced I was taking an extended break from EvC for a while. I just do not have time to engage in serious, detailed debate. In fact today I was just dropping by to note something funny I had seen in the news, that reminded me of certain posters at EvC.However, I saw my name in your thread title and decided to give it a look. As I said I simply do not have time for debate on this, but it is an interesting topic. I wish I could give it more time.With this in mind, I will give you a shortish answer to your question. I will not likely be able to read any responses... at least for some time. This is not a simple yes/no question for me. I absolutely agree that police should have investigated the claims made.We can leave aside issues of polygamy, statutory limits on the age of marriage, and arranged marriages. Marriage does not grant anyone the right to have sex with someone else. If she didn't want it, she didn't have to have it. If he didn't like it, he should have gotten divorced. Rape is rape.So yes, the police certainly should have investigated, including allegations that others might have been in the same situation.However, I disagreed with their methods. An anonymous source should be treated with some degree of skepticism, and not allow for the heavy handed approach the gov't took. Still more importantly, that the allegations were general, and not specified, did not give the right for the gov't to come in and take away all the children.That is called "collective punishment" and rightly condemned under international law. These people had their children taken away en masse, because of a general accusation toward the group from an unknown source? I think if placed outside of this nation most people would realize how incorrect that action is.For example, if Israel got a tip that many Palestinians were raising their children to be suicide bombers, it would not have the right to take all of the children away from Palestinians just in case, during their investigation.Heck, even within the US. If there was an allegation that there was widespread use of children as narcotics carriers by families within a slum area, we would rightly condemn the police rushing in and taking away every family's children within that area.The police in Texas had a right to initiate investigations, and once specified cases became clear, then children could be removed. Instead they acted on guilt by association. They are now the ones inflicting harm on some children, without question. I suppose some may argue that it is better safe than sorry, but that is a figleaf for "guilty until proven innocent", and "it is better that a few innocents should suffer such that no guilty person will escape". Those latter concepts are firmly against traditional concepts of US law.It might also be noted that removing children and then probing them for information has had notoriously bad results. They tend to be terrible witnesses, easily manipulated by sources seeking to punish someone. I've seen some commentary in the papers that this will help authorities... yeah, just like it did in the rash of "satanic" and "molestation" cases in the 80-90s which all turned out to be rubbish.Again, people have to stop getting all excited when the word "children" gets raised. They are not the key to unlocking long established freedoms or rules of law.So yes they should have been investigated, but the methodology has been terribly flawed. Sorry if this repeats what others have said. I only read the opening post and responded as per the title's request.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hi again Taz, I got a huge unexpected break this afternoon, so I decided to read the thread. It seems you were looking for something I may not have addressed with my first reply. There is a difference between civil contracts and religious institutions. Frankly, and I've discussed this many times before at EvC, I think the strict "hands-off" gov't policy toward religion means that there should be no marriages at all performed by the State. It is a patent religious institution serving no useful secular purpose... though we have created many laws to force it into many legal issues.Providing that we do have such laws, then they are decided on a state by state basis. It is up to a group that wants such marriage rights to argue for them. Polygamists use the same claims as gays for the "right" to be married, and so as you argue for one you do argue for the other. However my answer is to get rid of all of those laws.This may still miss the point of what you want to know, which focuses on arranged marriages of minors.There is a difference between voluntary activities for gain, and necessary activities for health. Hence there is a difference between forcing your children to get married, and deciding what to do with regard to health care when a problem arises.You can keep repeating the graphic nature of a person's death without modern scientific intervention, but that does not change a person's right to make decisions for their child's welfare as they understand it when a health emergency occurs. This is the same as explanations of how gruesomely people died on 9-11 does not in any way argue for the Patriot Act, nor repeal of habeus corpus.Parents have the right to make decisions regarding healthcare, decisions regarding voluntary (unnecessary) activities (which may adversely effect a child's health) are more open to question. I hope you see the difference.Some will mention the spiritual requirements for this particular group. Unless it says they must be polygamously married, against their will, by age 14, or they will not enter heaven... I'm not sure there is any comparison.For argument let's take a hypothetical community which does have such requirements. Then they will need to make their case to the public to get laws changed in their favour... just like anyone else.Would I support such efforts? Except for limits on "against their will", I'd say sure. It does not matter to me if some group of people believe in or practice arranged marriages of minors. My only limitations would be... and this is the same for any age... the person has to agree to the marriage, can get out of it when they wish, and are not bound to specific duties within the marriage if they do not want to do them.Arranged marriages have been a part of many cultures and have worked ok for them. There is nothing "wrong" with them. There is also no problem with minors getting married as they have in outside cultures and within the US since its inception. So there is nothing "wrong" with that either.For all of molbio's arguments of what people in the US want and are going to do to unpopular minority groups, that does not argue the bigoted majority is right, nor that their majority will always be the case.But the specific case we are discussing has differences from the broader picture I outlined. Clearly at least one girl was forced to do things against her will. As I said, rape is rape. If there is more of that going on, it should be investigated.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hi Taz, please do not accuse me of murking up the water nor "dodging" the point of this thread. I posted two replies in an attempt to best answer your questions. I have till around midnight tonight to continue doing so.I have pretty firm concepts of morality and legal issues and am not afraid to discuss them, nor their implications... even if many will find them unpalatable. If you accurately read my posts you will see that I acknowledged an understanding of that in rather clear terms. However, since this case has been surrounded by issues of polygamy I began by addressing that issue first... then addressed what I stated was an assumption of your true issue: arranged marriages, particularly of minors. Actually I argued for no such support for the gov't (it was about involvement in rape, regardless of marriage), but no... marriage and health care are not the same and I explained why. When an emergency occurs then someone must make decisions for a minor, and that is the parent. It is presumptuous and ill-considered to have the gov't (a current leading majority) act in that role... as it argues that the state knows not only what is best, but what belief system the child holds.In the case of marriage there is no emergency. This is a voluntary and so unnecessary act.Put hopefully in a more clear way: with health care we are discussing selection and denial of intervention strategies (by others) when external situations arise, with marriage we are discussing the proactive pressuring of a child to engage in an activity with no immediate external demand to make such a choice.Thus there is a vast gulf between dealing with health care issues and marriage. If your issue is decisions being made by people, including children, outside the public eye, then we are discussing a totally different problem.If Madeline was never given a chance to voice her opinion, then I guess you have no right to speak for her either. As it stands, given that all of her siblings agreed, odds are that she did as well. You can call that indoctrination if you wish, but the reality is that it is simply growing up in a culture different from your own.In the case of marriage, there is no emergency where decisions must be made. It is a voluntary act and if there is a chance that it might effect someone's wellbeing it can come under greater scrutiny. As I tried to explain, I do not really care one way or the other if minors are allowed to marry, nor if the marriages are arranged. Since that is not current custom, nor legal institution, such groups will have to fight for such rights. But it won't destroy anyone, or the nation, if such marriages were granted.That said, if they occur, and their spouse's are abusive, then those spouses should be prosecuted just the same as any other abusive spouse. There is absolutely no concept in US law, that all children must be raised with the exact same concept of morality or social considerations, beyond legal concepts that people have rights which cannot be crossed by others including the gov't.The children of methodists must not be "equally informed" of Buddhist meditation possibilities, nor viking sacrificial rites.It seems that you are most upset that children might actually exist who think different than you, or how you want to raise your own, because they have not been "indoctrinated" with or exposed to your beliefs. I don't see any legal nor moral reason that they must. Yes, and psychiatrists' offices are filled with people who are unhappy with the unique characteristics of their upbringing... religious or other. I'm not sure how that anecdote addresses the fact that many people are happy with the way they were raised and can live that way.If anything, it would seem to argue that when someone is happy with their life, perhaps it is wise not to confront them with possibilities which will make them unhappy. Is there information on how this was explained to the child? If you are arguing that all children should be given the option of marrying older people when they are young, I might believe your argument. Aren't you in fact saying that regardless of if they were given the choice or not, you are upset that they should be allowed to do so at all?I have already stated that I myself do not agree that under US law, children can be forced into marriages, nor if in a marriage forced to have sex. If what one person calls "abuse" is considered normal by another, then it is normal and not abuse to that other. There is a vast difference between finding something normal, and tolerance of a situation that is very painful and one wants to escape but sees little chance of doing so. If your position is that most of the marriages in that sect involve kids who feel that everything is normal, and are fine with it (ala the kid in the cage) then I see no real problem.My thought is that most kids being forced to have sex against their will actually do not enjoy it and want to escape it. Hence there should be investigations. Otherwise it is consensual, even if the result of a totally different belief system than your own. You seem to have mangled my position across both threads. Remember that in the other one I made the point of saying faith healing is not primarily a 1st amendment issue... though it does play a secondary role. Also, I made clear back then, and have repeated here, that there is a difference between choosing health care options when faced with an emergency (i.e. they did not choose to face an emergency), versus choosing to force a child to do something out of the clear blue.On the issue of spiritual health, is there any religious concept in this sect that the polygamous marriage be completed by a certain age, and against the will of the child?Oh yes, and I should note on the "subservience" issue that parents teach subservience to children all the time. I see no particular problem with teaching subservience to a spouse. Of course there are limits to subservience. If someone feels they are threatened, or really do not want to do something, then they have the right not to do it regardless of the general duty to obey. If they'd simply rather not do something, but are willing to agree because doing it is less upsetting than not (a choice people make every day) then I see no problem with that.This was not a case of mere subservience. The accusations appear to be rape, pure and simple.Edited by Silent H, : clarityEdited by Silent H, : subserve

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I found myself waking around 4-5am. I thought it was because I had an idea, but maybe I was woken by the earthquake. In any case, the fog of alcohol had lifted, revealing what seems to me the core of confusion between us on this topic... which is to say why we seem to be speaking past each other.Since I couldn't get back to sleep, and it still keeps nagging me, I decided to take some time this morning to write it down.When you discuss my position you seem to be saying that since I accept the ability of parents to act in a way which leads to the graphic death of their child, the same principle must also allow for them to do something with less graphic results (even if they are unpalatable).However, this is to impose a totally different moral and legal philosophy upon my own. Yours is based on consequences (a teleology), whereas mine (at least regarding laws) is based on rules derived from rights (a deontology). Let's examine this difference by restating your question to me in this thread, then showing through an analogous situation why your question cannot be answered in a Yes/No fashion based on teleological extrapolations.More specifically, you asked if I agree with the actions taken by the Texas police with regard to the sect. You argue that it seems inconsistent for me not to side with the sect since I have argued that religious "sects" should not be prosecuted when they use faith-healing instead of modern medicine, and that leads to a much worse scenario such as the graphic and prolonged death of a diabetic child.But that question is not nearly as simple as it appears to be on its face, as I tried to explain in my first two posts. It is analogous to having been challenged with the following question...Would I agree with the detainment and interrogation of prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq at GITMO, since I have argued in support of going after our enemies to the point of armed conflict which involves much worse activity such as killing (including innocent civilians).Well for me there are so many facets, that I can no longer say thumbs up or down. Yes I am in support of detention and interrogation of prisoners and I don't care if they are at GITMO. However, the nature of their detention and interrogation is in serious question, as well as if Iraqis should be there (as my support for armed conflict never included Iraq). What's more... and this is the most critical portion... it is irrelevant that warfare causes much worse suffering (including numbers of sufferers)than any interrogative technique, when evaluating the legality of those techniques.Let me expand on that last point. International laws are not based on teleological concerns, but rather deontological issues of rights of the individual. Thus, whether a war is legal to pursue against an enemy, which grants one the right to kill, is not made based on the results of the war. Further, once an enemy is captured during war, a whole new set of rules apply to the situation which preclude activities far less brutal than were allowed against the same person during war. You may find this ironic, or perhaps inconsistent, but that is only when viewed through a teleological (results based) system. It has an internal consistency based on rights within particular settings.So taking it back to the sect situation. Protecting the "rights" of parents with regard to choosing which health care options are right for their child, is a different "setting" than how spouses are chosen. There is less reason, or necessity, for parental involvement in the latter... indeed the situation involves much more than just the child... which means there is less reason to protect parental control in that situation. Especially when we are discussing marriage, which is a social function (and ends up a state function), the parents are patently involving more concerned parties than just themselves and their child. The state then has arguably more rights to step in.Yes the results of poor health care choices (according to our standards) may be more gruesome, but that is irrelevant to why parents have less legal protection when selecting spouses for their children.I hope that clarifies my position, and why it seems to come to funny conclusions according to your view. Rights to me have little or nothing to do with degree of results, but rather the setting.And to restate my position on this matter... In general I do not care if states allow polygamy, arranged marriages, nor minors to marry (this last being a reality from the inception of the US and still true in some states). With regard to arranged marriages, the parents might want to do the arranging, but the ceremony will still have to have the child agree. And once married, no spouse can ever demand sex (or anything else) from the other. All of this said, since polygamy, arranged marriages, and (in many states) marrying minors is not common practice nor part of law, people wishing to do so need to push their case to make it legal. That's how it's always been done.In this specific case, the sect in question was running afoul of several laws. This means they were open to prosecution, even if I think the laws should eventually be repealed to some degree (perhaps based on their case). Then again, there was rape and physical coercion being committed, which is a punishable offense, regardless of allowing such marriages to exist. The allegations were of rape which more than anything else, certainly demand investigation and prosecution.However, paralleling our "war on terror" the gov't far exceeded its legal boundaries in rounding up all of their children en masse. That is guilt by association, as well as collective punishment. In its zealousness, many families and patently innocent children have been harmed. Intriguingly none of these families can even face their accuser, as it is an anonymous phone caller who did not even mention them by name.Children have often been used as the keys to remove rights. This is turning into a horrific example, though a real legal issue which needs to be pursued lies at its core. Another witch hunt, another shame.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello molbio, I have already explained in the previous thread as well as this one, that I am not making a 1st amendment argument... though it may come in as a secondary issue. Until you read and understand my argument, your criticisms don't really mean much.As to your point on free exercise, I believe that in some very specific conditions the state does have an interest in protecting one or more rights, over the right to free exercise of religion. I pretty well explained that very thing in the post to which you are replying. Though I would repeat again, it is not the 1st amendment I was discussing as the prime "right" coming into play. Parents have a right to be prime care givers as well as shapers of their children's beliefs and lives while they are minors.I would suggest rereading my last post to understand the "setting" difference between marriage and healthcare. The most obvious difference is that in the former, there are more players than just the parents and their child, and marriage is to actively seek societal (and legal) recognition for an act. I have no position on if it is ok. That is a moral statement. Do I believe it is possible? Yes. Do I believe it is possible such that there is no harm involved to the 13 yo? Yes, both historical and cultural analysis bear that point out.Do I believe it is legal? I'm not quite sure if any states have 13 anymore. I know some used to. When George Washington was looking for a wife, there was a joke at the time that he was looking for any 13 yo he could get... presumably because he'd exhausted everyone above that age in his quest. If I remember right Jerry Lee Lewis did marry his cousin who was 13 at the time... maybe his state still has it that way?Could it be legal again? Sure, any state has that ability. I won't be asking for it because I don't like marriage in the first place, much less to a 13yo, but I won't be blocking someone else's drive for such rights.Now your turn. Prove that such a thing is not ok. I mean, I don't care if you feel it isn't ok. I wouldn't argue you are wrong to feel that. But there is no absolute rule one way or the other. I addressed the OP at both philosophical and practical levels. You wish to focus on a specific practical issue, which I stated to Taz is a separate issue. For space I did not go into it, as it is a problem for all sorts of different laws and has no particular connection with the overall topic.In a nutshell, what you are discussing is the problem of communities which isolate themselves so as to secure their own system of laws, separate from the rest of their state and nation. That is an interesting question and one that has the further complication (which you are suggesting) that essentially criminal enterprises can gain power and protect their own operations from positions at local and state levels.As interesting as that is, discussions of this are totally off topic here. All I can say (which would have any bearing on this case) is that the gov't has the right to weed out bad faith members of its legal system. If it becomes apparent that an organization is using its dominance to abuse the people under its control (for whatever reason), an investigation and prosecution makes sense.Then again, cultures do have the ability to grow in power and so choose not to enforce certain laws, or to interpret them in their own way. As long as they are not defying the majority within their jurisdiction, nor acting for personal gain, then that is simply a power grab to broaden their rights. This would be similar to actions taken by those who wanted to end slavery, or broaden gay rights.Should I view police who refused to enforce laws and regulations against gays as corrupt? How about when SF decided to hand out marriage contracts in defiance of state law?So on the practical level, this can get a bit sticky. In the case of Jeffs in specific, I think there is pretty good evidence that he was running a criminal organization, rather than a church. While some may have been trying to broaden rights for the polygamist community, some were protecting abuse within their jurisdiction, and profiting from such.Your quotes showed a mix of a rise in power both to broaden rights as well as to conduct illicit activity. Cleaning house as some of your cites suggested, as well as becoming more active in investigations using agents outside of the specified community.What I would not suggest is a crackdown on polygamy in general, nor taking the children away from all polygamous parents.Intriguingly there is much abuse of children by non-polygamous parents. If there was a tip that in a particular city many kids were being abused by non-polygamous parents, would the gov't take all of them away? Or how about all children of Islamic parents (an example in an earlier post) should a certain community be suggested of having indoctrinated some kids to be suicide bombers?AbE: I suppose I should add that I am against "big brother" solutions in general. I would rather suffer people doing what they will, than the gov't having free access to my life just for "my protection." I would hope most parents, including polygamous ones are not going to be considered potential abusers that must be monitored at all times. I am also supportive of groups that wish privacy to live their own lives, and so police themselves, for example the Amish.Edited by Silent H, : AbE big brother stuff

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Ahhhh, a bit of bad luck gives me more time to spend at EvC. Well I'll take it! I'm answering your last two replies in this one post... To start with there is a spouse. If there wasn't I'm not sure what all the hubbub would be about. Second there is a community. The marriage (even if spiritual) is recognized by the community. Third, the results of that marriage... say kids... will end up being an issue for the state.I'm sure if they could get full legal recognition they would get full legal recognition. They don't seek it for gee I wonder what reason? Hmmmmmm. And so you have already been answered. Yes it is OT because it is not singular to this kind of case. There are many different isolated communities and criminal orgs where this same situation occurs. The OP appears to be about rights, not practical problems faced by law enforcement personnel.Given that I went on to answer your question anyway, and you state the above, smacks of a person looking to make themselves seem right by flinging mud. Well if it was solely free exercise then I think they have a weak case. That is why I have described what else is involved. I'm sorry that you cannot speak to the other issue and so want to pull it back to free exercise.On the point of no other polygamist groups lobbying for such rights. With the rise in secular polyamory my thought is you will likely see more of it in the future. There are also marriages from outside the nation where petitioners have sought such recognition. As a point of legal fact, the Netherlands became the first western nation to allow a polygamous marriage just a couple years back.And FYI, they were not religious. It was a guy and two ladies that just happened to love each other. Desiring more than one long term sexual partner at a time is not a sexual orientation? There are also cases of discrimination based on differing religious and moral principles... such as what happened to communists.Polygamous people do have the right to challenge the system, including by blocking laws by putting people in place who will not enforce them. This has happened with abortion, gay rights, and medical marijuana.You can't simply pick and choose who gets to use that tactic based on who you personally like. Oh yeah it's discrimination when YOU make the call. Nice. You are correct that the above situation is a whole other matter. I have said as much from the first post I made in this thread, to the last. The organization Jeffs ran appears to largely be a criminal enterprise, operated under the guise of a church.I am sure there may be many well meaning people within his community, and they have the right to grow in power, but he and others within it were preying on these people based on their positions of power.How many times do I have to say that an investigation was warranted, before you understand that's what I said? Wow, a criminal enterprise actually fights an investigation? Guess we'll just have to nuke em all and let your secular God sort em out.Sheesh, my answer remains the same. When an entrenched criminal organization does what one might expect... fight an investigation... one continues to press the investigation, perhaps shifting to the federal level. That was not a red-herring to point out that a group of people are being treated in a way we would not accept for most other groups of people. Don't try to dodge a valid point. What a stunning breakdown of the situation. I'm convinced! That does not appear to be the case, given your posts to stiles. Again, I have agreed in large part with this kind of assessment. Jonestown is a very nice analogy. I have said that an investigation was warranted. Whoa, whatta crazy man I am. When a person calls to complain, you launch an investigation. When it is an anonymous source, you tread softly. As it may turn out, which it is seeming to be the case here, that it was a false claim to the police (the suspected tipster has now apparently been arrested for that).If there is some suspicion of wrongdoing, without any complaints, police may always do some routine checks to make sure things are on the up and up. If feds suspect that local and state officials are compromised, then they can do the checking.I'm not going to apologize for the fact that in a free society some things will happen that people do not like, in fact some real harm will be done... and only THEN does law enforcement get involved. That is largely how it works in a free society.There's a great line in the movie Touch of Evil, where a ruthless detective laments how hard it is for law enforcement to do its work. Heston replies "Of course a police man's job is tough, it has to be tough! A police man's job is only easy in a police state... That's the whole point!"The potential that children (or anyone else) may be harmed, because people live an isolated lifestyle, should not be used to unlock the gates of our civil rights. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about marrying pervs... unless by that you mean people who are willing to marry someone younger than you would like? In that case, yeah, just as I am not opposed to black pervs marrying innocent white women, or two pervs marrying people of the same sex.If a group of people, religious or other, want to lower the age limit for marriage in a state, why should I care? I mean I don't like marriage, but if it is acceptable to the parents and the child, I don't really care.It was pretty low in the past (may still be in some states) and it didn't cause people to explode or go insane. Snooze. What does getting married have to do with whether a person would then be able to be a teacher? This is a complete non-issue according to what I set out. Coerced by family and culture. Lost generation. What fucking bigotry. Children grow up to be parents, they are not aliens which stay forever young and scarred. There are no lost generations, as there is a culture, hence there is no current lost generation.People can make any different way of life sound shitty and traumatic, including miscegenation and homosexuality. In their own culture in their own nation they certainly have that right. Within our nation, which has more protections for the individual, they may try to retain many of their practices, but it will take some adjustment on both sides. That said, they will be patently unable to force a child to marry against her will, stay in a marriage against her will, force her not to work as she wants, nor force her to have sex against her will.And if you go to their nations you may have to stop having sex outside of marriage, wearing revealing clothes, or having sex with members of the same gender.That's how it works.In any case, as to the general answer I think you want to pretend you have to drag out of me... it would not bother me if such things occurred in the US (within the limits I stated). Why should it? How will that reduce my or any one else's freedom?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

If you think throwing labels is going to upset me, or make me renounce my position, you are sadly mistaken.That I might support any particular group's ability to practice their beliefs does not mean I like, nor ascribe to such beliefs... or hold such tastes. The same is true when I attack false claims, or advance accurate claims, regarding the beliefs and practices of any particular group.As it stands this thread is an offshoot of another about faith-healing. Since I would allow that I must believe or practice faith-healing? This particular thread is about a religion, and marriages practices... so I must be religious and enjoy marriage? Oh yeah McCarthy, I must be a communist because I think people have the right to be such. Snooze.The tactic of smearing someone as being X when they go to defend those who are X, was supposed to be outmoded decades ago. Don't get all medieval on this topic. In the case of medical decisions, there is the family and the sick child. The three of them must decide whether to intervene in the process of an illness using modern science or not. There is no one else involved.In the case of marriage, there is not an emergency such that the decision must be made now, it involves the active participation of an outside party (the spouse)... creating lasting rights and expectations for the child with respect to that outside party... as well as being done for social recognition of those rights and expectations in the community. Finally the relationship may very well contain elements for which they will want state recognition (property, children).If you cannot see the difference between those situations, on those factors alone, then there isn't much point continuing. You are correct on the point that the only major group pushing for polygamous marriage in the US at this time is religious. However, my points regarding how that might change and how that has already changed in another nation stand. I would agree that sexual orientation is OT, rather ironic coming from you I'd say. But I was not trying to address sexual orientation. You have now attempted to dodge the same point twice. There are legitimate efforts made by social minorities to gain rights via undercutting or interpreting laws differently based on having placed friendly elements in office, or other positions of power.The polygamists have the same right to use those same tactics.Then again, that is also a mechanism for abuse by criminal organizations. This particular case is likely a combination of both kinds of groups using the same mechanisms. I'm positing Jeffs as the head of the current movement. I'm open to other people being included. That said, it is unlikely they are all in on the criminal enterprise being run by Jeffs (or whoever). It is also not accurate to slander the entire FLDS over their entire existence. Look, you can show how this organization has been successfully getting around investigative efforts for years. That does not argue that any other thing should have been done, except perhaps having had better investigations or outside investigators.In this particular case we are all losing. The genetic testing issue is completely tertiary to the question of abuse, so I'm not sure why you bring that up as some sort of victory. The main point is that the court is allowing the state to round up children en masse from a minority group, based on anonymous (and now apparently false) accusations made against no particular individuals within that minority group, and against the current assessment by a psychiatrist that no evidence of problems have been found. What's more it is also against the assessment foster care will result in real problems for the children. Heck, most of the kids that were picked up aren't even within the age range where the accusations indicate they'd be facing potential harm.This is a bad decision all around. If you want to gloat over it, be my guest. Bad decisions happen all the time. I'll gloat over having stood up for rights and freedom. That's a bit rarer. No, I also said if there is suspicion that something funny is going on, or that local investigators have been compromised, you may engage in preliminary investigations... probes.Otherwise, yes you let people live and wait for someone to say that something bad has happened.Its called living in a free country. Check into that sometime.Edited by Silent H, : facts tooEdited by Silent H, : tighter

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Not to be mean or anything, but you never read any of my previous posts have you? From the first post in this thread, to the last post in this thread, and now this very same post I will restate... let me try in caps to see if anyone will read it...IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT APPEARS THAT A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE WAS USING THE CLOAK OF A CHURCH COMMUNITY TO CARRY OUT ILLEGAL ACTS. THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE TO CARRY OUT AN INVESTIGATION!!!!The only caveat I made was that I am sure some, perhaps many, of the people in that community were acting according to their faith. The FDLS has been around a long time. The point is that some within it, Mr Jeffs is a very good example, were using it as a front for patently illegal acts.The only criticism I gave about what law enforcement has done, is their choice of how to conduct their investigation, including the abduction of all children from that community... which (on top of being an illegal act of collective punishment) will arguably cause more harm to more innocent children than what they were going in to stop. Actually anyone CAN start a religion based around breaking a specific law. The problem is that there are many different rights and they all have to be balanced. Free exercise does not trump all others. Nor does it allow for ignoring legal expectations necessary for operating a nation they are a part of (taxes, traffic laws, etc).I have also stated this, both in the previous thread and I believe this one as well.Again, I mean no offense but I have said this, and I find myself having to answer these accusations repeatedly, despite my stated position. What's up with that?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello godservant, yes we appear to have a mix and match on this issue. I'll respond in a way to provoke some thoughts on where we differ.But first, we clearly do agree that Jeffs is a perpetrator, and not in any way a victim. From all accounts I have read he didn't even practice the faith he claimed to be using as his shield. He was a Jim Jones type, setting up a system to feed his whims, nothing else. He and his cronies deserve to do some time. Is that true? Slavery, prohibition, anti-miscegenation, and anti-homosexual laws were all ended by such groups and/or activity.How does a minority gain rights for itself, except by fighting for the disregarding of an unjust law... even if it is the law of the land? Sometimes the majority can be very very very wrong. Well you heard wrong. And please please please do not accuse me of being such, just because I'm about to set you straight on the facts.Pedophilia is a desire and so far it is quite legal to be a person who has such thoughts and desires. Just as it was legal to be homosexual years back, even if homosexual acts were illegal. There is a difference between desire and action.More importantly the age range for legal sexual activity varies across states and nations. What acts these people in specific are engaging in has been legal (and indeed may still be legal) in some states. At the very least it was legal not fifty years ago in some states. It has been recent efforts by certain groups to arbitrarily increase the age of consent, which has made the beliefs and activities of the FLDS (as a culture I am not discussing specific people like Jeffs) still more criminal.Interestingly they were originally prosecuted, and pushed across the nation, not because of the age at which they married, but because they were polygamists. I will point out the irony that strict age of consent laws, as they are currently written and employed, patently do NOT protect the rights of children. While some claim that they do, no evidence or argument has been advanced what rights are being protected. There is only an allusion to their right to "safety".Ah yes, just as homosexuals were being protected from themselves.I am not claiming that children are all lust crazed beings, nor that there is no reason to have laws which restrict the sexual behavior of children. It is simply the current cookie cutter AoC laws which I find anachronistic and unscientific, as well as useless and un-protective for anyone. Why? I think this is the point where we seriously disagree. How is brainwashing children to believe in what you believe going to "help" them in any way?Most of these people happen to like the way they live. And there is no evidence that most of these people are damaged in some way. They simply live and enjoy a life very different than the one you do. There is no concept that people have to dislike what you dislike, or enjoy what you enjoy. Nor that such extreme disagreements on the right way to live mean the other person is being harmed.What does a happy person need to rebound from? I agree, so how does this help anyone. And I'm not sure such damage will not occur with the younger children as well. Ok, is there evidence that FLDS members are dying at greater rates? Also, how does this argue for destruction of a culture, rather than for different sexual techniques, better birth control, or more medical intervention to reduce the complications of pregnancy?If youthful pregnancy were a norm, then complications would be seen as something to be treated, not as an argument for how wrong it is. As I said, I agree with this investigation. Jeffs appears to be a predator, who has set up a system to protect and feed his activity. I agree that within the US, children (as much as anyone else) have a right not to be raped (by people of any age, including other children).That said, I don't think minorities should suffer from collective punishment. If you attended a church, perhaps one with views unpopular to much of the nation, would you agree that your children should be taken from your house (when you have not broken any laws) based on anonymous phone calls, making general accusations of crimes committed by unnamed members of your church?This is something I don't see anyone dealing with in this thread. Forget the issue of polygamy and child sexuality for a moment. Would you want your kids taken from you, by the state, "just in case"? Especially based on anonymous statements, which don't make direct accusations (or give any such evidence) about you in particular?Come on people. Talk about laws. How about those protecting us from collective punishment, and unseen accusers?Edited by Silent H, : clarification

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Ah still the old game, eh? Sorry but trying to make my "position" look bad by showing how "scary people" might use similar arguments, is the same fallacy as trying to make me look bad.In another thread, on the topic of scientific evidence related to harm to children, and specifically addressing sex and age, I directly criticized NAMBLA's misunderstanding of the science.I have also stated in several different threads how, regardless if science showed children thrived on sex, I would still support laws which would undercut NAMBLA's goals. Not because I hate them, or people like them, and think the world will die if they get their way... it's just that I'm a relativist and don't think their belief system gets the free wheeling uber-protections they desire.See the problem with you is that you have consistently ignored one important fact: you are only addressing one half of my position. You asked what I'd say if cultures tried to enter the US which had marriage ages (and so sexual ages) below our present limits. I said I would not care.What you want to cover up is my answer to the exact opposite question. What if a culture came in, or heck the one that exists now, which wants to prevent their children from having sex up till 18... hell let's say 20?My answer would be the same... I would not care. I would support laws to help parents and children protect themselves according to their own cultural traditions, permissive or restrictive.If you went looking for actual quotes which represent my arguments you may find them in Ginsburg, note this is not Allen Ginsberg, rather it is Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I pulled much of my position from some reviews and discussion she had on the topic, which I found quite convincing.Perhaps you would like to write her regarding your opinion on her support for NAMBLA. Wrong. While I do respect a child's right to consent... and realistically the world wouldn't collapse if we had such a weak rule as you just laid out... I am sympathetic that most parents want an ability to create and raise their children within a specific belief system. Parents do have rights which are stronger than those of their child to choose what they want to do.Also, parents generally want to be free from worry outsiders will come along and bother their children. With no laws around, outsiders (predators or not) will have more access than most parents (and indeed perhaps many children) would be comfortable with.To be frank, I am for instituting similar rules pertaining to more than just sex. I won't claim "truth", just reason and scientific evidence. If you replace those into the above sentence, then I am not just playing it, I am living it. Only you have mentioned NAMBLA. From a doc I saw on some of their members I'd say some of them have some serious issues. Your original question was about members of different cultures. Are you claiming they are all NAMBLA members or something?If you want to extend this to "pedophiles" in general, including different cultures which hold lower age restrictions than we do, then I guess I do think they (assuming we are discussing non violent types) are unfairly maligned. Most people in the west (and the US in particular) seem to hold very unrealistic concepts about this topic, or such people... and that includes children's sexuality.You have yet to present any evidence in support of your position, except bigotry. Now I'm not asking you to like such people, but there is simply no evidence that children are inherently harmed by sex. Culture and historical... hell let's add psychological... analysis bears that point out. Thus fear of such people is unfounded in large measure.That's just like what happened with homosexuals. The same tactics you are using is what was used against them. Actually I guess I can say "us", since I am bi and had to live through the same kind of crap arguments you are using now.A little bit of realism goes a long way to solving problems. Surreal passionate diatribes against minorities cause more problems than they solve. Only people unclear on current science would use age based "consent" as a major factor in constructing sexual laws. Perhaps you can present evidence for what your definition of "consent" is and how that is linked to harm (in anyone, much less children).

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

That is an extremely interesting point I'm going to have to take some time to think over.Then again, if we allowed the marriages they couldn't claim all those single mothers.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Let's unpack this...You said I need to explain the difference between laws I would approve and those I would not, then as I do so I have to pay attention to my definition of consent particularly as it related to 7 or 8 yos.Remember that was your full statement, and here it is again... That makes a presupposition about my position, and it also delivers a connotation that definitions of consent, as related to age, are important. If they are not why would I have to pay particularly close attention to either?Now I will repeat my answer...Only people unclear on current science would use age based "consent" as a major factor in constructing sexual laws.Further, within my post I did suggest differences between laws of which I would approve and those I would not. Now perhaps you could have more questions based on where I started, but to say you saw nothing is to criticize yourself not me.Perhaps you should read it again, and ask specific questions related to the types of laws (or basis for laws) I had set out. As a note, I have until sometime around midnight tonight. I'm not sure if I will have any time tomorrow to respond. And after Monday it begins to get worse. By the end of the week I will certainly be gone as I thought I would have been at this time. Yes, actually I will pass the buck (back to you). Set out your proposed laws and give some sort of evidence based rationale for your position. I posed similar questions to you earlier, and you have yet to answer.AbE: Looks like time is almost up.I just realized that this whole sexual law issue is also OT. It was a nice maneuver to get us discussing me... like I have to prove I'm not a member of NAMBLA, or that my position would help them... rather than discussing the topic, and your lack of answers (besides bigoted non sequiturs).If you have a problem with my position, you take it up with Ruth Ginsburg. You can also take it up with scientists who study human sexuality and problems stemming from sexual abuse. But if you want to carry this further with me, wait till I come back and start a new thread.As far as this thread goes, I have answered how the context is different than faith healing and so why Jeffs and many others at the FLDS deserve prosecution... for raping minors... a position directly conflicted with your insinuation about my allegiances.If I don't get back within this week, goodbye and I hope you can improve your ability to argue a position before I return.Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Not a pumpkin yet, so you get a reply in the nick of time... Not quite. I admit I did not set out a full definition. Mainly because it would be somewhat lengthy to explain. So I set out a general basis. Your quote did not even capture all of it. It was that nice big section under your question. While that most certainly can be a rationale, it isn't mine regarding such laws. I agree it is not a law.My rationale for laws regarding sexuality, which is the same for any law, is the preservation of rights for all citizens. This includes protecting people from harm, as well as ensuring their right to the pursuit of happiness. Families, not states, are the source for morality. Thus laws would center on providing families (and children) powers to fight predators, rather than the state mandating arbitrary criteria beyond the interests of the family and which make no sense beyond a single, temporary culture.From this it gets more detailed. Since this is all I need to show your accusation is incorrect, that's what I'm giving. Oh that is true. I have been in two threads at EvC devoted to the topic, as well as a couple which veered in to it. I don't have the time to repeat all of it again here. I was making a statement based on all the data I have gone through in the past, which showed why your request made no impact on my position.I am not unclear on current science, thus I would not use such criteria to formulate sex laws. Yes and yes, but they would not be the major basis for laws restricting sex or marriage with minors. Obviously if something were against consent (simple) then that would be illegal, but there is more than that which can make it so.Simple consent defines standard rape. The other conditions go toward statutory rape... which is what we'd generally be discussing in the cases you asked about. Remember you started it with the whole "if a 13 yo agreed to marry a 54 yo?"So I don't need to define consent, particularly with consideration toward specified ages, as I'm not trying to make that the basis for sex laws... However, given your stereotypical responses, you do for your position. Clue: that's why it's lame, you can't move beyond your cultural box. Of course you can prove my assessment wrong by detailing (or just give me the basis) for your laws, which indicate how consent related to age is not an issue.What I find amusing is that this demand of yours undercuts the claim in your previous post. Try my first post to you... #95. I checked and its still sitting there.Like I said in my last post. This sex law issue is a giant red herring for the topic. If you want to continue it, wait until I get back and open a whole new thread. I hope you learn how to construct a valid argument, as well as understand your citations, before I get back.Ciao.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello again,The quote was unnecessary as I agree that she was manipulated and raped. There are others besides herself, including a nephew of Jeffs.I have said and it dazzles me that I must continue to say this... I agree that an investigation was warranted and rape has been committed.Jeffs and some others used the fear of hell to silence victims. That to me is just the same as using a gun, given that these people were devout and would treat the threat the same way.The only thing that quote did for me is wonder why if she was willing to have an affair... which would certainly send her to hell as well... she didn't just leave the compound and get a divorce? But that doesn't change the facts. This is where we are in disagreement. You simply cannot punish a whole group of people, for the actions of some.This is what is supposed to separate our nation from other nations. It also separates free thinkers from bigots. They are all individuals and not a "them" who are all guilty because they look and act funny to us.You never answered my question about how you would feel if an anonymous caller accused your community of engaging in criminal acts, and so they come to take away your children.The police were right to begin an investigation, and remove children as needed... not en masse. But they DO think it's wrong. Your own quotation points that out. However they are coerced to keep quiet.Where they don't think something is wrong, then there is usually no problem When they do they must have the protection to break free. Where some jerk is running an intimidation racket, proactive investigations beyond the initial case is warranted.That said, you do NOT, have the right to take away all their children regardless of whether anything was committed, especially when these were not the kids at risk anyway and foster care is likely to cause more problems.You don't seem to care what pain these people go through (including the kids) as long as it is not the potential pain you know some have gone through. I think that is short-sighted as well as illegal.In any case, we can leave it at this if you want. Our positions differ largely in the details of how something should be carried out, rather than that there is a problem which needs to be dealt with.This is my last day for quite a while I expect (got sudden good news which means I'm back to work). If you're not around when I get back, it was nice chatting with you. I like your writing style.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello Taz, your description of my technique is not correct. It is similar, but the differences are crucial.I can sort of see where you would get that image, given that you'll see consistent applications of principles across different topics. I do recognize that different situations require different approaches. I suspect that we may differ on what constitutes a different situation. You appear to believe that you can tell what is right and what is wrong and that makes a difference.But in your favor, you are right that I may try to fit as many cases under similar approaches as I can, with tweaks here and there. None of this would be acceptable in the system I use. Each involve patent admissions of coercion and abuse of another. It doesn't matter if the kid believes they will go to hell for telling. While that might explain why a kid would not tell... it is coercion plain and simple. They just use an invisible gun.I'm not sure how many times I have to state that I am not making a 1st amendment case, which argues the 1st amendment trumps everything. Even the right to familial sovereignty protects parents only so far. You have said all I would have to say against your position. Except that I would add that children should not be the key to unlock civil liberties.Children largely have no choices. I would rather see the parents making the mistakes rather than the state. This case is exhibit A that I am right on that count. A state just grabbed a whole community's children, despite their not being in the age range where they'd face any threats, despite not having a witness, despite not all being named, despite testimony from experts (of the state) that the children will suffer within foster care.I'm still shocked any freethinkers here are not siding with me on this. Collective punishment is illegal. I think the relatives that phoned in the issue would be able to tell us whether that is true or not. In any case, I'm not one for guilty until proven innocent. So worse case speculations don't mean much. neither am I for damning families for living in isolated communities with very different belief systems.Your argument largely consists of an idea that if children only had exposure to the world you grew up in, they'd think like you. While that might be true for some, it will probably not be true for all, and in any case if you grew up in their world (and not isolated within your own) I guess you'd feel like them. I will take it like Percy... a cop out. But that's ok. People have certain entrenched positions which are not open to evidence nor reason. If discussion won't budge it, might as well stop.The only thing I'd suggest is to note your own words. You can recognize that your statements are identical to fundies. That should tell you something. They could go on and make the same claims you did, including needing to protect kids. For example if children were not raised in a home with two daddies, they likely would know that was wrong. In such a home they will be facing additional dangers they wouldn't in a regular home. In fact how many kids may be upset that they did not get to grow up in a normal family like most other kids? Where are they off?All this said, we can largely agree to disagree. I think you may be missing some facts to support your case (and thus I can't agree to disagree on that), but where we differ on general principles... I can't say you are wrong, just different.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard