"Teen FLDS mother giving birth while state officials stand by"
I don't know, but this title on the YAHOO article seems strange on many levels. Of course, they're 'standing by'...what are they supposed to be doing, running for boiling water, yelling "I don't know NUTHIN' 'bout birthin' no BABIES!"? Or maybe they're supposed to ask the mother to slow the birth down while they get the legal situation sorted out? "Look, we know you're in childbirth, but could you just wait until we can figure out how to handle all these teen mothers and the media onslaught?"
Anybody want to chime in on the fact that so many children WERE found pregnant or having borne children for the leaders of this community? We frown on unwed mothers in normal society, we frown on 14 yr old mothers in normal society. Some people think we shouldn't in this case. WHY? Did the government trample rights, as many suggest? Should they practice polygamy?
Is it the government's laws we live by or do we tell 14 year old girls they must stay in a situation where they're used for breeding because their religion says they must? In this article, an attorney says she doesn't think the children were in an 'unhealthy environment', do you?
(Yes, FT, you can weigh in!! Have at it. I'm eager for yours and other opinions. And yes, FT, I KNOW I'm opening up a can of worms here, but I'm really curious what others have to say, too)
159 comments:
But I DON'T know nuthin' bout birthin' no babies!!! LOL!
#1-Polygamy is against the law
#2-In Texas, a girl cannot get married before 16, even with her parents permission
#3-These girls were trained from birth to accept the "attentions" of OLDER men, NOT young men wanting honorable marriage, but any older man that wants to add them to his "herd"
#4-The generations of dysfunctional choices and "religious" training causes the mothers to be the perpetuators of abuse
When the authorities had reasonable information that an abusive AND illegal situation was occurring, they had an obligation to investigate. When they did they had reasonable cause to remove those children.
#5-Boys between 13 and 21 who did not conform to the cult were kicked out, with no survival skills and no trust of outsiders and an ingrained hatred of blacks.
This resulted in more available young girls for the leadership and their followers.
What was done was messy and sad, BUT the Texas authorities DID NOT CAUSE THE SITUATION! Jeffers and his compatriots did, therefore the MEN should be held responsible and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And maybe castrated for their vile behavior!
The women are of diminished responsibility, but should not be reunited with the children they did not protect.
As for the single couples and single moms, they knew what was going on and DID NOTHING to stop the ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR OF THE LEADERSHIP. They bear responsibility too!
tmw
Wow. TMW said it better than I could. I think the kids should be placed in foster care and adopted out to loving homes as soon as possible. The men....yeah, castration is too kind.
The authorities didn't cause it, but I don't know why they didn't intervene sooner. If polygamy is illegal...it's ILLEGAL! Why not stop it there?
I guess I'm naive.
Good post, Z.
Hi All,
There are four hundred children involved in this terrible situation. In my opinion for them to be ripped from their homes and their parents has to be traumatic and frightening.
On the other hand, that minor girls were innocent victims of mature men is unconscionable.
And that parents of these girls condoned this, which smacks of a lack of love and concern for the welfare of these girls, is beyond my comprehension.
There is no happy solution for these children that I can see. Foster care has a terrible track record, and placing four hundred within a reasonable time frame seems an impossible task.
The mothers seem genuinely distrought. Perhaps all mothers who would agree to leave the cult and submit to therapy, to take care of their own children could get their kids back.
For others, perhaps other relatives, grandparents etc., could take some of the children as well.
The fact is, regardless of the rationale used by these people to use minor girls as breeding cows, the men involved have committed rape, which is a felony, and punishable with a hefty prison term.
People who wish to live in a lifestyle outside the norm have that right, but they cannot live outside the law.
Children are at the mercy of those responsible for them. If they meet great harm which is purposeful, they must be protected. They have no way of protecting themselves.
I only hope that this will be adjudicated on a case by case basis, and in the meantime that the children can be cared for by someone who cares for them.
I do wonder. If these people were Islamists would the result have been the same? I hope so.
Pris
Well, so far I'm with you guys....let's hear from the ones who disagree. hellloooo?? (they're coming, I'm sure of it!)
thanks, everybody!
Zin;
would you please participate on the current debate on the head article of FPM, it's about , WAR ON IRAN.
Thanks
SAM
I don't disagree with anything said so far but I fear that anyone (the person who called has made hoax calls before) who makes a phone call can cause the government to become too intrusive
to some extent this happens to homeschool parents already
the authorities in Texas needed to take action in this instance
I'm glad to know finally that they do have genuine evidence -- the revelation of the 31 teenage girls who are "married" -- because for a while it seemed to rest completely on this vague report of phone calls by a girl who can't be located. However, the way the thing was done is still very puzzling to me. They have evidence now but did they really have enough to justify the initial action? It seems highly illegal, but I haven't been following it much in the last few days so maybe I've missed something.
I did finally grasp that they can't arrest them for polygamy because they've cleverly arranged it so that a man only legally marries one woman, but "spiritually" marries the others. THAT makes them unmarried in the eyes of the law (and I understand that many of them go on welfare as single mothers).
This does make them open to rape and child molestation charges though. I hope they soon start rounding up the men involved.
I would also hope that many genuine Christian families in Texas might become foster parents for these children, to show them the difference between the cult and the true gospel of Christ.
Elmer's Bro said it more neatly. If the action was illegal and we justify it, we are justifying the very government intrusiveness the American founders tried so hard to protect us from.
And Elmer's Bro is right that homeschoolers are already suffering government intrusion. This is reason for us to care how they went about it in the FLDS case.
It IS clear that there is and was enough illegality in the cult to justify action to protect the children, but that much has been known informally from ex-members for a long time without legal action. So I still have my main complaint -- or question -- about whether they really had probable cause or not at the time of the raid. If they didn't, and if we really want charges to stick for rape and molestation, it would be too bad if they couldn't prosecute because they acted illegally in the first place.
Suffice it to say I think the violation of that group's constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties is by FAR the greater wrong than finding pregnant 14-year-olds after staging a Gestapo-like raid on the mere say-so of a deranged black woman in COLORADO who had never seen, known or visited ANY of these Texas people.
The Texas Polygamist Cult was denied DUE PROCESS. Their prosecution and all that has occurred since thee raid is ILLEGITIMATE, ILLEGAL and should never be able to stand up in ANY court worthy of the name. The whole thing violates the guarantee against "unreasonable search and seizure" by MILES.
It is a Legal Abomination ..,.... and a CATASTROPHE for ALL American citizens if the Texas Gestapo is allowed to get away with this.
Every BIT of "evidence" these brutal witch hunters have found is hopelessly TAINTED and should be thrown out of court.
My opinion is that "modern" thinking (based on cultural Marxism and Freudian derivatives) has maliciously CRIMINALIZED what was once considered perfectly normal behavior. Girls were ROUTINELY married off at 14 and even younger for COUNTLESS centuries.
The whole concept of "statutory rape" is absurd anyway. For the record I've had several girls ...... one of them only TEN ...... brazenly offer to have sex with me in various situations throughout my career.
These "children" knew PERFECTLY WELL what they were doing. One of them ...... a child of 12 or 13 ...... was furious when I refused. She spat at me and called me a "God-damned queer." I won't tell you what she offered to do for me, but I'm sure it would curl your hair if I let you know.
I'm certainly not ADVOCATING any of this, but frankly, my dear friends, I think you are amazingly naive about how real people really behave in this all-too real world.
Polygamy has been practiced for countless centuries in many cultures and still is. It is arrogant and patently ridiculous to imagine that WE have the right to apply OUR present-day standards to the past and to everyone now living in the whole wide world. We have DE FACTO polygamy anyway of a far less moral kind than the Polygamist Mormons among those who maintain "open" marriages and indulge in "swinging" and "group marriages."
Also, there are many women who deliberately CHOOSE to have children out of wedlock either by natural or artificial means simply because they want to become mothers, but not wives.
What are we to do with these people --- round them up, separate them from their children and each other then send them to "re-education" centers to learn YOUR far more enlightened ways?
I've already SAID this several times, but will repeat for emphasis: In primitive societies, and even in Mediaeval and Renaissance Europe girls were considered marriageable as soon as they began menstruation. THIS was standard until the twentieth century.
Sallie Hemings was 14 or 15 when she and Thomas Jefferson began their relationship. She bore him several children. This sort of thing was an accepted practice in the South at the time and not all that unusual. I think it's absurd to feel we have to "change our minds" and look at Jefferson in the light of present day standards as a child molesting monster and a no-good, all around, lousy, dirty, despicable son-of-a-bitch.
I'm a man and most of you are women. Perhaps there's a divide between the sexes that cannot be bridged on matters involving sex?
The situation described in Austria IS a terrible thing ...... truly a horror ....... but I think you are wrong to equate this IMPRISONMENT and FORCED INCEST and the birth of seven children in captivity over a twenty-four-year period with the things that have happened at the Texas compound.
For your information: I taught a girl named Rachel Rubinstein during my years at the Institute for the Blind. Rachel was TWENTY when I was first introduced to her. Her father was a Rabbi in New York City. He felt "cursed by God" because his daughter had been born blind, and was bitterly ashamed before the Jewish congregation he headed, and so he HID his daughter for NINETEEN YEARS. Kept her locked in a tiny windowless attic room, and never permitted her to see or be seen by anyone outside his household where HIS WORD was LAW.
This girl might have been beautiful, but she looked more like something dragged out of Auschwitz or Treblinka at the end of WWII than anything resembling a normal, healthy American girl at the time I met her. She was horribly emaciated, her skin wrinkled and leathery and of a ghastly ochre hue. She was autistic, couldn't talk, and was obviously frightened to death when anyone approached her. She stood frozen in place refusing to move for hours at a time, and screamed at the top of her lungs ...... an eerie, primitive, animal sound when anyone touched her however gently. If you want to know about HORROR this was horror.
None of us on the faculty could do anything with Rachel, and eventually she had to be institutionalized. Her life had been STOLEN and then DESTROYED by her father and the family who stupidly went along with him. It would have been kinder if he had simply killed her outright.
She was not "sexually abused." What was done to Rachel Rubinstein was far far worse than that.
I hope and pray that there is an especially cruel and hideous corner of Hell ...... something akin to being eternally lowered into a chipper-shredder machine over and over and over without hope for the blessed release of death for her obscene bastard of a father.
We need to get our PRIORITIES straight in this country and stop "straining out gnats wile swallowing camels." And please DO take the time to read about The McMartin Case. It's much better if guilty men go free than innocent people be made to endure vicious persecution of that nature.
Very sincerely,
~ FreeThinke
Let's all breathe a sigh of relief that we don't have a Presidential candidate with ties to a cult that practiced / practices polygamy.
Quick response to FT:
The McMartin case was completely trumped up, there was no abuse at all, so that is really not a valid comparison, FT. In the FLDS cult we know there is abuse of all sorts from the testimony of ex-members.
It doesn't matter how they used to do things, FT, the law now defines the age for marriage and the legal status of sex with minors. It sounds like you disagree with the law, but that's a different subject from whether the raid on the FLDS had legal grounds. I hate to think the government can just rush in like that on essentially NO probable cause.
Hi FT,
While I don't get in an uproar about polygamy if it involves adults and their consent, I would oppose it being legal because I support marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Somehow I think making harems legal in America would be another assault on a civilized society.
That being said, I wouldn't think an armed raid would be justified.
However, I do take issue with you about the minor children.
You may have had seemingly worldly children approach you with suggestive behavior but at so young an age, a child doesn't really have the maturity to fully understand the consequences of such actions.
That's why it's so important that there be adults around that child to take the protective measures necessary to prevent predatory males from taking advantage of a misguided, ill informed child.
I do agree that if it is found out the only evidence the authorities had was a hoax committed by an unidentified caller, it's possible the case could be thrown out of court.
I hope that former members of the group can supply the necessary evidence.
We cannot in any way open the door to legitimizing pedophiles and their predatory impulses. We cannot!
Pris
PS. Spelling correction on my previous post: I meant to say "distraught". Yikes!
This case continues to perplex. I hear from local newscasts and newspaper that all the children involved are in state care. They are in group homes, with siblings trying to stay placed together, though there may be divisions along lines of boy/girl. This is a huge amount of children into the system, a system ill-prepared. In the Sunday Houston paper, the group home not far from the city was shown on the front page as receiving large amounts of donations of supplies - food (although the diet of the children has been strictly managed, only organic and no beef) and beds, bed linens, etc.
Originally we were told a 'mole' was in the compound for 4 years. 4 years? Why so long without action? ANd the hoaxer is a black woman in Colorado (where these folks came from) with a history of such behavior.
The law in the State of Texas is 16 for legal marriage, with parental consent. Otherwise it's 18. 31 out of 56 of the teenage girls were found to have been pregnant or are currently pregnant.
Which also brings the question - do all underage girls now risk having their children taken from them? Lots of teen births in this country.
I am not a lawyer and I am confused to the legality of the whole thing.
i believe many mothers were complicit in this horrendous state of affairs. as tmw alluded, they turned a blind eye and more than likely because they were a product of the same environment.
the generation they're dealing with probably doesn't know any different - this is the sad part.
when i worked for a state correctional department, we had a man in his late seventies come out to parole, an hispanic man who'd molested, raped, or otherwise engaged in sex with practically EVERY minor female relative in his midst over a thirty year period. needless to say, his counsel stated that it was "normal" within his custom.
unfortunately for him, over 50 female members (from what i remembered) in his family and the state didn't agree.
there was an exercise of authority over naivete realized in this particular case with the flds - the men in the cult knew EXACTLY what they were doing. it is a cold and calculated attempt at keeping females suppressed.
when they get all the dna, the men involved need to go down for life and i hope within the genpop where they won't fare too well.
the mothers are another story. from what i've seen, read and heard - they have been equally brainwashed and are probably useless as witnesses for the state.
There is no easy answer.
I do not believe in interfering with people's religion, but this type of thing, if it went on, is no different than what we complain the hard core Islamists do, with harems, and forced marriages, etc.
If the children are under age and pregnant by these men..adult men, then , they should be charged with rape or what ever.
However, there are so many conflicting stories as to how this whole raid came to occur.
I am still waiting to hear how this whole thing went down.
But this whole sorry business with cults who take children and use them , should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, in my opinion.
Using religion to practice sexual deviancy is wrong, and impregnating children because of this life style, is wrong.
It either is or it is not.
The rest of us follow the law, these people should too.
And that is horrible about the case FT spoke about, horrible, as is the thing in Austria we are all reading about.
My word what is wrong with people to even think this stuff up.
WVDottr
Hi again, FT,
Just had to respond to another part of your post that really befuddles me. I really don't get this:
"My opinion is that "modern" thinking (based on cultural Marxism and Freudian derivatives) has maliciously CRIMINALIZED what was once considered perfectly normal behavior. Girls were ROUTINELY married off at 14 and even younger for COUNTLESS centuries."
Cultural Marxism as I have understood it, is characterized by the philiosophy of "liberating" sex from all kinds of traditional and moral restraints, the opposite of what you are saying here.
In fact it sounds like you should be entirely in favor of their efforts. That movement did a lot toward "Sexual Freedom" and "Gay Rights" and the like. I doubt they would find anything wrong with polygamy, except the very idea of marriage itself probably, and their way of thinking has given us "liberated" porn and no doubt contributed a lot to the Man-Boy Sex thing. And etc. etc.
What they were interested in criminalizing was anything traditional, American or Christian, while "liberating" everything normally criminalized.
In that service they have come dangerously close to criminalizing homeschooling, parental instruction of children in Christian principles, discipline of children on Biblical standards and so on. So when the authorities came after the FLDS on so little justification, what immediately came to my mind was that this is just another step toward criminalizing true Christians. I still think the way they are dealing with this carries the threat of mixing up the cultic and illegal practices of the FLDS with Christian practices enough to put Christians in danger. All they have to do is call homeschooling or spanking child abuse (some already do call it that), and call teaching that homosexuality is a sin hate speech and they can raid Christian families too.
But I personally agree with the laws against polygamy and marital age and molestation and age of consent and so on.
FT: What about the fact that we have LAWS? Are you suggesting we lower the age of consent, or?? it almost sounds like it.
WVDottr: That was a point I'd thought of, too. We all slam islam for what you described and it's not fair if we allow this here.
Beamish: you kill me.
Nanc is correct.
This whole cult is a girl farm, where pedophiles are breeding children for their own use, and training those victims to turn a blind eye in the future when they breed the next generation of victims.
The whole thing is sick, and sounds like the cult of Islam, where prophet-sanctioned pedophilia and polygamy is the norm.
And, FT, I would think a 10-13 year-old-girl offering explicit sex to you is indicative of a mental illness likely brought on by abuse, not that they are "worldly."
My understanding is that IN LEGAL terms, polygamy is when you try to 'license' more than two spouses with the government, even though the technical definition is simply having more 'mates' than just your spouse...the former I agree IS the state's business and right. They CAN set the standard on how many licenses of marriage you can legally hold. The latter??? How the HECK is that anybody's business whatsoever but the people involved?
They ONLY say that 31 girls from the ages of 14-17 have had children...so, like they could say that if there was...ONE fourteen year old and the rest were 16-17 yrs old. Correct? Yeah. Not to mention, I still state that the whole 'we don't accept 14 yrs of age as 'normal' in our society' as a VERY RECENT social standard. As I stated before, my grandmother had her first at 15 and was LEGALLY married when she did. Loretta Lynn, Jerry Lee Lewis' wife and cousin...and, when you consider these are JUST the famous people, you KNOW that it was MORE the NORM than people WANT to recall. And why? Because we NOW have insinuated ourselves into what used to be 'respected' as familial and PRIVATE decisions, substituting OUR great WEALTH of knowledge of the capabilities of individuals to comprehend a particular action for the ACTUAL knowledge of the INDIVIDUALS involved, like the parents or the participants. It's the epitome of arrogance being used to strip us of liberties..."We, the state, are better able to protect the welfare of these children than are their parents..." ugh.
Second: Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Some thirty year old African American woman living in Colorado, making a phone call stating that she is a 16yr old girl does NOT meet the standard at all: she has to have sworn out an affidavit...uh, can't do that over the phone. Had they BOTHERED to follow the law, they would have noted her race and her age...bet me the caller ID didn't already give them the heads up that she wasn't IN Texas. AND, HER claim, if she WAS a sixteen year old would NOT have justified the search of ALL those other families...not in a heartbeat. ONLY the person SHE claimed had had sex with her while under age could possibly be covered under this RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.
The First Amendment gives us the RIGHT to practice our religion freely. And as long as the extra marriages were not an attempt to defraud the state, but were ONLY ceremonies within the church...WHAT business is that of the STATE?
Third: I am tired of having CHILDREN being USED to insinuate gov't into our lives, stripping us of our FREEDOMS. TIRED of it. Because I am against this or gov't intervention into this doesn't mean I don't care about children...but that is the assertion if one speaks out against these threats to our liberties. There were BAD people when the founders wrote the Constitution...they decided to ERR to protect us FROM gov't intervention simply because we 'seemed' odd or different, rather than giving the gov't the free hand to enter into our privacy and our rights 'in case' our odd behavior meant we were MAYBE doing something that 'society' would 'think' was 'abnormal'....this is FRIGHTENING to me. Very frightening.
I already KNOW that giving birth at 14 is NO MORE dangerous than at 40...it's always with some risk. But, if your body is ready...um, it's ready. In nature these things occur WHEN you're ready, not years before. We have turned ourselves and our liberties over to the pschoanalysts who do not have an OUNCE of scientific FACT to support their 'theories'...but we let them DICTATE away our liberties as parents, as minors, as Americans, as a society just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan and the clerics do in Iran. NO DIFFERENCE.
Fourth: Merry widow...what will your opinion be when the 'powers that be' decide that YOUR religious training has led you to be a homophobe and therefore that religion is deemed unsuitable for you to 'teach' to your children? It's coming...just be ready. And the FORCES bringing that to your chapel steps were emboldened, empowered by people who allowed it to happen because the particular instances along the way 'seemed' reasonable enough. We HAVE TO look ALWAYS to the larger picture in order to protect ourselves from the GRAVER threat.
I DON'T think that 14 is too young to bear children...if it WERE, it couldn't happen in nature, period. I DON'T think you guys are BETTER able than my husband and I to make decisions about MY daughter's sexual activities, religious beliefs, or marital preparedness, no matter how much I love and respect you. And I see this as an egregious THREAT to our future liberties that many are WILLING to tolerate because they 'happen in this case' to put potential harm to children ABOVE the LIBERTIES of THOSE VERY CHILDREN in their future.
I understand it is a touchy subject. But I will NOT EVER agree that saving, maybe one child, from something that is not even PROVED to be definitively BAD or WRONG, IMO, is of GREATER IMPORT than are the liberties hard won for us ALL. And I see this 'backdoor' tactic used with regularity to strip us of our freedoms with OUR PERMISSION and ENCOURAGEMENT. When it comes knocking on your door to strip you of something closer to home for you...the machine will have become MUCH TOO STRONG for you to ward off then.
Just my opinion...: )
Pati
Hm, I like NW's way of spelling this out. Brings FT's concerns into better focus too.
So is the point that some of our laws about these things are wrong and should be changed? We are DEFINING young teenage childbearing as abuse but why should we? They are taken care of in a secure family situation. It's a big cut above the kid who gets herself pregnant and has nowhere to go but a shelter and then has to struggle for years as a single mother. Granted there are issues of free will involved here, but who says it's wrong to "condition" the girls to expect to become mothers, so that they freely choose to do so?
There is also some input from ex-members who did suffer greatly in trying to escape from the cult that perhaps needs to be brought into this -- stories of being held against their will, beaten, and so on, as well as forced to marry and bear children against their will. But these have not been the subject of legal action, and I was wondering about that. Why haven't some of them brought charges against the cult. Why raid the place on such flimsy grounds when you have such testimony already?
I just want to emphasize this one statement by NW because it's what I've been struggling to get sorted out myself and she gets right to the heart of it:
"And I see this 'backdoor' tactic used with regularity to strip us of our freedoms with OUR PERMISSION and ENCOURAGEMENT."
Yes, from the beginning I've had this uneasy feeling that this is part of a diabolical plot to undermine our freedoms, and it plays on our acceptance of the current laws defining child abuse. Perhaps these need to be rethought.
They've found a way to practice polygamy without running afoul of our laws and without forcing us to change the law. As NW says, what business is that of ours?
When I first heard about this I heard that law enforcement officers were about to enter a Texas compound to remove women and children. The first thing that came to my mind was another Wacco. Could it be that state officials moved slow because they thought of that too? I am an LDS member, (not FLDS) and for the life of me I can not think of one good reason for having more than one wife. As far as I'm concerned these men have broken mans laws and Gods law. They should and will be delt with.
A little off subject, maybe. I've heard of efforts to get legislation passed in Missouri that would make it possible to sentence a rapist whose victim was 12 years old or younger to death. Sounds like a good idea to me.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Once upon a time the whole Mormon church was in favor of polygamy and there are plenty of statements in favor of it by LDS leaders such as Brigham Young. Such evidence is still out there to be found, though now you have to go to extreme lengths to find it, since the LDS like to bury their past when it has become embarrassing for them. So the rank and file Mormon hardly knows of this past, and if you point it out to them they will even suspect you of making it up or believing anti-Mormon propaganda.
FreeThinke says:
Nor'wood has made the point I was trying to make better than I. She "gets it," and gets it good.
CJ is a close second on this, but is conflicted because even though there were no proper legal grounds to go after these people in the first place (the ASSUMPTION of guilt, because people "look odd," or live in "suspicious-looking" circumstances does not give government agencies the right to arrest and imprison or otherwise prosecute them), the odiousness of the so-called crimes committed tempts CJ to believe or hope that, perhaps, the ends MIGHT justify the means in THIS particular case. Or so it looks to me. Forgive me, if I misread you, CJ.
Others, I believe, are laboring under the assumption that this cult is evil, sick, degrading, perverted, and worthy of destruction by any means fair or foul, simply because it offends THEIR particular view of what is normal, right and good. (Sorry, but "particular" standards–––even generally-accepted ones–––are not necessarily universal.)
I have high ideals, but I recognize the need for a pragmatic approach to these matters that takes REALITY into account.
In my staunchly Libertarian view (now THERE's an oxymoron for you!) the Law in a free society should concern itself only with these things: MURDER, RAPE, KIDNAPPING, MAYHEM, THEFT, VANDALISM, EXTORTION, and persistent HARASSMENT.
It's not a matter of belief but of FACT that people mature at different rates, that hugely varying racial, ethnic, religious, and ideological factors make it impossible–––downright silly in fact––– for laws to be made on a One-Size-Fits-All basis when it comes to the intricacies and complexities of intimate human relationships.
As I said when this topic was introduced weeks ago, if we are to be guided by the principles given us by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, LIBERTY TRUMPS MORALITY EVERY SINGLE TIME.
That means that no one and no particular religious group has the right to FORCE its VIEWS on ANYONE.
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those that agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."
Oliver W. Holmes (1841-1935)
Hi FT. NW did get it and got it good, I agree. I'll cop to being conflicted about it, but not to accepting that ends justify means. If they acted wrongly in raiding the place, they need to restore everybody to their initial situation even if there are abuses that need to be prosecuted, and find a way to do it right. NW did succeed in getting me to question whether there even ARE such abuses, however. You just kept sounding like a Cultural Marxist in spite of yourself, FT!
"LIBERTY TRUMPS MORALITY EVERY SINGLE TIME."
The two are not mutually exclusive, as our Founding Fathers well knew:
"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
I know I need to shut up, I'm writing way too much, but now I want to applaud Brooke for that last post that shows the nonsense of the idea of liberty over morality.
There never was a principle of liberty over morality in this nation until the Supreme Court (under the influence of Cultural Marxism, FT) started redefining everything to "liberate" every kind of nasty, obscene and formerly criminal thing in the name of freedom, while marginalizing and even criminalizing the moral forces of the nation as "hate speech" and the like.
We may, however, have a question about how far the "marital" situation in the FLDS cult constitutes abuse and should come under our current laws, but this is one of those areas that NW well pinpointed as inviting the curtailment of legitimate freedoms by our own misguided consent. I think this FLDS situation is maybe the trickiest that has ever occurred for navigating between freedom and justice. We can err in either direction on this one, maybe even both at once.
As FT knows, I do not believe liberty trumps morality. And, no, they do not, or SHOULD not be mutually exclusive.
I've spoken about this with Farmer John (aka JSG) and I believe John Adams (had never heard that quote, I may bumper sticker it here) was absolutely right; Our constitution only works with GOOD people. I believe capitalism only works with GOOD people, Brooke. As free market and entrepreneurial as I am, and Conservative to the bone, I don't feel we can have companies where hard working dads with 4 kids take home $35,000 and the CEO takes hom $60 million. It just isn't DECENT, it's IMMORAL.
What do you think? We need profit sharing, THAT is a good and decent management of the blessings of our land, in my humble opinion. THEN maybe we'll get "Look for the Union Label" back in our products instead of the ubiquitous MADE IN CHINA. I hope.
David, your Mormon input is particularly interesting to the conversation, thanks. I hope God opens all our eyes to His truth and this whole situation calms down and does not trample on our liberties, even though I do feel nobody has the right to force a 14 yr old to have his child.
CJ....this may, indeed, be a watershed case, and one we all need to watch closely.
While I'm definitely on the side of the children, as we all are (I hope), it's not as if I (or any of us?) doesn't see there's a liberty and freedom issue here!
cj (first post)
Are we not 'conditioning' them and all other generations to accept STATE insinuation into private matters? That's 'okay', but lord knows, we can't allow the parents to 'teach' them or 'condition' them with regards to their roles in society or religious beliefs. I guess 'that's' also the 'state's' 'job'...meaning there will BE no such thing as a Christian soon...by the way, parental control is something that we used to be just fine with as a society...on a side note: when we were 'just fine' with leaving religious and sexual discussions and allowing parents to decide when their children were 'ready' for what, we didn't have Columbine incidents; we didn't have 500, 000 abortions a year; we didn't HAVE the teen pregnancy/single parent rate that we have today with the 'wonderful' and 'above reproach' STATE making the decisions FOR the parents on these issues.
Hmmm....can a 'minor' child 'be held against their will' by their parent? That's a curious comment to say the least. Let's see in today's society we have the state dictating the parameters of the religious beliefs, the sexual education, the cultural standards these children SHOULD accept, the worldview with regards to the role of gov't in the personal lives of individuals, and the acceptable 'roles' of each member of a 'functional' family according to ALL the best minds in psychology...a virtual 'take over' of ALL things parental BUT the responsibility WHEN the child screws up and the financial responsibility that is ALL on the parents...makes perfect sense. People like me think it goes a long way in explaining the types of social problems we are seeing arise...from 'state' raised children and parents sufficiently 'intimidated' and 'confused' as to just what ROLE or RIGHTS they actually have anymore to the degree that they simply do NOT act at all...it doesn't seem to be working out.
But to your larger intimation that somehow THIS intervention is remotely productive because these girls are being 'conditioned' to believe something YOU think they should not...uh, no matter what situation they are raised in, the argument can be made that they are being 'indoctrinated'--presumably before they can exercise free will-- so it comes BACK to should it be BY the STATE or BY the parents...I will vote for the parents, hands down, EVERY time.
Are you aware of the number of foster kids who have reported instances of abuse, molestation, rape, violence? ...uh, oh...what to do when the almighty state demonstrates NO MORE ability to prevent these instances...where do you turn THEN? Are you aware of the number of runaway children from homes of ALL religious backgrounds, ALL economic backgrounds etc...I simply do NOT see your logic as an excuse to condone the gov't circumventing the LAW in order to enter that compound...and that is exactly what they did...and they DID it because these people were DIFFERENT.
What will YOUR reaction be when the police show up at your door, with no more than an unidentifiable person's suspicion that you may have committed a crime? Will you be okay with that?
It isn't GOOD enough for me that 'phew, they DID find some girls under age...that makes is all okay, then..." Uh, sorry. No it doesn't. Because the premise under which they violated these people's rights IS the matter at hand.
Again, I am tired to no end of the USE and ABUSE of 'the welfare' of children in order to insinuate or bring about 'acceptance' of gov't intervention into our homes, our families, and our freedoms. It is SO clear cut...I cannot even fathom there being an argument against what I'm saying fifty years ago...it's frightening!
Pati
Pati,
I see a big difference in a fourteen year old becoming impregnated by a fifteen-seventeen year old boy, as opposed to a forty year old man.
If a forty year old predatory pedophile worms his way into a fourteen year old girl's life and sexually takes advantage of her, according to your argument, it makes no difference.
How is he any different than the forty year old polygamist?
Pedophiles will say they love these children. They are sexually and emotionally drawn to children.
At what age is young too young? Some girls go through puberty at very young ages.
Does that mean to you that simply based on biology, the decision should be made by society that a girl is "ready" for sexual encounters?
She may be capable physically, but that does not make that child mature. And frankly, for a mature male to want that child sexually is sick. As far as I can tell it's a control thing.
Children are malleable and easily manipulated. And they are helpless in the hands of an adult.
A legal age limit has to be set in matters such as these. Society has to be able to say, through the law, what is acceptable and what is not. In most states the legal age of consent is eighteen. We have decided what is acceptable.
In schools today, six and seven year olds are introduced to adult issues such as homosexuality, and sexual matters which rob them of their innocence and their childhoods. I consider that state sponsored abuse.
We are dangerously close to considering our children as nothing more than small people who can decide issues they couldn't possibly comprehend.
No one believes in freedom more than I. I also believe in the sanctity of parental authority. I would like to believe that the example of fourteen year olds being taken advantage of by grown men, as rare.
It is indeed a slippery slope to tolerate that behavior in the name of freedom. When it comes to the welfare of children, we have already slipped too far.
Pris
cj-"Yes, from the beginning I've had this uneasy feeling that this is part of a diabolical plot to undermine our freedoms, and it plays on our acceptance of the current laws defining child abuse. Perhaps these need to be rethought."
I'll forego addressing the condescending tone, whatever. It is not a plot..it is precisely AS I stated...a WILLFUL acceptance of the stripping of 'other's' freedoms because we find them ODD AND it is 'presented' as 'necessary' to 'protect' children... But we ALL KNOW that the laws do NOT stop ONE act against children...because the ACTS occur FIRST, so MUCH for 'prevention.' The DAMAGE is to US, as a society. We are FAST becoming the Taliban...dictating the parameters of someone's marriage? dictating the doctrines it is 'acceptable' by the State to teach your child? Using the 'gov't' schools to 'indoctrinate' the children on every issue from sex to worldview? How are we DIFFERENT if we are NOT willing to stand up, against that tide to allow FEAR of oddities, FEAR of those who are different, ARROGANCE that 'we have arrived' at the PERFECT and ONLY proper 'outlook' or childrearing philosophy than any other THEOCRACY or TYRANNICAL dictatorship? Do I want to have more than one mate? Nope. Can I respect that it is neither MY nor YOUR business to dictate the parameters of a PRIVATE relationship between people? Yes. Will I fight FOR their right to be DIFFERENT than I? You bet your life. Even against my Christian friends who have a tendency to SHOVE THEIR morality onto others through the strong arm of the law OR THEIR ideals of what IS or IS NOT acceptable 'upbringing' of children...I will fight you tooth and nail on those issues. There is NO insinuation of gov't into the private lives of families that has EVER proved to SAVE a child FROM harm. There is JUST as much ABUSE reported FROM those state run 'institutions' and foster homes as there is ANYWHERE else...ALL they serve to do, in the end, is to mollify us with regards to allowing the state to insinuate itself where our founders NEVER intended the state to be...and NO good will come of it.
They've found a way to practice polygamy without running afoul of our laws and without forcing us to change the law. As NW says, what business is that of ours?
LOL...so, question cj...IF they have found a way to 'legally' do what the law 'tried' to cheat them from doing...HOW IS 'that' our business?LOL
Pati
LOL
CJ...my bad..I read you as being 'sarcastic' in your response to me, and not 'really' understanding my point...THEN, I read FT and your back and forth...and was I embarrassed. LOL
My apologies. I often 'misread' TONE on these things, and I should have 'clarified' first...
Pati
If you can't agree with me, just read Nor'wood's comprehensive, wise and insightful post, and please take it to heart.
Very rarely do I fully agree with ANYONE, but I am completely in synch with Nor'wood on this issue.
Now, CJ, my longtime friend and friendly antagonist, your response to Nor'wood's post puts my mind at rest as to your understanding of the true significance of this troubling issue.
As far as "Cultural Marxism" goes the intent was not merely to break open the dam the held The Sea of Sin at bay, and thus legitimize any and all forms of sex. Their agenda is much broader than that.
The agenda of Cultural Marxism, as I've seen it practiced since I became aware of its existence, is to CONFUSE, CONFOUND, PERPLEX and DISORIENT by constant agitation in every possible area to make people believe that up is down, white is black, night is day, and that loyalty, honesty, faithfulness, common sense, courage, patriotism, individuality, the pursuit personal gain, sex, itself, are mere "Social Constructs" designed by a centuries-old dominant White Male hierarchy to keep everyone "down" in service to the high and mighty White Male.
Protestant Christianity and Capitalism are bundled together with this notion simply because White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males had what Farmer John (quoting Nietzsche) calls The Will to Power.
Marxists have the will to power too, but everything THEY stand for is predicated on DESTRUCTION impelled by sanctifying and glorifying Envy, Spite, Malice and Mendacity.
The Marxists really DO believe "the ends justify the means."
Those of you who seem swept away by feelings of outrage at the OSTENSIBLE cause of this heinous Texas raid (i.e. "child abuse"), I have to say that you are succumbing to the notion that if the cause is "righteous" and "just" ENOUGH, then it's really all right to use illegal, cruel, grossly unfair, unconstitutional forms of "COLLECTIVE PERSECUTION and PUNISHMENT" of an entire group simply because you don't like they way they choose to live their PRIVATE lives on PRIVATE property.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is simply WRONG. And it is certainly UN-AMERICAN as well.
Laws are broken ALL THE TIME. Many of the laws are ASININE and should never have been passed in the first place, but that's another issue.
A superficial examination of the after-effects of the Volstead Act (Prohibition) is proof enough of that. Foolish laws beget even more foolish behavior and can lead to ORGANIZED CRIME.
IF we found some perfect way, God forbid, to MONITOR and closely SUPERVISE every move of every citizen all day every day 'round the clock, we would certainly discover all SORTS of infractions of stupid statutes and valid ones too. Then EVERYONE who did the SLIGHTEST thing the authorities deemed "wrong" could be taken into custody, removed from society and never heard from again.
This is EXACTLY the kind of nightmare society Orwell described so chillingly in 1984.
Your apparent dream, O Righteous Ones, of the perfectly controlled, perfectly "righteous" society where all "wrongdoing" (by YOUR definition, of course) is rendered physically impossible is properly called a POLICE STATE.
You wouldn't like it if you had it, because someone who thinks differently from YOU might some day be in charge, and THEN where would YOU be?
Power is INVARIABLY a corrupting influence. Too much power held too long can turn even a righteous man into a demonic despot
God bless freedom! God bless individuality! God bless honesty and the courage to disagree when the pressure to conform becomes oppressive.
In truth “Power” belongs to God alone, and in the final analysis it is up to Him to judge and take vengeance on the wicked as He chooses.
“Beware of him in whom the urge to punish is strong.”
~ FreeThinke
Pris, HI by the way...: )
You presume that I agree with what we qualify today as a 'pedophile'..sorry, Pris...I don't. I just don't.
As I stated before, two generations ago...two Pris, it was COMMONPLACE for girls of the ages of 13, 14, 15 to be married, and often times to men OLDER than they...and sometimes 'related'...I don't think our changing of our laws on the issue suddenly 'makes' NORMAL behavior sick or abnormal with regards to nature...only with regards to our penal code.
I think that we have ENOUGH REAL criminals to go after. Violent people, murderers, 'rapists', muggers, etc...these are the people that we should have in prisons...NOT people whose proclivities don't match up with the particular times we live in.
Pris, those same 14 yr old girls, if they murdered someone, would have the same people who on this issue call them 'in capable' of comprehending the ramifications of their 'adult sexual' behavior, calling for them to be 'tried' as 'adults' based on what? On the 'adult' act that they committed! It's insanity.
LET parents make these determinations. THEY and not you or I or some shrink trying to make a name for themselves and further their career have the CLOSEST relationship and arguably the BEST understanding of what they are mature enough to handle. That approach served us WELL for many, many years.
Quite frankly, Pris, with regards to thinking that a man being sexually attracted to a younger female as 'sick' is a RECENT attitude and NOT remotely accurate in terms of nature. It just isn't. I have a teenage daughter...I'm not 'advocating' it by any means...however, in NATURE, and we are animals, it is NORMAL to be physically attracted to the youngest and the fittest. That's just a fact. And we are NO different in that regard. I don't think because the current field of 'psychoanalysis' has 'decided' this week that it is somehow an 'illness' of the mind that they are correct. ANY more than their one eighty turn around on homosexuality since the outlook held in the 70s by the same field...there is NO science to back that up...it is ALL opinion...and we are destroying people's LIVES over this...I can't FATHOM it.
If they RAPE somebody, that's different. But simply showing an interest, approaching the parents, and saying hey, I would like to date your daughter with the expectation of marriage...sorry, I just don't agree that it is remotely indicative of an illness, but rooted, soundly, in nature of ALL species.
Is it within our 'rights' as a society to set 'norms'? yes...but I just think in THIS area, it is intervention by the state where it does NOT belong...but should be dealt with 'closer to home' by people who KNOW those involved and their ACTUAL maturity level etc...and putting people IN PRISON FOR their particular ideas on the matter is INSANE...THERE is NO foundation for it.
IF we were NOT ready to bear children at such a young age...physically AND emotionally Pris..we would not be able to do so. And I see NO difference based on the AGE of one of the partners as LONG as the PARENTS are involved as well in the process. Arguably, IF I am the parent and ANY male decides on HIS own, not as the parent of my minor child, but as an interested 'suitor', to circumvent MY involvement or permission with regards to the 'readiness' of my child to engage in such a relationship they have overstepped the bounds of which I am speaking...I am saying that I am MORE qualified to make an ACCURATE assessment of MY individual children than are YOU or some arbitrary 'school of thought' coming down the latest pike...
Don't worry though, Pris. I already KNOW that not everybody thinks like me on this issue. : )
My BIGGEST argument HERE is with the infringment on the rights of the compound with regards to illegal entry and search, JUST because they are 'different' or they 'might' have been breaking the law...not okay with me...NOT by a LONG LONG LONG shot. And, I dont' think it would have been with the founders either. I see many on here who seem to think 'their' idea of 'morality' would be in line with the founders when they spoke of it needing to be a moral people...I think they misinterpret...all one need do is look at who they decided to protect to see that it was NOT a particular religion, belief, morality, or code...but they protected privacy, freedom OF religious expression without clarification, and suggested ONLY that there BE morality in our society...something to think about.
Pati
z...
I know you didn't just say that you think it is wrong for a CEO to make MORE money than a regular employee simply based on the number of children they each have...please...say it ain't so. LOL
Pati
the law is the law is the law.. and when you are dealing with underage children..who gives a rats ass about rights.
Hi to you too Pati,
We'll have to agree to disagree.
We may be animals but, because we have a level of intelligence that lower species don't, we attempt to live in a civilized society.
Nature doesn't care about emotional readiness. Nature provides for procreation. Period.
There are females who are capable of getting pregnant at the age of ten. That's nature too, but I don't think you'd recommend a ten year old should be sexual, or bear children.
Did I understand you to imply that pedophiles shouldn't be jailed?
About religious practices. Islamists believe it's alright to rape a woman if she's not "covered" from head to toe. They also believe the value of a woman is half that of a man.
Women have no rights according to their religion.
Shouldn't those women who live here come under the umbrella of our laws, or should we "respect" their freedom of religion?
The fact is, anything can be called a religion, to excuse and justify any kind of behavior.
There have to be limits. Children are the most at risk group in America, in my opinion. If adults won't set limits, how can children be expected to? They rely on us to protect them.
I'm not worried that we disagree Pati, in fact I feel very strongly that our society today is letting our children down. They deserve to be children and should not be burdened with adult issues.
They need a time for innocence, and time to grow. They deserve to come into adulthood prepared to make their informed choices, and not to be fodder for others to toy with as if their young lives exist for others' pleasure.
Pris
NW...nothing to do with how many kids! The CEO can have 12 kids, the poor employee can have 1, and I'll still feel profit sharing is a better setup for the employee...he'll work harder, America and the employee and his boss win. There's no downside.
INCOGNITO: I am POSITIVE I left a message at your blog asking how the weekend went and I can't find it..was looking to see if you'd made mention? I hope it was a success.
I'm with you on your sentiments in this post.
You did, m'dear and I thanked you in response. :-)
But so you don't have to go searching... it went fine, thanks.. Had a full house on opening and almost packed on Sunday. Working with this particular director is a major challenge, and the commute is a bitch, but grateful for the work weeks to keep up my insurance. 4 more weeks.
WOW! I've missed a lot. Let me say that I don't think we know what the women allowed or did not allow or what they condone or what they engaged in. The fact that these children were ripped from their mothers and that their mothers were not informed what was going on or served any sort of papers is criminal. If this situation happened at my home those involved would certainly find themselves on the business end of whatever force I deemed necessary. Regardless of the charges that will inevitably be handed down it will never change the fact that this situation was handled with gross negligence and with an attitude that said "we have the right to take your children no matter what you you specifically have or have not done." These people have been treated in a blanket way as "THOSE PEOPLE do these things" without any specific knowledge of individual situations. What is going to happen when the same logic is applied to conservative Christians who wish to raise their children with values that are not values of the state? Just because it is happening to someone else now does not mean the same set of blanket ideas will not one day apply to any other group of people. I'm not at all advocating the lifestyle found in this situation I am simply making the point that to take a whole group of people and treat them as one situation is gross negligence of justice and a dangerous overstepping of power.
Hi again Pris,
You misunderstood what I said. What I said was that I don't buy into the 'redefined' definition of 'pedophile' which seems to be subjective rather than objective indicating on its FACE that there is NO scientific data to support it, but sheer theory and the current ascribing to the latest psycological 'best guess.' And NO I dont think that ALL those who are 'deemed' to be pedophiles ARE in fact pedophiles and therefore do NOT think they belong in prison...pretty soon we'll be calling anyone who wants heterosexual relations with a person not their precise age and background some kind of freak who threatens our 'way of life' the way things are going. I cannot believe that you cannot even acknowledge that what was practiced two generations ago with legality, cannot POSSIBLY NOW be deemed an 'incurable' illness that threatens our society. Perhaps that 'incurable' aspect has to do with the NORMALCY of it all?
We agree then that there should be limits and the children ought to be protected...we are just arguing over the WHO it is that should BE doing the 'protecting' of those children. You seem to think that 'society' at large and the State are better qualified. I happen to not buy into the 'the biggest threat to children is their parents' mentality, and therefore feel that the parents TRUMP the state and YOU Pris, sorry. You don't KNOW my children, never have and never will. They are not arbitrary numbers or statistics. They are individuals whom I cared enough about ALL of these years to not only nurture them during my pregnancy, but during their infancy. I clothed them, fed them, held them when they were sick, read to them, played with them, disciplined them, educated them in right and wrong and obedience...suddenly, once they hit puberty You and the STate are 'better' in touch with who they are than I am? You and the state are better qualified to KNOW what is good for them? Suddenly, they hit puberty and I am no longer going to be concerned for their welfare? WRONG. WAY WRONG. Sorry. You will NEVER be a better JUDGE of what is best for my children than will I..never. No matter how much I love and respect you as a friend, I KNOW and LOVE my children beyond ANY group think of shrinks or judges or courts or legislative body...or friend. I will NOT waver on that opinion. So I guess we will have to disagree.
I also do NOT buy into this "well, some parents DON"T know, so we have to step in." Someone else's shortcomings in any area, including criminal or child rearing areas, does NOT, repeat, does NOT give you or the STate the RIGHT to supercede MY RIGHTS as a parent. Not now, not two generations ago, not when the founders wrote our Constitution, and not during Biblical times. No body's potential to possibly do harm...or, to do what some would VIEW to be harm whether it is PROVED so or not, is NO justification for stripping me or others of their rights. The founders KNEW that human beings ALL have the potential to do bad. They chose to protect ALL our freedoms and to ONLY go after those whom OTHERS have accused of a crime and sworn out an OATH to that effect. They did this to protect ALL of us and our right to have DIVERSE religious and intellectual beliefs or rationals without becoming the victims of those who FEAR those different from themselves.
No religion has the right to Break our laws. True. Murder is murder and if you claim your religion mandates you sacrifice children, you are SOL as they say with regards to your religion. But you are DECIDING that age 14 is too young to have children, when in actuality, just two generations ago it was a perfectly acceptable and common practice..so, at best it's just a 'new theory' at worst it is the 'creation' of an entirely bogus classification of 'criminal' behavior out of whole cloth to make people FEEL like their better for looking out for children...that's my opinion on that issue. Not to mention that fact that outside of the ONE phone call made that purportedly 'accused' someone of committing a crime at the facility, NO ONE at the compound BUT the one 'accused' should EVEN have been open to 'search or seizure' of anything. But since the accuser did not SIGN an affidavit and was NEVER in the compound the entire fiasco is ILLEGAL search and seizure I don't care HOW many crimes they 'found' after illegally gaining entry.
And, I reiterate..there is a reason we are hearing 31 kids ranging frm 14 -17...if there were more than ONE child who was under the legal age of sixteen with parental consent...bet me that NUMBER, the precise number, would not be listed in every headline...so, perhaps ONE child was age 14...AND..as I stated, I don't agree that the age should be determined BY the state...come to think of it...unless they can PROVE the father was an adult, we MIGHT not EVEN be discussing a CRIME...by the standards of the state.
We have lots of people today who want to 'feel' like they are doing so 'much' to help or to protect children...I notice that not ONE of your arguments addressed the fact that NO laws, NO agencies can prevent the abuse...so WHO have they protected? NO ONE. A crime MUST take place before any of these 'penalties' take place. You also did not address the fact that every state CPS agency has its OWN horror stories of lost or abused or kidnapped or missing or raped or beaten children...
It is WONDERFUL to want to protect children...but it is blind and foolish to believe that these types of laws or unConstitutional agencies or this intrusion and destruction into the family unit help anything at all ...they do not. NOT ONE instance of abuse have they PREVENTED, they cause as much, in some cases MORE, damage as they 'seek' to prevent...what IS ultimately DAMAGED is our liberty. And not ONLY ours...but those children and their children's to boot.
Sorry, Pris, I don't think that there is ANYTHING remotely valuable or moral or even GOOD associated with this incident in Texas from the outset up to and including whatever the ultimate outcome will be. So much damage has already been done. And the fact that there is even ARGUMENT on these very basic tenants of our fundamental rights in this country is the MOST FRIGHTENING and GLARING EVIDENCE of just HOW far away from them we have already slipped....and not only without so much as a peep...but WILLFULLY. I think the founders must be rolling in their graves.
Pati
Z
Oh...I agree that employees would be happier and more productive. I actually worked years ago at a company with profit sharing...and yes, we all felt as part owners, duty bound to give one hundred percent...it was in our best interests to see the company succeed.
However, I would NEVER concede to 'mandated' policy of such, but ONLY choice.
Pati
the frank family,
I don't know you...but, you are soo after my own heart. LOL
Pati
FreeThinke says:
1) It is generous and broad-minded of Z to permit this discussion to occur at GeeeeZ, especially since she knew in advance that many opinions would be contrary to her own.
Thank you, Z. I think the conversation was maintained on a high plane with no rock throwing or personal denigration of others.
Of the many valuable points raised by Nor'wood this stood out as especially significant:
••• "What will YOUR reaction be when the police show up at your door, with no more than an unidentifiable person's suspicion that you may have committed a crime? Will you be okay with that?
••• "It isn't GOOD enough for me that 'phew, they DID find some girls under age...that makes is all okay, then..."
••• “Uh, sorry. No it doesn't. Because the premise under which they violated these people's rights IS the matter at hand." •••
There is so much more that I could say, but the hour is late, bedtime is near, and I am plumb tuckered out.
A word of avuncular advice: I think we should all LISTEN more to each other, instead of just spouting off. ALSO, I think it a wise policy ALWAYS to give one another the benefit of any doubt
And always keep in mind the Words of Our Lord as He hung in agony on the cross saying "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."
I would love for an unbiased, non-agenda-driven person with no particular axe to grind to find a way to study a polygamous community like this at close range–––perhaps go so far as to become one of them–––and then report not what average outsiders want or expect to hear, but instead give a true accounting of how these strange societal mores affect the happiness and the development of the women involved. An honest probing evaluation of the character and motivation of the men involved is certainly in order too.
Just pray that the Hollywood crowd of mendacious manipulative moral midget Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppolla and Stephen Spielberg never gets their slimy paws anywhere near the research. Guesses, hunches, assumptions and the burning desire to correct and punish wrongdoing with the zeal of a latter-day Savonarola does not constitute probable cause to raid a premises like FLDS ranch.
"Choice" is my WHOLE point, NW. My point is capitalism doesn't work without NICENESS..THOUGHTFULNESS. We can't HAVE the kind of pyramic situation we have now. It's not decent. People in the 'old days' mostly knew that their people were working for them, that they deserved some parity....today, the corporation's become some kind of monolithic thing which puts profit first above all else, which is GOOD, they must work for the investors, too, but I think that the companies do better if the wealth is shared compenserate to the work: THAT should be a component to capitalism, in my humble opinion. I'm grossly synopsizing for the sake of space, but those are my feelings.
Better conservatives than I? I know you're here; have away at me. I know some of you will disagree.
It must not be MANDATED to profit share OR at least have excellent salaries, but it should be part of one's thinking process..goodness, niceness, thoughtfulness....
OY, I sound like a hippie. But, that's my feeling! So sue me!!
PATI! You simply can't have a group of people who hide behind a religion standing directly against everything the people of their country have established, can you!?
Are you for illegals tramping through AZ on their own way into this country, laws be damned?
We have laws. We protect the young, we have marriage laws.
Illegality is ILLEGAL! WHat am I missing?
"Oh, well....we know we're doing disgusting things in here, but our religion tells us that's fine, and if we hide behind the walls of these fine white glowing walls of Mormonhood, we're exempt and bite me!?" Come on, my dear buddy, 'splain!! ???
INCOG: GREAT to hear it went well!
I'm a jazz singer and have done quite a few shows in and around LA....Opening day comes, and I'm thinking 'WHY did I DO this? I'm scared to death, I'm going to forget every lyric and every move, and OH, why can't I just stay home tonight eating grapes and watching FOX?..OH, no....you had to make the other singers dependent on you....OH, BROTHER HELP!"
Then, that night after the show I'm "OH, is this the BEST!! Didn't we do WELL!?? I'm SO HAPPY HAPPY!" LIke some NUT, right?
Well, maybe it's because I didn't do enough to where I got jaded!!??
But OPening night is such a torture, and so blissful at the same time. I used to smoke, and I swear one night I was so high from the show afterwards that I wanted to put a cigarette between every finger of my right hand and drink as many martinis all at once! I knew then why stars get addictions..that high is HEADY! LOVE LOVE LOVE it.
FT..thanks for your kind words about my opening this to discussion. Yes, you and I, and CJ, sparred in private emails pretty vehemently, and I thought this should be heard and joined by the others here at geeeZ! i'm proud of this discussion, no 'rock throwing' as you said.
Thanks, everyone, for your input..it's invaluable..what a way to learn and think of others' opinions.
I will say one thing, though.
FT IS SO WRONG. OH, is he wrong! (Smile!) LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Z... yeah, it can be pretty heady, but it all depends on the project. Sometimes it can be torture. and that whole remembering lines issue can be pretty traumatizing...factor in opening night jitters... and eek.. excess cortisol eats away inside you.
Love Jazz... next time i'm in L.A. will check to see if you are doing a show.. would love to see it.
Okay... jumping back into the fray here...
all and good to respect other religions and their right to worship as they please... however, were does one draw the line.
just because certain Muslims adhere to Sharia Law, do we allow them to stone an adulterer to death, in this country, because it happens to be part and parcel of their religion. I think not. It is against the law to kill people. Do we allow immigrants to practice genital mutilation simply because it is part of their cultural and religious heritage?
Frankly, I cannot fathom how anyone can stand here and say they condone multiple marriages, and sex with underrage children. It's simply not civilized, and spiritually and morally incorrect.
Well, as I said, we either have laws and define children from ages-whatever to whatever.
In England, the age of consent is 16, in some states in America, it is 17.
I have no idea what the age of consent is in Texas.
But let me say something.
Just because a female human CAN reproduce at age 14 doesn't mean she is mature enough to handle true motherhood.
In that instance, she MIGHT be a good parent, she might not, she might merely be reacting as any mammal.
Have you ever seen 9 year old girls get pregnant, and sit playing with Barbie dolls with their big swollen bellies, impregnated by 20 year old something or others?
Is this good? To see a nine year old child hit her own belly , because she cannot handle what has biologicaly happened within herself.
We are not perfect people by any long shot, but some where , some place, by gosh we either try to bring some sanity and goodness to our society and say no to rutting with anything or we do not.
If we choose not to in this case, what next do we dismiss?
I too have had grandmothers who were young , way too young to be having babies, but they had them.
But marriage once upon a time was an entirely different type of institution, too.
Look at the old royalty of Europe, but this that has happened under the guise of practicing religion, in Texas is not the same animal.
Anyhow, I dare say all the women in this group are pretty well brow beaten and under control.
They will all need a lot of help for a long time to come.
WVDottr
I agree with both Incognito and WVDottr......I heard one of the women who bucked from that FLDS compound say that they even have their own speaking accent there..that she can tell if someone's from that compound from their accent! They're very insular and brow beaten...look at the hairdos and clothing.
I'm not one to condemn people for how they dress, etc., but it was so 'Stepford Wives'...not only does it appear they can't cut their hair, but they wear it in such similar style, that twenties, almost Gibson girl, look, you know?
This is a terrible thing......they have their rights, but those men have brainwashed those women and those children should not be having cihldren.
All the abuse you are sure is there may very well be there, and STILL it is a violation of their Constitutional rights to raid the place without probable cause -- and to this day I haven't seen any probable cause, nothing but rumor and speculation. This does not bode well as a precedent for future actions against "strange" people.
and, if they hadn't raided, how many more children would be impregnanted this year? What do you mean "may be there?", CJ?
That's probable cause to me. Still, I DO understand your point! I think most of us do.
Frankly, America doesn't do very, very well with "strange"....maybe that's not a good thing...maybe it is. Usually, we check "Strange" out and make sure it's not "too strange". Pregnant 14 year olds is too strange for us.
Maybe there was more information before, I think you're willing to admit that...maybe the latest call was the tip of the iceberg. I hope the truth will come out.
Look, we have all heard the news say something to the effect of an unidentified caller, calling this stuff in and the following raid.
Now, if that was really all it took to get this thing busted open, WOW, I would be wondering when my door was going to be busted down for some odd habit.
I hope that this was not the case, because if so, holy mackerel , we are in trouble.
But we have all also heard about a so called Mole being amongst this group too.
Now, I have known many young women who married at 14 and 15 , and in my own , little old opinion, many such females did not mature the way they should have .
There are some people who are always the exception, mind you.
I would submit to you, that most likely these older mommies were raised in this cult as kids, themselves and are so indoctrinated and brain washed they can't think outside the box , that others see them as a freak show or un natural.
To say the people there could tell the different accent or way of speaking, setting themselves apart, doesn't that mean these folks are paranoid and really think society is screwed up and they are the NORMAL ones?
I have been among people from very hard core churches where women did not cut their hair, they did not wear make up, wear pants , and so on.
These people in such churches seem to me, to view women in a more ownership way , not that much different than everyone viewed women a couple hundred years ago.
So , if the people in the sect who have just been busted , had been found to have murdered, someone, should we apply the law to them?
Or are we to respect their religious views first?
I am just asking, these types of instances are just waiting to happen.
This country has always had its fill of communes and odd ball groups.
And my questions are merely for discussion, I mean no offense to anyone.
WvDottr.
Do you sit by and let your neighbour abuse his wife, kids etc. because it's none of your business?
Is it not incumbent upon us to help those who can't help themselves.
Yes, those young girls, were probably raised in that unhealthy environment, but to expect a 13 - 14 year old to start birthing babies is criminal. There have been studies that have found an increase in pre-cancerous lesions in young sexually active women, because their bodies are not ready for sexual activity at such a young age.
And bottom line. Plural marriage is against the law!
Comparing the situation of young teenage pregnancies to violent physical abuse and murder is just off the wall. No wonder we're having trouble determining where to locate justice in this case.
They don't HAVE plural marriages in the legal sense, that's why they didn't raid them on charges of polygamy. They have figured out how to have multiple wives without the legal status of polygamy, by not marrying more than one woman legally.
And Z, if there were more evidence they acted on in raiding the place, aren't they bound by law to make it public by now? Since when can they arrest people without a clear and legal reason? Isn't that Gestapo tactics, KGB tactics?
Please -- how do their dress and hairstyle have anything to do with these questions?
If you want to rescue people from abuse, they have to believe they ARE abused and then you have to convince them you have something better to offer them.
If you all can compare teenage pregnancy to violent abuse and murder, how are you going to object when the state calls homeschooling and spanking and teaching your children the Bible child abuse?
Which one here can prove there was plural marriage? Who can show that all 464 children needed to be taken away from their mothers? Who can prove that these PEOPLE were given their lawful rights by the constitution?
Furthermore, jeffers followers have used welfare fraud by presenting these young girls as unwed mothers...isn't that against the law?
And I believe there have been some hints of that same fraud being used at the yfz compound.
A crime initiated by THE MALE LEADERSHIP, perpetuated by THE MALE LEADERSHIP and compounded by THE MALE LEADERSHIP.
Sorry, they are lawbreakers, maybe that compound can be seized to pay off the fraud?
Jason-All the adults knew what was going on, and even though the women were in most cases of diminished responsibility, the ones who left with their children proves that EVEN IN THAT STATE THEY KNEW THEY WERE COMMITING WRONG!
As for the phone calls, they were to a local domestic violence shelter that specialized in flds cases. They may NOT have had tracing equipment.
And all the practices considered "normal" 100 yrs. ago are subject to modern laws, do we still hang or burn witches?
Do we still pillory adulterers?
Do we stone apostates?
Do we stone or hang homosexuals?
These were all common practices around the world, AND IN FACT, they are still practiced in 22 countries around the world. All of whom are mohammadin...and they also practice;
child marriages
slavery
concubinage
stoning
hanging
are these acceptable to you? Especially if they bring it into the US and Europe?
Are we taking a step BACKWARDS into primitive barbarism?
Or are we educated and enlightened enough to understand that certain practices are NOT the best way to handle things?
Now, if the government would just raid some of these enclaves of mohammadins...they may find some outlawed practices, like slavery. Do you condone slavery?
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
And I am not naive, I KNOW that eventually this society will degenerate to the point of active persecution and execution of Christians.
That still does not speak to whether or not these people should have been treated as individuals with individual cases. They were served no papers and their children were taken. Is that America?
TMW you are calling them lawbreakers and they probably are, but they haven't been charged with the crimes you are listing. It doesn't matter what's "acceptable to us," unless you want to change the subject to what laws and penal system we should and shouldn't have. But I thought the problem here is how the legal machinery we actually have has been operating in this particular case at this particular time, and it looks to me like they've been making it up as they go along and don't have a legal leg to stand on.
I'm going to play devil's advocate(yike!): Let's say the judge knew at that moment that more little girls could be impregnated at that moment were he to wait. Let's say there is absolutely no precedent for dealing with over four children who possibly needed protection in such short order, let's say that the judge felt getting papers takes forever and these kids might need help NOW?
Let's say they considered that waiting would provide the children with alibis/stories, and moving in quickly would keep them as true witnesses who spoke of what they knew, not they were told to say by the men in the compound in anticipation of a raid?
The whole place looks brainwashed. CJ, I only discussed their hair and clothing to make the brainwashed point, why else would i care?
Frank Family, do you know how long it takes to get papers for 400 children and mothers? They must have acted without them because they judge DID say "we have plenty enough information to separate these children". It could take two weeks to get everything in line.
Obviously, all of us hope things are done with due process, but if that were my grandchild in there, I'd be screaming "Get her OUT, what do I CARE about getting the paperwork? Are you a country of LAWS or DECENCY?
just a thought........I'm eager for your opinions....how you'd feel were you a grandma or grandpa from the outside weeping for what might be happening to your family members inside.
If I were a Grandpa I would deal with my own family and not wait or wish for the government to clearly overstep their lawful powers and round up everyone. What are the chances of these children going to their grandparents? Also, how much record is there on children who have been terribly abused by their foster parents? And what are the future implications of allowing the authorities to show this force and this power without rebuke? I have no sympathy for anyone who was molesting anyone or harming anyone but what proof do we have that this was the case with 464 children and their parents?
Well, OK, I'll bite.
"I'm going to play devil's advocate(yike!): Let's say the judge knew at that moment that more little girls could be impregnated at that moment were he to wait. Let's say there is absolutely no precedent for dealing with over four children who possibly needed protection in such short order, let's say that the judge felt getting papers takes forever and these kids might need help NOW?"
That just strikes me as a recipe for government tyranny in ANY case where a judge decides he must act NOW without bothering to wait for the legal machinery to kick in.
If you were talking about imminent threat to life and limb you would no doubt have a case for urgent intervention, but you are talking about impregnation of a girl who considers herself married to the man and considers childbearing to be her destiny. Aren't you projecting your own feelings on her and on the situation?
If you'd said the charge is rape or child molestation rather than impregnation by a "husband," that would make your point better, but don't you think the judge had better have the papers together to document it if he wants the charge to stick?
Obviously this situation is ongoing, I don't understand the sense of urgency here. Whatever they are going to arrest people for is done just about every day there. They already HAVE over four hundred children, most no doubt conceived in the same way, so it's not like you've only got one chance to catch them at it. I don't see any justification for EVER acting without solid legal grounds -- unless there is a real danger of immediate physical harm.
"Let's say they considered that waiting would provide the children with alibis/stories, and moving in quickly would keep them as true witnesses who spoke of what they knew, not they were told to say by the men in the compound in anticipation of a raid?"
You are asking legal questions and I don't know what the law is, but it seems to me in that case that he should have had his papers in order well in advance and kept the plan secret. MOST criminals are going to make up an alibi, there's nothing unique about that in this situation. I don't see how it can be an excuse for an illegal raid.
Unfortunately, Frank Family, I think the grandparents of most of those in this cult are also in the cult. But I sure do agree with you about the implications for government power, the lack of evidence, the horrors of the foster care system.
FreeThinke says:
Pati and Cj have clearly "won" this debate, and frankly so have I, since their commentary amplifies, clarifies and substantiates what I have been saying ever since this story broke.
Kudos also to The Frank Family who also understands the underlying issue that gives this entire case its true significance.
The case is not NOT NOT about "child sex abuse." It is about the failure of the state of Texas to use DUE PROCESS in invading that compound, searching and seizing evidence improperly, and falsely incarcerating several hundred people and separating infants and children from their mothers and fathers on NO EVIDENCE.
Those of you who would insist, "the Law's the Laws" period end of subject bely your own sentiments, since you vainly imagine that "The Law" HAS in fact been followed in these shabby proceedings. It has NOT. Only a demented "activist" LIBERAL judge or some redneck lout who confuses HIMSELF with "The Law" could possibly think "The Law" has been well served in this case.
I'm no lawyer, but please let me tell you something about "The Law."
If we "know" by intuition that a set of famous stolen jewels or a big stash of cocaine, etc. is stashed in a house in our community, we as private citizens CANNOT just enter those premises with or without a weapon and rifle through all the drawers and closets and dig up the floorboards and knock holes in the plaster in hopes of finding what Alfred Hitchcock called "The McGuffin."
If we did that, even if we DID find the loot, the evidence we found would be INADMISSIBLE, and we, OURSELVES, could–––and probably WOULD–––be charged with the crime of BREAKING and ENTERING, also VANDALISM.
What no one, except Pati, CJ, The Frank Family, and I fully understand is that the POLICE are under virtually the SAME constraints as private citizens. That some undoubtedly-liberal, undoubedtedly-feminist JUDGE saw fit to authorize this UNCONSTITUTIONAL “fishing expedition,” on NO EVIDENCE other than mere CONJECTURE is more obscene than what-you-insist-is child abuse, because it opens the door and ushers in DESPOTISM in place of The Rule of Law, which some of you seem so staunchly–––and BLINDLY–––to respect and admire.
I’m very much afraid that what many of you TRULY admire and respect is The Rule of Sentiment–––as long as the sentiments concerned are congruent with your own.
That’s not democratic, not constitutional, not legal and its not AMERICAN.
FT
So, these men only marry one "female" to skirt the legal issue of Polygamy? In that case, the fact that they bed these underage girls out of wedlock IS abuse. It's called pedophilia, when a 50 year old man has sex with a 14 year old.
These young girls have no choice in the matter.
I saw a programme that interviewed some "Lost Boys"... those young men who are thrown out of the compounds, left to fend for themselves with no life skills, because they are competition for the older lechers.
I find the whole thing morally reprehensible.
And yes, pedophilia, pederasty and the like, IS against the law in this day and age.
The issue that I am speaking to here has nothing to do with whether there was illegal actions going on. I am all in favor of finding those illegal actions and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law. I just believe that the way things are progressing is a crystal clear abuse of power that will one day be turned on one of us at the discretion of the state and not not because they have a leg to stand on legally. Clearly something needed done. Clearly there are people breaking the law. Clearly children were abused. Clearly there are criminals hiding amongst these people. BUT, can anyone here say that it was everyone within the walls that are to blame? Was this compound completely void of loving and caring parents?
The point is, Incognito, that they aren't being charged for any of those things. We're hearing instead about "pregnancy" as if pregnancy were a crime. We're hearing how they are "brainwashed" into accepting their situation. Well, you need a complaint from them as victims to prosecute their abusers, don't you? And if you don't have it you don't have it. You can't act legally on your own mere supposition of brainwashing.
I don't understand why this has apparently been done so sloppily, since we know various kinds of abuse are going on there from many sources, principally ex-members. They should have had a well-worked out plan, known exactly who was to be targeted and why before doing anything. Why are they acting now and on no apparent evidence? Why are they rounding up the whole population of children? Based on what? Suppositions of abuse? You can't do that legally. The raid was illegal, no matter WHAT abuses MIGHT be found. That's the problem.
Did you hear about the cult in NM that was raided today? I have been having theological discussions with some there.
It seems like an overstep to me.
LOL
Okay, buddy, I'll try...: )
from your post:
"We have laws. We protect the young, we have marriage laws.
Illegality is ILLEGAL! WHat am I missing?"
Are we ONLY a country that CARES about legality when we ELECT TO CARE about it?
It is ILLEGAL, CONSTITUTIONALLY, for ANY branch of gov't to search and seize without probable cause and a SWORN affidavit of a SPECIFIC CRIME having taken place...So, IF you are TRULY concerned about LEGALITY and ENFORCING the LAWS...how about STARTING with the CONSTITUTIONAL laws that we ARE ALL, no matter our quirky religions, entitled to...
that's the first issue. IF you are TRULY for enforcing the laws, that SHOULD include those that RESTRAIN the LONG ARM of the LAW...no?
Second, the LAW is that they cannot be LICENSED in marriage to more than ONE SPOUSE..uh...they are NOT. HOW in the LORD'S name is the number of extra-marital 'mates' that BOTH parties TO a marriage decide to have REMOTELY the business of YOU or ME or the STATE??? I'll tell you...it ISN"T. They ONLY have a say about the LICENSING because THEY dictate that policy for THEIR purposes and therefore they can have all the say they want about it. Question: HOW is it ANY different from the man who simply has several mistresses? IS HE a criminal? NO. He's a pig. WHY? Because HE is cheating on his WIFE. In this scenario, the WIFE is IN agreement with the arrangement. There is NO attempt to defraud the state...SO, I ask you, again...HOW is it remotely the business of US to dictate the parameters of their PERSONAL and PRIVATE relationships? I repeat...it is NOT...not even CLOSE.
Finally, you know I have a teenage daughter, Z. I don't come to this perspective blindly. But facts are facts...they may be 'inconvenient' but they are 'facts' nonetheless. Not more than TWO generations ago and for ALL the generations before that, it was considered NORMAL AND LEGAL to marry a girl as young as 13! NO parameters on the age of the husband either...so, perhaps YOU can explain to me, how SUDDENLY this COMMON practice for ALL these generations is indicative of ANY illness...of pedophelia..HOW are these men SUDDENLY a 'threat' to society that we need to put into prison? We are SO full in our prisons NOW that we have to release REAL criminals...so, here we are CREATING 'mental defect' and 'criminality' out of NOTHING more than the contemporary view of things...no SCIENCE, no FACTS...just 'theory.' People are losing their liberties over this?? It's frightening to me. I'm not talking about rapists or murders or kidnappers or molestors here...I am talking about men who are attracted to younger females..physically. They have BEEN around for all TIME. Suddenly they are SO frightening and SO egregious that we cannot abide or feel safe in our homes if they are not confined? It's insanity Z. As I stated...perhaps it is 'incurable' specifically due to its NORMALCY...I do NOT accept that the current 'theory' is ANY more accurate than the old theory on homosexuality being a personality disorder...now, they've changed their minds on that...WHY? Because when ALL you HAVE is theory, that's EASILY done and it's accomplished by PRESSURE groups NOT SCIENCE. Yet people's LIVES are at stake. It's appalling to every sensibility IN MY AMERICAN, Libertarian mind. LOL
If you find that breaking the laws is the paramount issue...then you SHOULD be on MY side....the IV Amendment TRUMPS ANY state law or any FEAR of people that are different than we are...AND IT is a LAW that NONE of us has ANY doubt was DEFINITELY BROKEN...
: )
still buddies? LOL (I know, I know...it's this whole anti-government intrusion paranoia of mine...)
Pati
Hi incognito...I don't think I know you either...lots of new folks for me here..
anyway, from your post:
"Frankly, I cannot fathom how anyone can stand here and say they condone multiple marriages, and sex with underrage children. It's simply not civilized, and spiritually and morally incorrect."
It is ONLY not civilized, or spriritually or morally correct according to YOUR religious and cultural standards...and NOTHING more...We LIVE in a country where religious freedom is paramount. AND, where the long arm of the LAW is NOT to be USED as a TOOL of the many to SILENCE the few or the different...that was the entire premise, IMO...
I vehemently disagree that it is remotely the place of the state to dictate marrying ages 'except' with regards to 'licensing' WITH the state. That is for their purposes, MOSTLY of taxation and inheritance, but it is certainly circumvented with regards to 'inheritance' EVERY time someone has an affair that results in a pregnancy or has an out of wedlock child...so, at best it's out dated with regards to the latter rationale..With regards to tax laws, fine. They can 'claim' ONE spouse...Okay.
These people did NOT seek to defraud the gov't or the county by trying to 'license' more than one spouse. So...I reiterate, HOW is it remotely the business of you or the state at what age or HOW many mates people decide to participate in sexual behavior?
I noticed someone posted earlier that the founders were certain that liberty must be in 'tandem' with a 'moral people'...you will ALSO note, however, that they chose SPECIFICALLY NOT to define WHAT that 'morality' should be...AND, the most assuredly did NOT give that mandate or oversight to the government...morality cannot BE legislated. It is taught at home...if the state attempts it...it is at the LOSS of liberty and the antithesis of the founding philosophy.
As to your point about Sharia law and stoning, well, since our Constitution clearly states that it is the 'judicial' system alone that can practice ANY form of penalty or 'execution' upon another and that they are ALL entitled to 'due process' of said law...it is a given that the question is moot.
The LAW that WAS definitively BROKEN was the CRIMINAL and ILLEGAL search and seizure perpetrated NOT BY the compound members but BY THE STATE...and if I had the money, EVERY ONE of them would have my assistance in SUING the state for EVERY PENNY I could force them to pay...in order to make them think twice before deciding that 'popular' suspicion about the compound was sufficient 'cause' to DENY these people their Constitutional rights. And I would fight you and anybody else on this issue till the cows come home...THAT is the BROKEN law that SHOULD be causing ALL of us to quake with FEAR...I am further frightened by the blase acceptance of the grievous abridgment of these peoples' Constitutional rights simply because 'maybe' it will be proved they were doing something wrong...terrifying, absolutely, terrifying, to someone like me...I don't think I'm alone...Lord knows I pray I'm not. : )
Pati
Hi again incognito...just saw this one:
'the law is the law is the law.. and when you are dealing with underage children..who gives a rats ass about rights.'
LOL LOL LOL So, the law is the law unless under age children MIGHT be involved in which case the LAW is no longer the law? LOL LOL Um, 'those rights'??? They ARE the LAW. LOL Sorry, it just struck me as so funny a contradiction...
Like that character in Goldmember who says there are two things I can't stand: people who are intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch.
LOL Same basic comment. LOL
Pati
Hello wvdottr...gosh, I don't know you either...Z??? How did you grow so big so fast??
anyway, from your post:
'Anyhow, I dare say all the women in this group are pretty well brow beaten and under control.'
It's all good an well to 'dare to say' something, but on WHAT do you BASE your 'statement' AS fact?
Pati
NW....what are you talking about? The LAW of the land is that unwed 14 year olds aren't to be impregnated. What State doesn't say that? What am I missing ???
We meet again, incognito..
"Do you sit by and let your neighbour abuse his wife, kids etc. because it's none of your business?"
Um...if I have NO evidence and ONLY suspicion? Uh, yeah. Because EVEN if I 'reported' my 'suspicion' it would NOT be sufficient 'evidence' that a crime has been committed for the police to get a warrant..That is precisely the point.
"Is it not incumbent upon us to help those who can't help themselves."
From CRIME...not from a 'belief' system that is OTHER than our own. AND, ONLY when there is EVIDENCE OF such a crime...
"Yes, those young girls, were probably raised in that unhealthy environment, but to expect a 13 - 14 year old to start birthing babies is criminal. There have been studies that have found an increase in pre-cancerous lesions in young sexually active women, because their bodies are not ready for sexual activity at such a young age."
Ironically, other studies have shown that people like me who had children LATE in life MIGHT also be at risk. IN actuality...uh, they don't have a clue about the 'causes' of cancer...not ONE.
And bottom line. Plural marriage is against the law!
AND, as far as the STATE knows, ONLY ONE marriage has been registered WITH THEM by any members OF this compound. OTHERWISE, they would have the 'several licenses' registered with the state as EVIDENCE of a crime...and I reiterate it is ALSO against the LAW for law enforcement to ILLEGALLY search and seize...
Pati
You KNOW how much I LOVE you Z, but this comment to cj, I have to say, is precisely NOT what we have ever been about...JUST what we've become and for some of us it's very very troubling and scary...
"and, if they hadn't raided, how many more children would be impregnanted this year? What do you mean "may be there?", CJ?"
THAT is the antithesis of what ALL of our laws and Constitutional protections are about Z. Truly. Our laws are specific to penalty AFTER the fact...NOT preventative or 'pre-emptive' 'anticipation' that a crime MIGHT happen'...BECAUSE of the implications of that methodology to our freedoms, our rights to privacy, AND most importantly its potential ABUSE by our government against people for NO reason other than people think that we are strange...
Pati
Great post wvdottr...good questions all...
Of course, murder does break the law, and therefore, with 'evidence' and 'probable' cause, the law SHOULD go in...that wasn't the case here.
I see your point, but are you aware of how MOST Christian religions and doctrines are viewed by atheists and secularists? THEY think that Christians indoctrinate their children with BAD ideas and that 'it is a form of child abuse'...SHOULD they be able to dictate to Christian parents that it is not the parent's right to instill THEIR religious beliefs in their children?
Are the children the wards of the State or the parents? If they are the wards of the state they should just be turned over at birth and let the state take the responsibility in ENTIRETY...IF it is the parents...then the state and the neighbors need to BUTT OUT..
Pati
What you're missing Z is that the Constitution is 'the law of the land', state's rights are trumped by the Bill of Rights and those issues held within the Constitution as the Constitution clearly states. A state CANNOT circumvent these certain unalienable rights...illegal search and seizure being number 4 of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.
So a state CAN set the marrying age--although I think it should not--as long as the people in that state ALLOW them to do so, HOWEVER, the state CANNOT forego those RIGHTS given and protected to ALL citizens of the LAND that are in the Constitution.
And because the state DID abridge those Constitutional rights NO CRIME discovered BY the illegal search and seizure should be able to even SEE a court room because they were ILLEGALLY obtained by the STATE...does it make sense now?
We have certain protections under the Constitution, even the strangest among us, and it clearly states that we cannot be searched and seized in our privacy on 'mere' suspicion that we have 'maybe' committed a crime. The fourth Amendment clearly states the parameters the STATE MUST meet before even ISSUING a warrant for search and seizure AND that warrant MUST include specifics of what will be searched and seized. SO...even if they had ONE girl who DID sign an affidavit--which they did not--the ONLY probable cause it could include in the search and seizure would have to be specific to the ALLEGED CRIME, so it STILL would NOT have included the entire compound...see what we're saying?
Pati
FreeThinke says:
CJ summed it up perfectly in this one sentence:
••• "The raid was illegal, no matter WHAT abuses MIGHT be found. That's the problem. •••
Nor'wood, I'm with you every step of the way on this, but I don't think either you, CJ, I or Elbro, who also seems to "get it," are going to be able to make the sale to those who, apparently, don't see what we see.
Your point about government's presumptuous, intrusive, self-serving redefinition of what is and is not normal and acceptable is superb. This tactic is, indeed, from the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci's "handbook" on how to confuse, disorient, undermine and then TAKE OVER a society you want to conquer from within.
Notice please once again how VICTIM'S RIGHTS and NEEDS–––as styled and defined by the Marxist brainwashers who have controlled Entertainment, Publishing, News and Information for decades, and now have much too heavy an influence on the legal profession and our system of justice–––have subtly infused our thinking to the point where ginned up EMOTION positively BLINDS too many of our people to the TRUE NATURE of our Founding Documents.
When pure EMOTION–––and a determined LITERALISTIC interpretation of fundamentally BAD laws–––is allowed to reign supreme, you get widespread PERSECUTION and ANARCHY–––i.e. MOB RULE.
This creates a situation ripe for some strong, charismatic demagogue to take over in thee guise of "restoring order" in which case any semblance of "democracy" will be lost and gone forever.
••• "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs. When he first appears, he is a Protector. . . In the early days of his power he is full of smiles. . . When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies . . . and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader. . . Has he not also another object . . . that they may be impoverished by taxes and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and [be] therefore less likely to conspire against him?" •••
~ Plato (427-347 B. C.)
••• "Democracies are most commonly corrupted by the insolence of demagogues." •••
~ Aristotle (382- 322 B. C. )
That wise and brilliant men recognized these great fundamental truths four-hundred years before the birth of Christ only shows us how little we have learned in twenty-five-hundred years, and how little we are able to recognize Truth when it arrives.
The rulers of his day forced Socrates to commit suicide. When Jesus Christ arrived and defined Eternal Truth for us, the Scribes and the Pharisees were complicit with the Roman authorities of that time in making sure He was brutally murdered in a very public fashion.
By the way most of the accounts I've seen indicate that the Virgin Mary was about fourteen when she "received the Holy Spirit."
Now isn’t THAT ironic?
FT
May I suggest that we develop a MUSLIM aspect to this problem?
WOULD it be all right, since far too many Muslims and their diabolical, hyper-aggressive teachings teachings really ARE a tremendous threat to our national security, our personal safety, our identity as a people, and our way of life, to inveigh against THEM the way the Texas Gestapo has attacked this small, largely inconsequential group of oddballs?
That would violate the Constitution too, of course, but WOULD it be justified, because of the terrible danger this particular group (militant Islam) represents?
~ FreeThinke
Just wondering. Are some here just ASSUMING that since there SEEMS to be reason, based on various stories and rumors, to charge this cult with abuse of one sort or another, that THEREFORE the authorities MUST have the necessary evidence?
I fell into that kind of thinking when I heard about so many teenagers who had had babies or were pregnant. But then I came to my senses and realized that this information is after the fact and they haven't said a word about any individual case or charged a single person.
All of your points and questions are well taken, CJ, but how DO you feel about the Muslim Question?
Does preserving our safety and the ultimate integrity of our system of justice present a valid reason for violating the very rights and rules we are trying to save?
~ FreeThinke
FT...that's such a convoluted question and a valid one.
Preserving our rights is just what islamists are counting on, I believe. When we put rights instead of safety, there's a hole it doesn't take much to get through. Of COURSE, we must defend and preserve our rights. How do we do both?
How do we allow the NYTimes to give classified information? We know they have. How can we prevent CSPAN from showing hearings of the people who're protecting us being insulted and demeaned for the world to see?
We get the transparency, our right to see, and the world learns America's weak not only physically (can't afford this war, etc etc) but morally ("we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.."etc etc)
WHAT do we do to preserve both? I'd rather a little less transparency, but then we don't know. And do we trust that not knowing?
I think we're done. Too many self interests, our kids are weaklings, we have generatinos of kids with no dads, midwest mothers are huffing drugs....I could go on.
I just don't see an end to all of this. very hard to see in America.
Someone cheer me up! Convince me I'm wrong!! Tell me that pendulem which swings has enough of a STRONG, AMerica-first generation behind it to cause and sustain its returning to the Right.
It isn't going to happen no matter what I think, FT. For the record, no, I'm not for it. In reality there are plenty of ways we could have dealt with the Muslim threat by now that aren't happening either, because of political correctness, which means because of your favorite Cultural Marxists who have twisted the meaning of freedom so that we must have enemies in our midst. Our enemies are determined to do us in and nothing we've done on the human level has been working.
That's why I gave up on the human level and why I've come to the conclusion that we're looking at God's wrath, for which the only cure is national repentance, which isn't going to happen either, so I'm just watching and waiting myself.
I hope you know I meant "favorite" in an ironic sense. It didn't read right when I saw it out there.
Z, I'm sorry to be so pessimistic, but I think that's just the way it is. I think we have to wrench all our concerns out of this world and look to God alone. There is always comfort in Him even in the worst of times.
The subject of the thread and the subsequent discussion of it here and a Lucianne.com bring the following poem by W. H. Auden to mind. See if you can understand the the strong association I feel between the ramifications of the Texas Event and Auden's poem.
~ FreeThinke
O What Is That Sound
O what is that sound which so thrills the ear
Down in the valley drumming, drumming?
Only the scarlet soldiers, dear,
The soldiers coming.
O what is that light I see flashing so clear
Over the distance brightly, brightly?
Only the sun on their weapons, dear,
As they step lightly.
O what are they doing with all that gear,
What are they doing this morning, morning?
Only their usual manoeuvres, dear,
Or perhaps a warning.
O why have they left the road down there,
Why are they suddenly wheeling, wheeling?
Perhaps a change in their orders, dear,
Why are you kneeling?
O haven't they stopped for the doctor's care,
Haven't they reined their horses, horses?
Why, they are none of them wounded, dear,
None of these forces.
O is it the parson they want, with white hair,
Is it the parson, is it, is it?
No, they are passing his gateway, dear,
Without a visit.
O it must be the farmer that lives so near.
It must be the farmer so cunning, so cunning?
They have passed the farmyard already, dear,
And now they are running.
O where are you going? Stay with me here!
Were the vows you swore deceiving, deceiving?
No, I promised to love you, dear,
But I must be leaving.
O it's broken the lock and splintered the door,
O it's the gate where they're turning, turning;
Their boots are heavy on the floor
And their eyes are burning.
WH Auden (1907-1973)
I do in fact expect something along those lines to come in the nearish future, FT.
O yes, dear friends, it is coming coming.
But whatever will be the source?
Will it be the Muslims, Muslims?
Or day traders at the Bourse?
We know it might be the Marxicrats,
The Marxicrats on a Pale Horse.
Perhaps it will be the false Christians
Who'd nail sinners they hate to a Cross?
Perhaps it will be the Perverts, Perverts?
The Gays who've been gathering force?
Perhaps it will be our elders, elders
Whose minds have been gathering moss?
Perhaps it will be the young lovers, lovers
Who cavort in the bracken and gorse?
O we know it is coming, coming,
But we cannot acknowledge the source.
Perhaps it might be you and me?
Yes! Who else could it be, of course?
FT (5/2/08)
What a great conversation you've got going on here!
Even though I am personally disgusted by the behavior of this group in Texas, I am far more fearful about the legal precedent of removing children where no legitimate allegations are involved. Pregnant underage girls and their adult partners should be dealt with in the same manner with which we routinely handle statutory rape cases.
However, this whole affair has turned into a fishing expedition. Children about whom there were no allegations made and about whom there exists no evidence of abuse or neglect are now in foster care. Where is the sense in that? Hold these people accountable for the crime they ACTUALLY committed, anything more than that is a witch hunt.
Routine CPS visits and a paperwork trail of birth certificates, etc, would bring an end to the abuse.
Oh, you have such a way of examining a thing, FT...
Good question.
Just had a long discussion with hubby on Islam. I was saying that I think a church/religion IS the people who make it up, and therefore, IF those people are immersed in a culture where they can literally SEE alternative to their system, they will slowly BE changing and therefore, they WILL change the church/religion.
He says, then, IF it is 'changed', it IS no longer. In other words, he says there is no such animal as a moderate muslim...that IF they do NOT accept or LIVE precisely WHAT Muhammad taught and did, then they are NO LONGER muslim in reality, but something else. Okay.
My point in bringing that up was that I believe that the Middle Eastern/muslim world has worked VERY hard at keeping western civilization OUT for a reason. I think the hierarchy KNOW that Islam cannot COMPETE with the FREEDOM of the western world, the influence WILL have an effect. I think the folks who 'say' they are MODERATE ARE the evidence of that influence. I think the REASON the fundamentalists have their panties IN A TWIST is precisely DUE to what they SEE as the greater threat...muslims moving AWAY from the LITERAL interpretations of the Koran and becoming MORE of an understanding that this is to be a SPIRITUAL 'jihad'...
We HAVE laws against inciting violence right now. And, as I stated, I do NOT believe that ANY religion has a right to circumvent the LAW. We HAVE laws against inciting violence or war against the state as well. Freedom of speech or religion STOPS at advocating the invasion or harm of OTHERS who ALSO have Constitutional rights of protection under the LAW. Combined with the fact that there is NO state that FOREGOES the RIGHT to examine the education being taught by private or home schools...including religious schools. The LAW says that the CHILDREN have a right to an education and that the STATE (even the Feds) have the right to set the standard to INSURE the child is receiving adequate and CORRECT information: i.e. if they are being taught that Israel does NOT exist or they cannot PASS exams on US History etc...then the state CAN step in and demand changes or even that the kids attend a different, accredited school. So, here again, the influence of that education is going to influence THOUGHT/reason/inquiry about 'fundamentalist' ideals about the religion.
Add to that the stores, television, radio, music, movies, neighbors....I just don't see HOW being IMMERSED in western culture is going to allow Islam, as the fundamentalists know it, to survive in tact. Just because we have only seen SOME changes, don't think they are minor. Fifty years ago...I don't think there would be the SILENCE about the acts by the extremists, but there would have been LOUD APPROVAL for it...so that silence might not SPEAK to us...but I think it SPEAKS very LOUDLY to the fundamentalists...and they don't LIKE what they are NOT hearing.
I think we SHOULD profile. It is against LOGIC and ALL that policing has COME to learn in tracking down bad guys NOT TO profile.
But, with regards to a Texas style raid on mosques? Sorry. I can't support it. If you can get someone FROM a particular mosque to swear out an affidavit that, in fact, the leader IS inciting violence either against an entity or the state, then you go after THAT guy.
If you can PROVE they are FUNDING terror organizations or recruiting for terror organizations, then you can go after those people involved in that.
But I think our BEST weapon against Islam IS our freedom and our culture of freedom of religious expression. Because the MORE people are exposed to open discussion about Islam/Christianity/Judaism/Hindi/Atheism etc the MORE they will question there OWN belief system. I don't believe that genetically they are incapable of inquiry or doubt about what they've been told, especially when they can look around themselves and witness the LIE. Persia WAS ONCE THE place of ingenuity, science, architecture, art, invention UNTIL Islam...that tells me that these people not only CAN reason beyond indoctrination, but aspire to it when afforded the opportunity.
I don't FEAR Islam because its Achilles' heel IS the LIE upon which it is founded...God did NOT create man to hold him hostage, but to set him free...and ultimately that culture cannot withstand being immersed in a free society...
NOW...IF they go to enclosed compounds ....we're in trouble. LOL
Pati
I think I speak for many here when I say I do not think the state has the right to just raid compounds , etc without due cause, going through our legal system.
However, if there is truly probable cause, that satisfies a judge, then it is a go.
Now, if after obtaining a legal warrant or whatever.( I have no legal education) things are found that are criminal, then I think this gives the state the right to do someting with those items.
Never does the means justify the ends except in extreme cases like, the bad guys will destroy your world totally and have their finger on the button..then you got to do what you got to do..self defense arguement there, I think.
But if the state legally and lawfully entered that blasted place and found criminal things there, then let the chips fall.
And We do owe it to children as defined by law to look after their best interests.
Note, I am talking about legally defined children.
And with these moms refusing to identify their own kids, It confirms to me, in my little opinion that these women ARE brow beaten =brainwashed , whatever you want to call it.
In that case, they are protecting those men and themselve, not their children.
The children do need to know who they are for every sort of reason starting with health issues, etc.
Now, I beleive in the rule of law, minding my own business, and playing by the rules.
I also believe in looking out for those who cannot speak for themselves and did not ask to participate.
WVDottr.
I think 'looking out' for children is 'code' for 'we can't trust parents to look out for the best interests--read what WE think are the best interests--of their OWN children...
Look at the state of the family unit today...it is a direct result of the state, WE, intervening--ALWAYS with the 'best intentions'--into every possible aspect of their lives...great job.
IMO IF neither case scenario will prevent ALL instances of harm, which none CAN...but ONE instances has most CERTAINLY brought about irrevocable HARM in ALL manner of areas not even INTENDED...then I will CHOOSE the NATURAL SELECTION of the PARENT versus the state every time...I have a 'natural' predisposition to want what is best for MY INDIVIDUAL child...AND...I reiterate...making assumptions about what is 'indocrination' and what is 'choice' is a DANGEROUS area for Christians...tomorrow it might be YOU and YOUR CHILDREN who are 'singled' out as 'dangerous' or strange or unfit or 'indoctrinated'...
Pati
WVDottr, nobody can disagree with what you said here:
. . .if there is truly probable cause, that satisfies a judge, then it is a go.
Now, if after obtaining a legal warrant or whatever.( I have no legal education) things are found that are criminal, then I think this gives the state the right to do someting with those items. . . .
The problem with the FLDS raid is that there has been no probable cause, not even a legal warrant as far as I've heard. They went in without a clear plan, they rounded up everybody because they had no idea who might have committed what, and they had no right to do that.
Pati...so what do you do? let it all fly "everything's just fine, because their parents are with them" when we know so many young girls have been impregnated?
FT, you write a good poem about the source, but if God is bringing judgment against us, it doesn't matter which particular instrument He uses, our usual means of self defense are going to lose their effectiveness and that's what's already happening it seems to me. He's already using many "sources," it seems to me, including natural disasters.
NW: If Islam is one of God's instruments of judgment against the West, and boy are the signs there that that is what is going on, it tells me that God isn't in favor of our current notions of "freedom" and down we're going.
Of course the Antichrist may come first and bring a "peace" some will take for a solution to to the problems in a One World Order, and that will make my prediction look false, but it will be all the more true I'm afraid.
Why doesn't anybody think in terms of God's own word to nations any more? Even an occasional President of ours has called for a National Day of Repentance in the past.
As a male in a school district I can tell you that the thing that we most fear in regards to our jobs is not failure or harm but rather it is an anonymous call with a false accusation. The power that is wielded at the beckon call of a nameless and faceless accuser is staggering. In America you have the right to face your accuser EXCEPT if they have a phone. The power wielded in Texas is merely a blown up version of the smaller abuses of power that go on every day and in every state at the whim of "anonymous."
Good point about the anonymous accuser, that's another violation of the law in this case.
Also, even though legal conditions might be superficially met, a warrant, a statement of probable cause, they may not REALLY be met, but just cobbled together by a judge who doesn't like the sound of something.
I also think of that prosecutor who nearly had three innocent Duke students put away for life.
About the known teenage pregnancies, I really do not understand why people are THAT upset about this. This situation has been ongoing in the FLDS for years. The older mothers started out that way too. They regard the men as their HUSBANDS. Why if action has not been taken before this given the ongoing nature of the situation, why is there such urgency about it NOW? I really don't get this, Z. The concern seems way out of proportion to the reality of the situation.
Amen to The Frank Family and to CJ!
FT
Here's a FITTING FINALE to this discussion.
God bless G&S!
A more humane Mikado never
Did in Japan exist,
To nobody second,
I'm certainly reckoned
A true philanthropist.
It is my very humane endeavour
To make, to some extent,
Each evil liver
A running river
Of harmless merriment.
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
All prosy dull society sinners,
Who chatter and bleat and bore,
Are sent to hear sermons
From mystical Germans
Who preach from ten till four.
The amateur tenor, whose vocal villainies
All desire to shirk,
Shall, during off-hours,
Exhibit his powers
To Madame Tussaud's waxwork.
The lady who dyes a chemical yellow
Or stains her grey hair puce,
Or pinches her figure,
Is painted with vigour
And permanent walnut juice.
The idiot who, in railway carriages,
Scribbles on window-panes,
We only suffer
To ride on a buffer
In Parliamentary trains.
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
The advertising quack who wearies
With tales of countless cures,
His teeth, I've enacted,
Shall all be extracted
By terrified amateurs.
The music-hall singer attends a series
Of masses and fugues and "ops"
By Bach, interwoven
With Spohr and Beethoven,
At classical Monday Pops.
The billiard sharp who any one catches,
His doom's extremely hard —
He's made to dwell —
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that's always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls
On a cloth untrue
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls!
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
Uh, the G&S was contributed by
FreeThinke
Sorry for the lapse in decorum.
First: 'how do we know?' From LEGAL means or supposition and illegal search and seizure?
Second: You keep forgetting Z, that I don't buy into the whole 'they're JUST too young' JUST because in THIS generation the 'powers that be'--read television/couch potato psychoanalysts, having been convinced by the pros who promote such things to justify their OWN existence--have DECIDED that to be the case. I just don't buy it. It wasn't 'the case' two generations ago...and it isn't 'suddenly' the case now.
Third: I CAN see the SAME abuse of power, ends justifying the means, being USED by the ACLU and the ATHEISTS to suggest that MY teaching MY children Christianity is 'abuse' by THEIR determination...
Fourth: I have YET to see ANY evidence that 'we' the people are ANY better equipped to determine what's best for any particular child than are THE PARENTS, in general, and I am NOT willing to OVERSTEP parental rights because a FEW would abuse them. NEITHER, by the way, were our FOUNDERS...I do NOT support the idea of USING the 'suggestion' that 'maybe' children are 'being' hurt...by some NEW concocted standard..to ABRIDGE people's RIGHTS to express or to hold beliefs that are not MY OWN...
By the way, I NOW see that they are TRYING to take the 'fact' that 41 of the over 400 kids have evidence of broken bones as EVIDENCE of abuse! Uh, excuse me? That's like 10% of the total! In MY family 50% of the kids would have evidence of broken bones and ONE of those breaks is a SPIRAL break...IF THESE people WANTED to they could SUGGEST that it is evidence of abuse...when, in fact, he fell out of a highchair where his foot was caught..the 'twisting' as he fell caused the break...but who cares about FACTS when there is something we can USE to simply 'suggest' what we WANT to believe? Moreover, 50% of the children in MY nuclear family growing up ALSO had broken bones...one, my brother had 3!...AND, in my FATHER'S household...ALSO 50%...getting the picture? 10% with broken bones is EVIDENCE OF NOTHING, NOTHING..people, especially KIDS are PRONE to breaking bones...but BET me they won't USE these KIDS AGAINST their OWN parents and WAY of life...like the Gestapo or the Nazis ....and WHAT will the psychological effects of THAT be in the long term?
I am telling you Z...I see NO good to come of this action or the 'well-intended' folk who think these laws or agencies do ANYTHING TO HELP CHILDREN but ONLY make the promotoers FEEL better about at least 'trying'...with DISASTEROUS effects FAR outweighing any PERCEIVED benefit for children.
I will NEVER concede that ANYONE BUT the parent CARES MORE, KNOWS BETTER, or IS MORE INVESTED IN PROVIDING FOR A GOOD FUTURE in the children...NEVER. Does that mean EVERY parent is a good parent? NO. But we USED to respect that there can be differences in HOW we raise our children...NOW, we have decided that MOST parents are morons and they HAVE NO RIGHT to instill ANYTHING OTHER THAN what WE DEEM fit in their minds....I KEEP asking what happens when those same powers decide that Chrisitianity is 'indoctrination' that parents have NO RIGHT to instill in their children...I think it will be TOO late to do anything to PROTECT that FREEDOM by then...
Pati
NW: If Islam is one of God's instruments of judgment against the West, and boy are the signs there that that is what is going on, it tells me that God isn't in favor of our current notions of "freedom" and down we're going
Our CURRENT notions of freedom are NOT the notions of which I speak...if they were...the Texas fiasco would never have occurred. I don't think that we always interpret correctly the 'larger' plan of God. There are MANY things, for example, that could bring about wrath that might have AS MUCH to do with the CHURCH NOT DOING ITS JOB for what? the past thirty or so years as it does with something so broad as 'freedom.'...We were FOUNDED on 'freedom' and it's COMING FROM GOD...TODAY"S society seems to be of the opinion that it stems from 'man' and his particular NOTIONS at the time...so, as you can see, there can BE so many interpretations of that...PERHAPS what he's angry about is that somehow it is acceptable for gays to parade in the open DEFILING the sacrifice of Christ for our sins and the CHRISTIANS in the country are TEPID in ANY response or outrage about that at ALL....while simultaneously the MAJORITY seems to think it FINE to SHUT DOWN religious belief giving GLORY TO GOD...because we don't LIKE THEM...
I can see LOTS of different reasons NONE of which are about FREEDOM but how we abuse or exercise it..and THAT is a different question.
Personally, I DO NOT believe that God takes an ACTIVE role in the daily lives of men but that HE KNOWS what WILL BE. I happen to think that too active a role UNDERMINES the entire 'freedom' to choose HIM theology that I was raised to believe...but THAT is another POST. LOL
Pati
PART FIVE
What has stimulated so much commentary on my part about this kinda stinky subject is not so much the legal aspects of the case, but the EAGERNESS–––almost AVIDITY–––with which so many ascribe GUILT and the WORST possible motives to any and all involved in this non-conforming cult.
Doesn't anyone realize that "they" are perilously close to passing a LAW against OVEREATING, and are preparing to fine RESTAURANTS in certain areas who dare to sell "inappropriate" and "inappropriate AMOUNTS" of food to overweight customers?
The next thing you know they'll be putting meters on our toilets and passing LAWS against flushing more than once a week, because it "wastes water."
You think this is absurd, and doesn't apply? Think again. Once we give in to full implementation of The Supervised Society, NOTHING we do will be out of bounds for the Tyrannists to REGULATE and PUNISH. Eventually, “they” will meter the amounts of OXYGEN you consume and TAX you for it in ever-increasing amounts. Eventually, “they” will assume the authority to determine whether or not you have a right to LIVE–––oh yes they will!
We're well on our way to an Orwellian Society already. Those of you who are so het up about pregnant fourteen-year-olds that you applaud The Texas Gestapo and the Loony Feminazi Judge who unleashed their fearsome, destructive power are doing MUCH to speed the process along.
FreeThinke
"We're well on our way to an Orwellian Society already. Those of you who are so het up about pregnant fourteen-year-olds that you applaud The Texas Gestapo and the Loony Feminazi Judge who unleashed their fearsome, destructive power are doing MUCH to speed the process along."
THIS is what makes me SPEAK out with SUCH veracity on this issue...thanks, FT!
Pati
Yeah, it is another post, but by now it's on a sort of "dead" page like what happens at FPM when the new articles come up and people then feel free to carry on in fewer numbers on the back streets as it were. All of which is just an excuse for answering you on the off topic topic.
So. I said "NW: If Islam is one of God's instruments of judgment against the West, and boy are the signs there that that is what is going on, it tells me that God isn't in favor of our current notions of "freedom" and down we're going"
To which you said: "Our CURRENT notions of freedom are NOT the notions of which I speak...if they were...the Texas fiasco would never have occurred."
Oh yes, I knew they weren't the same freedom you had in mind, and I probably shouldn't have used the word, except it's so apt -- it IS why we should expect to be under judgment, and I finally had to recognize that Islam couldn't be gaining in such power and popularity after 9/11, with all the ranting done at FPM and elsewhere about their evil intentions, if this wasn't in God's will. Two and two makes Islam, among other instruments, God's sword against the West.
"I don't think that we always interpret correctly the 'larger' plan of God."
I don't know about "we" or you, but my interpretation has solid Biblical foundations.
"There are MANY things, for example, that could bring about wrath that might have AS MUCH to do with the CHURCH NOT DOING ITS JOB for what? the past thirty or so years as it does with something so broad as 'freedom.'"
Good point, and I too count the church's failures in the reasons, and perhaps they should be at the head of the list. Judgment begins at the house of God. But I have very specific "freedoms" in mind that are very specific violations of God's very specific laws, not something "broad" at all. All the "liberationisms" we've inherited from the 60s for instance.
"...We were FOUNDED on 'freedom' and it's COMING FROM GOD...TODAY"S society seems to be of the opinion that it stems from 'man' and his particular NOTIONS at the time...so, as you can see, there can BE so many interpretations of that ..."
A proper understanding of freedom according to a right reading of our Constitution would not be getting us God's wrath. Lately I've been coming to think of it as more about justice than about freedom anyway. That is, everything that now curtails our freedoms as defined by the Constitution are in reality unjust. I think it helps keep the categories sorted out but that would be a very long discussion and I haven't worked it all out anyway.
"...PERHAPS what he's angry about is that somehow it is acceptable for gays to parade in the open DEFILING the sacrifice of Christ for our sins and the CHRISTIANS in the country are TEPID in ANY response or outrage about that at ALL....while simultaneously the MAJORITY seems to think it FINE to SHUT DOWN religious belief giving GLORY TO GOD...because we don't LIKE THEM..."
Well, yes, that's all in my category of the kinds of bogus "freedoms" that are bringing down God's wrath. No disagreement there.
"I can see LOTS of different reasons NONE of which are about FREEDOM but how we abuse or exercise it..and THAT is a different question."
Sorry I got you stuck on the term "freedom," since I'm using it in a very different sense than a Constitutionally minded person such as yourself uses it. I see plenty of reasons why America is under God's judgment. I merely mentioned the bogus liberationisms as a reason, and I only mentioned the one instrument Islam although I see many instruments as well as many reasons.
"Personally, I DO NOT believe that God takes an ACTIVE role in the daily lives of men but that HE KNOWS what WILL BE."
We differ drastically on this point. Your God is an impotent God if He isn't in charge of everything that happens. I guess it's just sheer dumb luck that we know He's going to win in the end the? -- since by that kind of thinking He has no power to bring any of it about, but just has to sit back and watch it all happen. The Bible gives us a portrait of a very different God, one who is in charge of calamity and evil and everything that happens (Isaiah and Amos say so). And I'd be unable to get out of bed in the morning if that weren't true, but I know my life is in His hands and nothing can happen to me that He hasn't ordained -- including all the bad stuff, because it will all work to the good if I belong to Him(says that in Romans something).
"I happen to think that too active a role UNDERMINES the entire 'freedom' to choose HIM theology that I was raised to believe...but THAT is another POST. LOL"
Yep, a long other post. I'm a Calvinist. I gather you're an Arminian.
Well, Im a PELAGIAN (as opposed to an AUGUSTINIAN), so there! But you've known that for years, CJ.
By the way, no thread, and no PLACE is "dead" if there are two or three present still willing to carry on a discussion.
I'm very much afraid, however, that we may have confounded those who want to disagree with our understanding of what is at stake in this matter. A fusillade of vehement and highly articulate opinion does tend to drive people who differ away, especially when they just KNOW they are right and are, therefore, impervious to legitimate argument.
You know me well, CJ, and know that I won't be drawn into one of those "MY God is bigger, better and truer than YOUR God" sort of discussions.
We are at odds as to the meaning of true Christian faith, and as far as I'm concerned we have agreed to disagree. At any rate, THIS would not be a proper place to discuss our differences or the reasons for them.
I am delighted to see that my faith in your innate sense of fairness, your devotion to Principle, your knowledge of facts, and your very high intelligence is justified by your almost PROFESSIONAL treatment of this difficult issue. You SEE the complexities, the ramifications and the broad implications, and have been more than fair in discussing behavior I'm sure you, personally, find repugnant.
It has been a great pleasure for me to have this discussion and to read what you and Nor'wood have had to say. We three share essentially the same view, I believe, but I have gained greater depth of understanding and a stronger sense of perspective from reading what the two of you have said on this issue.
And again I thank our dear friend Z for allowing all of this to be said here at GeeeZ. It is a great gift to permitted to speak one's mind without fear of censure, castigation or personal rejection.
FreeThinke
Hi, cj...LOL
to answer your question, no, LOL I'm not Armenian...but if Z is an example, I will take that as a positive or a complement. LOL (Norwegian...hence the moniker)
"We differ drastically on this point. Your God is an impotent God if He isn't in charge of everything that happens. I guess it's just sheer dumb luck that we know He's going to win in the end the? -- since by that kind of thinking He has no power to bring any of it about, but just has to sit back and watch it all happen. The Bible gives us a portrait of a very different God, one who is in charge of calamity and evil and everything that happens (Isaiah and Amos say so). And I'd be unable to get out of bed in the morning if that weren't true, but I know my life is in His hands and nothing can happen to me that He hasn't ordained -- including all the bad stuff, because it will all work to the good if I belong to Him(says that in Romans something).
"I happen to think that too active a role UNDERMINES the entire 'freedom' to choose HIM theology that I was raised to believe...but THAT is another POST. LOL"
Yep, a long other post. I'm a Calvinist. I gather you're an Arminian.
I know...they COULD get to be long...but HEY...I'm worth it. : )
Suffice to say that I think it is MORE powerful and suggestive of strength to offer CHOICE, to ALLOW failure etc. I think God KNOWS exactly every single CHOICE we WILL make, and I didn't say HE COULDN"T manifest His powers into the absolute mundane details of our lives...I said I didn't think HE DID...Ah...I DO believe in prayer, so I obviously accept, believe, and 'pray' that HE answers prayer which, of course, means that HE DOES Act...but I do NOT think that ALL events on earth are DIRECT results of His action...although you could argue they HIS inaction, is, in effect, THE action HE chose, but then that gets so circular. There are people who think that God cares about which dress they wear to what event...or that EVERY natural disaster is God speaking out his anger or wrath. I think God set nature in motion, God KNOWS and CAN command them...but what is the point of so doing without making DARN certain that the message will be received? That makes little sense to me.
I think that God is OPEN to our needs and our desires...HE knows what they are before we do, and has ALREADY made an answer for them...by and large. HE is not caught off guard or 'unexpectant'...HE knows the beginning, middle and the end...down to the last thought, in the last mind, of the last life on earth...and He knows it NOW and Has known it forever...so, to me...even WHEN I pray...I KNOW that HE already KNOWS and has already answered...I don't see that as impotent, but omnipotent..I also believe every word that Paul had to say about our different methods of giving ALL the glory to God...some who eat meat, some who eat vegetables ALL who do it to HIS glory, are right with him. I think Paul makes it crystal clear that it is NOT our place to decide which 'manner' of expression is acceptable to God, but up to God.
I see what you mean about my taking the literal 'freedom' with regards to the Constitution to mean other than what you intended...: ) AND I DO think that God is not happy with US...with us Christians..how could He be any MORE unhappy with unbelievers than He arguably would already be? The church has become a 'worldly and PC travesty' that is 'tepid' in the battle against sin, against evil and even complicit in it...embracing it..and that is not JUST this nation...but ALL Christian nations--of which the US is actually still the MOST conservative on some of these issues! I think Islam is Satan's animal altogether. I think it is founded on a LIE and on a violent, demon possessed man's ego that left him OPEN to that possession. But that's another LONG LONG post. LOL
Pati
This is naughty but possibly apt.
IRONIC TRANSFORMATION
Regarding the Daughters of FLDS
Fee Fie Fo Fum!
I smell the stench of a leftist bum.
Be he black or be he Commie
I'll send him crying to his Mommy.
Glory glory I am pissed
When I see an activist
Throwing out some grubby daughter
With the bathtub full of water
Just because she looked so plain
Prim, ill clad with unstyled mane
She was looked on as a child
Older lechers had defiled.
Had she been a raving beauty
Lib’rals would have felt a duty
To gild and then perfume her tub
And let her join their gen'man's club.
Then, someone's little girl at last
Would soon forget her dreary past.
Become a wild ecdysiast,
Living life as one big blast.
The Mormons’ shame she’d cared not for.
“Dear, Judge, I love to play the whore.
“The gen’men here are oh so nice;
“I just adore my life of vice.”
“Before I lived just like a nun
“Pregnant with a little one
“Serving all my family’s needs
“Enslaved to dull domestic deeds.”
Sex was just another chore
It really was an awful bore.
Now you’ve shown me it is fun.
To hell with living like a nun!
Thank you for my liberation
It’s for me a graduation
No more working night and day
At night I now get paid to play.
Hurray! Hurray! Hurray Hurray!
I just love getting paid to play.
I’m wild for Raiders. Every one
Gives me pleasure by the ton.
FT
Thanks for the long answer, NW, but it will take a while to get to it -- maybe tomorrow.
No, dear, not ARMENIAN, ArMINian, the opposite of Calvinism -- or are you joking? Well if not, OK, so you aren't up on the theological categories.
Calvinists believe in the absolute sovereignty of God (to simplify it), human "total depravity," meaning inability to choose the true good; while Arminians (after a guy named Arminius) rejected Calvin's thinking and affirmed free will -- as you are doing.
I'm not really into arguing it in any depth, both sides are Christians and sometimes it just becomes one of those things we should leave alone. But when it comes to God's judgments on the nation THEN I tend to get into defending Calvin.
We'll see if I'm up to it tomorrow.
G nite.
Nope..wasn't joking...I know nothing about the 'intricacies' of Calvinist and NEVER heard of Arminians...LOL I thought it ODD that you would ask about a religion AND/OR an ethnicity...but hey..who am I. LOL
I cannot possibly be stating "EITHER GUY"S" belief on this as I don't KNOW of either..but have attended several different denominations, read the Bible alot on my own and through studies, and firmly believe that MY relationship with God is mine. No one else can have it but me. My understanding or my inspiration when I read, I believe is as revealing as the holy spirit feels me ready to handle...no?
I think it a subtle issue...I DO believe in the absolute sovereignty of God...it seems to me the discussion is over WHEN God acts...Can you explain for me the logic of God already knowing ALL things that have or will EVER happen...and how He would NOT have already ACTED in the manner He was going to act? I mean...I don't see how He could NEED to 'formulate' a plan or How he would 'suddenly' become enraged in one particular time or with one particular nation in the 'real' time OF that nation...It seems to me that HE already KNOWS and HIS decision was handed down on it THEN...how does that 'limit' in any way His 'sovereignty'? I DO beleive that God CAN change hearts and minds...but I also believe HE largely 'elects' to have the CHOICE of obedience to Him to come FROM US...as an expression OF our love and our faith in Him. It is HOW we are different from the angels who were MADE to praise Him night and day...
I believe that EVERY person has a purpose in God's Will and in the events that WILL take place. My brother, an agnostic, says...How so? IF I decide to NOT believe and it's MY choice then HOW could I have a purpose in God's plan?...I say, well, you don't KNOW what the purpose is. AND, you assume that your purpose would 'require' your acceptance of God at all...I think that you are wrong in this. I think God KNOWS already those who WILL believe and those who will NOT...so, WITH that in mind, perhaps YOUR purpose as an unbeliever is simply to be ONE in a long line of people who will bring about someone important...That requires NO active belief for you to fulfill. Perhaps you are to 'discover' something that either benefits or provides the catalyst for some other event...Perhaps you are to be a cab driver who shows up at precisely the right time to help someone get to where they NEED to be for God's plan...the list of PURPOSES that require NO belief in God in order to be fulfilled is endless...I think God KNOWS before we are BORN IF we will choose Him. My brother says that's not 'choice' then...IT is to US...IF you KNOW what I'm going to do before I make the choice...does that mean I didn't make the choice? I think God has already decided those hearts He is going to touch or move in a particular direction...I think He already KNOWS what prayers every one of us is going to make...He already knows every hair on my head...Why would He need to 'wait' to act on things He's KNOWN about SINCE time began...?
Of course, I don't think our difference of opinion on this matters much to God. As I said, Paul makes that clear to me that it is giving the glory TO GOD that matters...not in our individual understandings of things that neither of us can prove anyway...right? ; )
Thanks for telling me about the Arminians...didn't EVER hear of them. Heard of the Calvinists ONLY in history class briefly..and since I wasn't raised in that denomination, my knowledge of that particular doctrine is limited just that reference in history class...no doubt there are countless OTHER denominations I don't know about as well....but, I am comfortable in my relationship with God.
Pati
Question..if choice is not an aspect of our relationship with God, can you explain to me Cain? Can you explain to me the Garden of Eden? Can you explain to me Satan and the other angels who 'elected' to challenge rather than to continue to give the glory to God?
I am NOT being sarcastic, just trying to understand the distinction that you are making...if you think we ought to take this off the board, you can just email me privately...Z knows my email address.
I forgot about addressing the nations specifically, but I think they are covered in what I mentioned before...I think it has ALL already been decided...
Pati
Pati, no biggie on the ARMINIAN...I'd never heard of it till recently, either, but I DID like your nice compliment about Armenians!!!!
I hope you two continue this here....I'm enjoying it.
I was afraid this could get complicated, Pati. I'll say a few things now, maybe more later.
I CAN answer about Cain and the Fall of humans and of angels. "Total depravity" doesn't mean we have NO free will, we always have the ability to choose rebellion and sin. Adam and Eve had a genuine free choice, but once they sinned, ever since the Fall we have been changed spiritually so that we are out of touch with God and prone to sin, as Adam and Eve weren't. The whole world is spiritually in thrall to demons since Satan seduced Eve, and not to God. That's why He had to give us a written revelation. Also, we cannot choose Him unless He gives us the faith to do so, having first chosen us.
I've always been in more-or-less Calvinist churches, at least the once-saved-always-saved part of it (strict Arminians believe you can lose your salvation, but many people believe a kind of mix of Calvinism and Arminianism). My most recent church, Reformed Baptist, was VERY Calvinist and taught us the whole thing, what is known as the TULIP creed:
T= total depravity (can't choose God; He gives us faith);
U=Unconditional Election (can't earn it);
L = Limited Atonement (Jesus died only for those He chose -- because if He died for everybody then everybody would have to be saved and we know they aren't -- I think this point is kind of academic, since His death of course had the power to save everybody);
I= Irresistible grace (God gives His elect the desire for Him, and you can't resist it); and
P= Perseverance of the saints -- can't lose salvation, God will support His elect to the end.
Here's a link on the subject:
http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm
But as I said, I only really get into this subject because of God's judgment. I think in the OT He's given us the rules for how He judges the nations. We can't expect perfect parallels with Israel of course, but when He spelled out His Law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy He also spelled out exactly how He would bless His people if they obeyed, and how He would curse them if they disobeyed, and I think we should take note. Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 spell this out. A lot of it on the cursing side reminds me of what we are starting to experience, such as strangers among us growing in power, while clearly America had all the blessings when we were still a moral and Christian nation.
Maybe more later.
WAAAAAAAAH! I feel so neglected! WAAAAAAAAH!
How come nobody asked ME about Augustinians and Pelagians?
Calvin founded Presbyterianism, didn't he, CJ? But who was this Arminius or Armin whatever his name was? ...... and what denomination is HE associated with?
And Z, you ought to remove my last piece of verse, not because it's "bawdy," (it is on the surface, but it makes a good point) but because I loused up the formatting something awful.
Comme tu veux, cherie, naturellment!
FT
I DREAD getting into a discussion of Pelagianism with you, FT, ai yi yi. (except to say that Pelagianism is an out and out heresy, though Arminianism isn't.)
Sorry to be neglecting you though. Did appreciate your nice compliment a few posts back.
cj,
No doubt, at this point, you are praying that the genetic Norske marker for stubborness, be shifted, at least momentarily, so that I might see. LOL
IF...and that's a biggie I know, IF I am reading your post correctly, then I would see my assessment MORE in line with the Calvinists...You say 'they are elected' that God has already 'decided' those who will or will not BE His voices to the masses etc..that's what I'm saying. I'm 'calling' it choice because I believe..given the Eden story and the Cain story about obedience etc... that we DO make the choices, but that BECAUSE God KNOWS what those choices WILL BE and always HAS known...how is that any different than saying 'He elected' those of us...Let me clarify..If I knew in an instant what you and Z and Roger would do, think, believe, respond to, etc every step of the way along your lifetime, and I already had a plan of action, then YES...I would 'elect' which of you would play what role where and when in my larger plan...but your Choices are still yours...I just have foreknowledge of what they will be and therefore can 'elect' those I need to be brought into proximity of this or that or the other situation to maximize MY benefit or my plan. But IF those individuals have no clue about God's larger plan or what role they will play or IF in fact they ARE among His elect...isn't that still tantamount to THEIR making the CHOICES? I know...my brain works funky and my lingo even more so...I'm probably not saying this as clearly as I could...
I DO also believe that God's protection is ON the people He knows will be doing His works...in your terms, His elect...I'm thinking of Job and how Satan basically needed 'permission' to even have 'access' to him. But, again, I think it was God's KNOWING that Job was going to CHOOSE to follow HIM that brought about that protection to begin with...or his being among the 'elect'...I just can't get around the whole "if we accept that God already KNOWS what we WILL or WILL NOT do' then why would we THINK that He hasn't already 'decided' on ALL things? Right down to our meals or whatever...
That is NOT to say that HE removed or does not afford us CHOICE. It is my HUMBLE opinion, that forced love is NOT REMOTELY love...it does not bring about the same quality or tone in a relationship as KNOWING that those people WANT to love and WANT to be obedient and WANT to bring glory to your NAME and acknowledge that they NEED you...it is not the same. If it were, we would be NO different than the heavenly bodies that were already serving in that capacity. It is the reason that I do NOT accept that Islam is remotely FROM God...HE doesn't NEED man to COMPEL others to come into His army...it is a WEAK God that NEEDS man...It is an omnipotent God that KNOWS all and USES all to bring about HIS will through the knowledge of what EACH of those men will do from the beginning..
It's all so clear in my head...LOL I know you doubt that at this point. But to me, it sounds as if we are saying the same things but it's the terminology thing again...where am I going wrong? LOL
Z...meant what I said as the compliment. : ) And, I am more than happy to keep the discussion here...just didn't want to upset anyone that it might be moving a bit off topic...as long as all else are okay, then I am MORE than fine with it staying here. : )
FT, I'll bite..Augustinians and Pelagians? ....tell me more: )
Pati
I'm not even going to say that all of this is clear in MY head, Pati.
I am having a struggle figuring out your reasoning, but it may be because I feel rushed at the moment and really shouldn't get into all this right now.
The way I usually explain it to myself is to say that from GOD's point of view He's in charge of everything; while from OUR point of view we have free will -- and if we get into imagining that God is controlling our every move we'll drive ourselves to the loony bin, so I don't go there.
It isn't a matter of being forced or so predetermined our sense of freedom is meaningless -- we will ultimately be judged for everything we do after all, so we do have free will in that sense. There's never a point when we don't have a sense of having free will. But we aren't aware of the big picture so we don't see the whole range of choices that are possible and we don't even consider the choices we aren't interested in.
And again, the doctrine of depravity is really just about our inability not to sin because we inherit a "sin nature" since Adam disobeyed, and that means we are so blind we are unable to recognize God. So He gave us His revelation in the Bible, and He gives us faith and He gives us His Holy Spirit when we believe.
That probably didn't make anything clearer either.
I have to go do some things. Be back later.
Ephesians 2:8-10: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Just thought this may apply to your discussion.
cj,
Yep, I still say that I am more Calvinist than you seem to see...LOL Because that last post of yours seems to be in line with precisely what I'm saying with regards to free will.
To me, God KNOWS in advance the choices we will make, always had..if some call that a 'predestined' state because God already knew fine...but I think that in all other scenarios it is our will and our choice, so I like my take that God didn't arbitrarily select us...He selected THOSE who He knew, because He knows all and He knows it all at once, would MAKE the choice for Him...to me it's a subtle difference but it's necessary for ALL else to make any sense...maybe I'm too literal minded? LOL
Pati
Hi frank family...
LOL It applies but offers no clarity in the distinctions we seem to keep getting hung up on. LOL
We're basically considering if the selection is made BECAUSE God already KNOWS the choices we WILL make and therefore, it IS factored into His plan, OR is it just arbitrary people He selects and gives the gift of faith to in order for them to carry on his work? I think the former MUST be the case because otherwise, most of the other teachings become a problem for convincing anyone who does NOT maybe 'feel' convicted that they should adhere to ANYTHING remotely biblical or associated with God...I mean, if the choice has was made based NOT on anything you do anyway, and IF you don't feel immediately drawn to God...what the heck...it's already a lost cause, no hope for you from the outset...do what you like, the outcome for you will be the same...I cannot buy into that...not at all. It just doesn't fit my understanding...
Pati
Hi Pati,
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following you. :)
But God's KNOWING isn't about predestination. When you say "He selected THOSE who He knew . . . would MAKE the choice for Him..." that's like saying we earn our election by our works (by making a choice for Him). But as The Frank Family said, " . . . it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—"
God (SPIRIT) has infused inanimate matter with the LIFE that is HIMSELF. He has done this with the LOVE that is HIMSELF. He has performed all of His works in accordance with Divine INTELLIGENCE, and Divine PRINCIPLE. What he has done is TRUE and good, because He is TRUTH and incapable of producing anything BUT goodness.
God IS the embodiment and perfect expression of INTELLIGENCE, PRINCIPLE, SPIRIT, SOUL, TRUTH, LOVE and LIFE, itself. He IS these things and they are synonymous with and inseparable from each other.
God's Gift to us is LIFE. If what we choose, or find ourselves able, to MAKE of it has no effect on our ultimate fate, then our lives are meaningless exercises in futility.
I cannot and WILL not believe that.
Developing an understanding of Who and What God is is an ongoing, never-ending process. That is our most important Life's Work. We are NOT mindless automata designed to be moved about at will by Authoritarian Dictates. Each of us MUST work out his OWN Salvation, albeit with fear and trembling.
No one can eat your dinner for you. No one can do your breathing for you. And no one can–––or should–––do your THINKING for you.
God is MIND, and His Divine Intelligence is IN each and every one of us. It is His Gift to us and is meant to be fully developed and USED throughout our lives.
We can know we are wrong whenever we give way to an impulse to HARM others, to STEAL their property, WOUND or KILL their bodies, DESTROY their homes, their land, their reputation. AGGRESSION is SIN.
WASTE of the abundant resources God has given us including our intelligence is SIN. Discouraging curiosity, spurning knowledge, despising what we are not equipped to understand, holding others back for our selfish aims, using people, treating them unfairly, taking advantage of the innocence of others is SIN. Cruelty and Insensitivity is SIN. Insolence is SIN. Intolerance is SIN.
Honest affection is NEVER "sin." Taking joy in one another's company is never "sin."
Always giving others the benefit of the doubt borders in the Divine.
Forgiveness of the offenses (real and imagined) of others IS Divine.
Remembering that VENGEANCE belongs to GOD is the most important First Principle I can discern.
Finger-pointing and CONDEMNATION are SATANIC.
Thinking ill of oneself (forgeting that you are a child of God), treating oneself badly and imagining this is VIRTUOUS is SATANIC.
". . . Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and evil speaking be put away from you with all malice. And be Ye kind one to another, tender-hearted and forgiving one another, even as God, who for Christ's Sake hath forgiven you."
FreeThinke
FT
Apologizes for not citing the biblical quotation at the end of his last post as from Ephesians, Chapter 4.
Pati and CJ -- please bear with me as this may seem a little bit long.
First of all, all life is given by God. When I say that I am not speaking of creation only but I am also speaking of the ongoing process of life. Without God sustaining even the smallest of living things on an ongoing basis life would cease. As far as our salvation goes we are in the same circumstance. Apart from God we are all going our own way and none of us seek God. It is God's gift of faith that draws us to himself. The reason that He gives faith is because of His extending grace to us. Think of it as if we are all running just as fast as we possibly can to jump off a cliff. We are all headed for the cliff but only some of us will make it over and fall to our death because in the mean time God snatched some of us up. We were equally headed for the cliff and God is good by choosing to save some of us. None of us merit being snatched up as we were all running for the cliff. Is God bad because He did not snatch up all of us? By no means. Did we earn the right to be snatched up? Certainly not. The real question here is who is the strongest -- me or God? Am I able to hold onto God or is it God that holds onto me? God's offer of salvation through faith is a legitimate offer that would seem to be dependent on me. But is it really? God also gave a legitimate offer to the Jews in the Old Testament. He said that if you follow all my commands, if you follow the whole Law, then I will bless you with a place in heaven. Was God cruel because they could not follow the entire law? No way! God loves His chosen people and He has protected them throughout history. He gave them, and us, the Law so that we would realize our need of Messiah. This is the same way with God offering salvation by faith. It is God that grants us faith.
Now here is where my real heart and passion lies. This question that we are discussing here is the WRONG question! So much emphasis has been placed upon salvation and whether it is by our predestination or God's foreknowledge. We come up with arguments on both sides and we stress who has salvation and how we got salvation. We treat salvation as if it is a destination or the crux of a great race. We view it as an end. Salvation is not an end but rather it is only a beginning. Salvation is like the buy-in at a poker table. It only gives us the ability to sit at the table and play the game. We spend so much of our time and attention focusing on the starting gates. It is the running of the race that should merit the greatest of our time and attention. "For by grace are we saved through faith and this not of ourselves it is the gift of God not by works lest any man should boast." Don't brag about being in the race. It is God's gift. "For we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works which He has prepared in advance for us to do." This is the race. The finish line is not our salvation but rather our holiness. God prepared good works for us to do. Why? For us! To make us holy even as He is holy! I've already taken up to much space here so I'll leave it there.
Please, Mr. Frank, don't be so modest. Your contributions have been valuable, and if anything I wish we had heard far more from you.
Your understanding of the meaning of faith and salvation is profound. Obviously you've thought and prayed earnestly for a long time on the matter.
My only wish is that those who differ or cannot believe precisely as others do would not be considered "hellbound" by the more orthodox believer.
The feeling of implicit "threat" in the air around too many Christians has been defeating Christ's Mission in my never humble opinion for centuries.
The ability to believe is a Gift. Some have it, many do not. PRETENDING one has the gift of faith is a hideous hypocrisy, yet many have done precisely that, because of fear–––not of Hell–––but of persecution, condemnation, ostracism, imprisonment, torture and barbarous forms of execution such as being burned at the stake.
Better to be an heretic than a hypocrite. But then self-preservation is our primary basic instinct, is it not?
Conversion by threat of force and murder cannot POSSIBLY be authentic. And I for one firmly believe that those who use tyrannical authority to TERRORIZE people into accepting ANY position they find personally untenable are FAR more likely to land in hell than the poor souls they have victimized.
God simply IS. Those who do not have the power to recognize His Presence may be DEPRIVED, but they are not necessarily DEPRAVED.
~ FreeThinke
Well, I started this subject by talking about how I'm expecting God's judgment on the nation, saying that Islam seems to me to be one of God's instruments, and I gave some reasons for that. Nor questioned my reading of God's role in this, and it became a general discussion of free will versus God's sovereignty. We weren't discussing the gospel as such. TFF makes great points about the Christian life, a very nice presentation of how God works in salvation and in our lives,and I agree completely that the Christian life is a growth in holiness, and he's right, we shouldn't discuss salvation in terms of predestination versus free will. (And I hope nobody is actually bragging about being in the race!)
Where this started is that I do think that we can tell, based on what we know of God's character as revealed in the Bible, when God is bringing judgment on a nation, and many other things, such as the fact that we are in the very last of the last days before Jesus returns. He did say we are to read the times and the seasons.
I don't know who FT has in mind with his complaints about hypocritical Christians who pretend to have faith or why it enters into this discussion. Christians don't make up Hell, it is the word of God that informs us of it, and warns us about it. This kind of discussion we've been having here isn't really about the gospel -- it's a discussion about doctrine, not about how to get saved.
However, I do think there have been times when people have been saved by an appreciation of the reality of Hell. Calvinists preach the Law before the gospel, to impress on people their inability to obey the commandments so that they will see their need for a savior. Even a belief in Hell is a belief in the word of God, after all, the beginning of faith, the fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom, according to scripture, so salvation CAN certainly begin there.
Self-preservation IS a basic instinct, you are right, FT, but Jesus teaches that we are to be willing to give up our lives for Him. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" When you grasp who He is and His infinite worth and amazing promises, you can even welcome being burned at the stake for His sake.
But perhaps shouldn't have these discussions here in any case.
LOL I'll just say this and hope that it makes more sense than I have been. LOL
"it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—"
The 'gift of faith' from God is the holy spirit that will convict us in the manner we NEED to CHOOSE to behave...the GRACE is from our having ASKED for the gift with a truly repentent heart...choice.
God knows that we will make that choice, because He knows all and He knows it All at once...if you want to 'term' that 'predestiny' fine...I term it as God knowing All, knowing that we WILL make that choice...the result is the same in terms of our role in God's plan...it is not the same with regards to WHY we would even NEED redemption or anything else...WHY we would need to spread God's word and Tell people to come to God through Christ, IF in fact, it is only a select, predestined few who will be given the opportunity from the outset...I have to believe it my way cj, because to believe that it has not ALL been about choice from the Garden to Cain to the crucifixion renders it kind a ridiculous exercise in futility for those of us, no matter what we choose, in my opinion...I'm not trying to be crass there...I'm just saying that my understanding is that it is ALL about choosing Him...and that He doesn't say NO to anyone who CHOOSES Him with a truly repentent heart...that's what I have to believe for it to have any meaning whatsoever to me...sorry. I don't know how better to explain it.
Christ said that no one gets to the Father but through me...WHY is that even necessary IF it is a 'foregone' conclusion?
Pati
frank family..thanks for your input on this but I think that you miss the distinction that cj and I are making....
We are not discussing where faith comes from or even Grace, but whether or not that 'Grace' and ultimate faith from the conviction of the holy spirit is a 'predestined' or predetermined gift or whether it is given to those who CHOOSE to ASK for that gift of Grace and faith...that's where we seem to be hung up...LOL
I think that God knows all and has known all since He created all. He knew/knows all at one time: the beginning, middle and end. Therefore, He knows from the outset who among us WILL choose Him and who will not...to me THAT is different than 'God selecting' a few arbitrary people to provide with the Grace and the faith to move His plan forward...I know it seems to be a subtle distinction and I think it has more to do with terminology than anything else. LOL But that seems to be the sticking point...I still think it is ALL about choice..and cj is saying that it is predestined and that only a select few will manage to receive the gift that is arbitrary and not 'dependent' upon 'asking' for it which she seems to relate to 'works' which I do not see...to me 'asking' or 'choosing' to follow God and repent from the ways of this world is simply a choice, a decision and is not remotely associated, in my mind, to a 'work'...so, we are hung up on just that one aspect of the issue...is it choice to ask God's grace and He therefore gives the gift and the faith, or is it just something He has already decided ahead of time to give to a few people? I cannot accept the latter because I think it flies in the face of all the other messages about spreading the gospel and the crucifixion etc...and, so, I am wondering if it isn't just the terminology we are each applying..LOL
In any case, I agree with FT on perhaps taking this discussion off of Z's board...she knows my email and if you'd like to email me privately on this...you or cj, FT already has my email...then I would welcome the continued discussion..I find it very interesting and wonderful to see people still interested enough to discuss it...: )
Pati
Hi NW,
You seem to be saying two contradictory things. If the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to choose then God gets the glory for our salvation, but if God merely KNOWS that we are going to choose, from our own autonomous free will, then WE get the glory for choosing. That's what Frank Family is talking about -- taking the credit to ourselves.
You said "I still think it is ALL about choice..and cj is saying that it is predestined and that only a select few will manage to receive the gift that is arbitrary and not 'dependent' upon 'asking' for it which she seems to relate to 'works' which I do not see...to me 'asking' or 'choosing' to follow God and repent from the ways of this world is simply a choice, a decision and is not remotely associated, in my mind, to a 'work'..."
All I mean by a "work" is that WE do it rather than God. If you are doing any kind of asking or choosing under your own power it is you having the initiative rather than God, and so saving yourself in a sense. You choose, He ratifies.
If what you mean is that the Holy Spirit gives you the power to choose, then we agree, and you seem to also be saying that at the same time. In that case God has the intiative and the glory in saving us.
It's not really subtle, I think it's just that you seem to be trying to have it both ways.
Hi NW,
You seem to be saying two contradictory things. If the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to choose then God gets the glory for our salvation, but if God merely KNOWS that we are going to choose, from our own autonomous free will, then WE get the glory for choosing. That's what Frank Family is talking about -- taking the credit to ourselves.
You said "I still think it is ALL about choice..and cj is saying that it is predestined and that only a select few will manage to receive the gift that is arbitrary and not 'dependent' upon 'asking' for it which she seems to relate to 'works' which I do not see...to me 'asking' or 'choosing' to follow God and repent from the ways of this world is simply a choice, a decision and is not remotely associated, in my mind, to a 'work'..."
All I mean by a "work" is that WE do it rather than God. If you are doing any kind of asking or choosing under your own power it is you having the initiative rather than God, and so saving yourself in a sense. You choose, He ratifies.
If what you mean is that the Holy Spirit gives you the power to choose, then we agree, and you seem to also be saying that at the same time. In that case God has the intiative and the glory in saving us.
It's not really subtle, I think it's just that you seem to be trying to have it both ways.
I don't know why I posted twice. Please delete the extra one, Z.
REVENONS AUX NOS MOUTONS!
FreeThinke's ADVICE to Mr. VINGER:
Analyze the evidence BEFORE you make mass arrests on the strength of a mentally-disturbed mischief- maker's malicious allegations.
From the article:
••• "The phone number used to call the crisis center is the same one once used by a Colorado woman, identified as 33-year-old Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs, accused of making previous false reports of abuse." •••
The fact of Mz Swinton's unacknowledged blackness is NOT irrelevant to this case, since Mormon's have had a history of regarding Negroes as inferior.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the Associated Press:
May 3, 2008
Warrant Dropped Against Man Named in Polygamist Retreat Raid
Authorities Said Friday.
A Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman would not say why the warrant was dropped for Dale E. Barlow, 50, who lives in Colorado City, Ariz. Barlow has denied knowing the 16-year-old girl who called a crisis center.
The girl reported that she was a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that she was beaten and raped at the sect's Eldorado ranch.
An investigation led to the April 3 raid, in which state welfare workers took 463 children living at the Yearning For Zion Ranch. A boy was born to one of the sect's mothers Tuesday; he and the other children remain in state custody.
Authorities have not located the 16-year-old girl and are investigating the source of the call.
Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger would not say when the warrant for Barlow was dropped, only that "it is no longer active."
Rob Parker, an FLDS spokesman, said the dropped warrant shows the weakness of the state's case against residents of the ranch.
"I think that's just one more piece of evidence that the whole basis on which this raid was premised was unfounded and was inadequately checked out, to the formulation of what basically amounted to an army that went in there and took their children," Parker said.
The phone number used to call the crisis center is the same one once used by a Colorado woman, identified as 33-year-old Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs, accused of making previous false reports of abuse.
Investigators have not said whether Swinton made the call to Texas authorities, though Vinger said she is "still considered a person of interest."
"There is an investigation centering on that," Vinger said. "We have quite a bit of evidence that still needs to be analyzed."
A judge has ruled that children removed from the ranch should stay in state custody until all can have a hearing.
Child welfare officials told the judge the children were living in an authoritarian environment that left girls at risk of sexual abuse and raised boys to become sexual perpetrators.
The FLDS is a group that splintered from the Mormon Church, which does not recognize the sect and disavows polygamy.
In Utah, members of the polygamous church have asked the state's governor to intervene in its fight with Texas authorities over the custody the children.
A letter written by FLDS elder Willie Jessop says Texas officials are rejecting Utah-issued birth certificates and other documents as "fake."
The letter asks Gov. Jon Huntsman to exercise his executive authority to assist in protecting the civil rights of native Utahns and FLDS members. FLDS parents claim they have been denied their due process by the Texas courts.
"Without your leadership and personal intervention in this matter, the parental rights of every Utah family is at risk," Jessop wrote.
Huntsman spokeswoman Lisa Roskelly said the governor has been in contact with Jessop and was reviewing his request.
cj...I most distinctly did not say that the holy spirit IS what compels choice...that was all you...I've even looked through my posts and I have not made that statement, so either you assumed that I accepted that or inferred in eroneously from what I was saying.
I am not trying to have anything both ways...I am distinctly saying that the choice must FIRST be made by US to ask God for Grace with a repentent heart whereby THEN he provides the gift of the holy spirit. I do believe that the holy spirit convicts us in HOW to BE obedeint to God and to succeed in the new life we have chosen, and that we STILL, with every conviction, must choose to FOLLOW that conviction or not...
Does that clarify it better? The holy spirit BEING a gift from God to provide us the FAITH or convictions necessary to our successful worship of God and GROWTH as a 'believer' comes AFTER we have asked by our own CHOICE with a truly repentent heart for God's grace. I see no 'having anything both ways' unless, again, I miss your meaning...LOL
Pati
Holy cow FT!
This is Jim Crow style lynching of folks that are different...
I am appalled...utterly, and completely appalled at this outrage in this day and age...
Pati
Yes, Pati, and so am I–––have been since Day One of this terrifying spectacle.
Those who believe that irresponsible ALLEGATIONS and mere SUSPICION should be regarded as proof of GUILT that requires a victim/defendant to prove himself INNOCENT of unproven charges just because CHILDREN are involved is the unwitting advocate of tyranny and oppression.
No matter how "well-meaning" this attitude is profoundly anti-American.
And by the way, boys have been designed by our Creator to be "sexual perpetrators." That does not mean they are natural-born RAPISTS, but the urge to merge is extraordinarily strong in males of all ages. That's NORMAL not "perverted."
And by the way, if God didn't want us to be sexual, why did He MAKE us that way?
I suppose strict Calvinists believe we were given these profound desires as a TEST of our willingness to "obey" God's wish that we NEVER given IN to them?
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
~ FreeThinke
OK, I guess I misread something you wrote about the Holy Spirit, NW, I'm sorry. Then you do think we can choose God in our own strength and that's where Calvinists differ with you, since we believe we can't choose God or repent or do anything toward our salvation unless He gives us the grace to do it.
And what we are also saying is that if we do the choosing, that gives US the glory for our salvation instead of God --and makes us better than others who do not choose God, which I think is what TFF meant about bragging.
I hope I understand now.
http://www.reason.com
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126168.html
First They Came for the Toddlers...
Jesse Walker | April 24, 2008, 11:25am
The FLDS raid in Texas looks more ludicrous every day. Writing in the Dallas Morning News, Scott Henson takes aim at Judge Barbara Walther:
Excuse me, Judge? You issued a sweeping, house-to-house search warrant based on a highly questionable anonymous call that turned out to be phony. You refused to allow individual hearings for children, grouping them together like cattle. You accepted the testimony of an expert on "cults" who only learned about FLDS from media accounts, rather than an academic who'd studied them professionally for 18 years.
You've ruled the existence of five girls between 16 and 19 who were pregnant or had children was evidence of systematic abuse, even though in Texas 16-year-olds can marry with parental consent. You've ruled young toddlers are in "immediate" danger because of their parents' beliefs or what might happen 15 years from now, not because anyone abuses them.
From the evidence presented publicly, I do not believe that the children have been sexually abused or physically harmed. Allegations of forcible rape turned out to be bogus, and only five girls 16 to 19 years old were found pregnant or with children -- probably about the same ratio you'd find if you rounded up all the kids in my neighborhood....
In Eldorado, no one alleges YFZ parents are themselves abusing children. Instead the allegation (in court, at least) is that they're teaching their kids that a woman's highest calling is giving birth and raising children and that it's acceptable to get married at an early age. Even if it were true, and the allegation was disputed, can this really be enough to seize children from their homes?
Hanson has been covering the case heavily on his excellent blog. Also invaluable: The Polygamy Files, a blog by Brooke Adams of The Salt Lake Tribune, who has been on the fundamentalist Mormon beat for years. One piece of good news: Judge Walther hasreversed her decision to separate FLDS mothers from children less than 12 months old.
And yes, it may turn out that there was some genuine sexual abuse in that community. If so, it should be punished. But even then, the approach the government has taken would be deeply harmful overkill, for reasons expressed pithily by Les Jones:
Imagine that some parents in a school district were accused of child abuse. Now imagine that the authorities took every child from the elementary, junior high, and high school away from their parents and put them in foster care. That's a rough analogy of what's happening in Texas.
The difference, I guess, is that the FLDS parents belong to a "cult." And once you've applied that label, it's just a quick step to assuming they do everything en masse.
Courtesy of FreeThinke
Hoooraaay! We have the one issue down...um, but I have another one cj...LOL
I do not understand the idea that because we first must CHOOSE to turn to God, acknowledging that we NEED Him, is anything of 'bragging' rights at all or that the 'glory' would not be God's ...it is His Grace, and the holy Spirit...again, I would disagree that man, in his struggle against his OWN pride and emotions and 'wanting to do things his way', coming to acknowledge his OWN weakness and inability, and therefore turning away from THIS world to LOOK to God is in anyway, giving that man 'glory'...So, yes, I suppose that we disagree on that as well. I don't see any 'bragging' rights one would have from having had to acknowledge his shortcomings and to plea for Grace from God...I view the GRANTOR of that Grace to BE magnanomous one...who had forewarned, foretold, sent messengers, sent His own Son...and YET, offers Grace and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the stubborn animal who has finally conceded the need for it...I don't know HOW you could view that to be a position of bragging.
Again, I think every example frm the Garden to Cain and Abel, to the Crucifixion is about CHOICE and I think it is the only real distinction between man and the heavenly angels who were created to give all GLORY to God...
I am happy that we finally reached communication of the one issue which no doubt was MY inability to properly express myself ...my bad. : )
Pati
EXCELLENT post FT!!!
I LOVE the school analogy...it's precisely the point...and really? Five girls from 16-19? SO not the earlier report that intimated some were only 14? That was all hype as well?
Again...frightening scenario! I cannot believe I live in a country where such tactics could take place against a community the entire COUNTRY not be in UTTER OUTRAGE over the LONG ARM of the LAW...
Pati
"I don't see any 'bragging' rights one would have from having had to acknowledge his shortcomings and to plea for Grace from God...I view the GRANTOR of that Grace to BE magnanomous one...who had forewarned, foretold, sent messengers, sent His own Son...and YET, offers Grace and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the stubborn animal who has finally conceded the need for it...I don't know HOW you could view that to be a position of bragging."
Spiritual pride in humility and repentance is a very common thing, though, surely you recognize that? And if a person thinks he had that humility to repent, what does that say about those who go on in their refusal to yield? I'm surprised you don't see it.
In case anyone wants to know what I think about the theological discussion I abandoned it is this:
Both of you seem to me to be "straining our gnats while swallowing camels."
Better to keep the Cosmos in mind and realize how very very tiny is our place in it. That will restore you to a proper degree of modesty in a hurry.
Your heretical friend,
FT
cj
My understanding about the so none can boast has to DO with the Grace of God having nothing to do with 'works'..which I already stated, I don't see the actual decision to TURN to God as a 'work'..
That people are prideful is a FACT...it's what KEEPS us often times from realizing that we NEED to choose God...again...I think I must be a mixture of the two you mentioned then...because I do NOT believe that we are all 'born good' as the one you mentioned but I DO believe that the entire human experience is about CHOOSING God...when I compare Christianity with Islam...it is the MOST GLARING difference...freedom TO CHOOSE and FORCED SUBMISSION..maybe that's just might take.
Thank you for the very informative and civil discussion on this...so many people would not take the time or remain as cordial on issues that matter so much to them...I do truly appreciate it and I am NOT trying to 'just be difficult'LOL
Pati
FT
Point taken...however, I don't see that the discussion is uncivil or even either one of us trying to force the other into any particular understanding...more a TRYING to understand the other's 'understanding' of God and faith etc...sorry you don't seem to appreciate that...
I do agree it is a minor issue, but I don't think trying to understand those minor differences in understanding are necessarily 'swallowing any camels'...LOL I like trying to understand others' perspectives and why they come to them. It helps me to understand the person better as a whole...and sometimes, FT, during the process, I come to an entirely different understanding of what I thought was a 'settled' issue for me...so, I think it a good thing.
Are you trying to nudge us back onto topic??? LOL
Pati
Oh, Pati, the two of you reminded me just a bit of those who used to get all bogged down in such questions as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Or "Does the wine and wafer REALLY transform itself into ACTUAL blood and flesh during Communion, or is it merely a "symbolic?"
I mean people have come to BLOWS over such questions as these and created SCHISM [pronounced SIZM, by the way, the "h" is silent] that led to bloody religious wars and the formation of an ever-increasing number of new denominations, etc.
Since childhood, I have always thought these arguments inane. I knew darned well I was drinking GRAPE JUICE and eating a tiny cube of air-dried BOND BREAD at Communion in our church, because my father was a deacon, and I SAW him cutting up the bread and filling the tiny glass vials with Welch's before the service.
Father was Presbyterian, and they didn't allow wine in the Church for ANY purpose EVER. Mother was an Episcopalian and they DID.
Two of my great aunts were members of the Altar Guild at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, and they used a good brand of Burgundy and horrible little manufactured round biscuits, which tasted just like cardboard until they melted away with the wine when it finally came.
The only controversy over Communion in our world was whether it was "sanitary" to permit anyone and everyone to drink from the same chalice as they knelt at the rail.
In my happily heretical view we best serve God by serving one another with as much generosity, magnanimity, compassion, creativity, sensitivity and understanding we can muster. Also, it is our job to find our talents and use them as fully as we can to make this world a happier, healthier, saner and more beautiful place.
LOVE is the fulfilling of every [just] LAW.
Look up, look out, look inward, but never look DOWN.
Resisting the impulse to judge harshly and to tryannize is even more important than resisting tyranny, itself.
The Bigotry spawned by cocksure Self-Righteousness is the Greatest Sin of All.
FreeThinke
Hi again NW,
The usual definition as I understand it is taht ANYTHING is a "work" if it's something we DO to earn any part of our salvation.
Yes, this discussion has been quite civil, and you're right it often isn't. But FT, whole denominations split along the lines Nor and I are discussing. This is far from the "angels on the head of a pin" discussion.
Some keep the Sabbath going to church
I keep it staying a home
With a bobolink for a chorister
And an orchard for a Dome
Some keep the Sabbath in Surplice––
I just spread my wings––
And instead of sounding the bell for church
Our little Sexton sings.
God preaches––a noted clergyman––
And the sermons are never long––
So, instead of getting to Heaven at last
I'm going all along.
Emily Dickinson (1830-86)
Courtesy of FT
"...whole denominations split along the lines Nor and I are discussing..."
I'm fully aware of that, CJ, and that is precisely why I ever-so-gently have hinted that I think it borders on the absurd to belabor petty divisive points such as these.
There is LIFE to be lived, and PEOPLE to be served–––tragedies to be averted, illness to be nursed, meals to be cooked, floors to be swept, gardens to be weeded, plants to be watered, tears to be wiped away gently, children to be instructed, skills to be developed, wars to be fought, foes to be vanquished, and friends to beloved and enjoyed.
~ FreeThinke
Whole denominations never split on account of angels on the head of a pin, so the comparison was NOT apt.
We can't go on meeting like this!
;-)
FT
And so we stopped at last.
EXCELSIOR!
FT
So, goodbye, dear, and Amen!
Here's hoping we meet now and then.
It was great fun, But it was just one
Of those things.
~ Cole Porter
;-)
ADDENDA
Z, I'm very sorry to have to say it, but you are sounding more and more like Nancy Grace every day whenever issues involving sex come up.
I wish you would realize that this is not an issue of "child abuse" at all. That aspect of the case is entirely spurious. Rather it is an issue of a clear-cut violation of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights by an over-zealous ACTIVIST JUDGE and REDNECK POSSE out for blood–––the very sort of abuse of American Freedom and democracy you and other conservatives usually abhor.
Principle is Principle. Truth is Truth. There were NO GROUNDS WHATSOEVER for action taken by the Texas Gestapo. They were motivated entirely by PREJUDICE and unfounded SUSPICION.
Texas and the Activist Feminazi Judge have done EXACTLY what Mike Nifong and "The Durham Dirtbag," as Michael Savage calls her, did to the White Boys at UNC.
I sincerely hope the Judge, the Gestapo Raiders, and every damned Social Worker who had the gall to kidnap, imprison, perform invasive "tests" that involved poking around in body cavities, taking unauthorized DNA samples, and then giving custody of these children to total strangers often separating, then scattering brothers and sisters over a six hundred mile radius–––I hope the individuals involved in perpetrating this atrocity will be arrested, imprisoned without bail and punished to the fullest extent of the law for kidnapping, illegal search and seizure, unlawful prosecution, vandalism of private property, defamation of character, and anything else that can be thrown at them.
There are over 150 posts on this subject down the line on this gruesome subject. Many of them not made by me are nevertheless in agreement with the position I and Michael Savage have taken on this thing since it first reared its ugly head.
It depresses me that none of the excellent reasoning and factual research so abundantly displayed on this fine blog–––and now the wise, sane and perfectly just decision of the appeals court–––has made even the tiniest dent in your thinking.
I'm sorry, but this FLDS thing has TERRIFYING implications for ALL of us, if the Activist judge and the Redneck Posse is allowed to get away with the CRIMES they have committed against the US CONSTITUTION.
"In so much as Ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, Ye have also done it unto me."
~ FreeThinke
PS: This is NOT a contest of wills between us, Z. There is nothing personal about it. This is, instead, about the violation of PRINCIPLES greater than any individual on the planet. What Texas did six weeks ago to the Yearning for Zion ranch is tantamount to the tactics used by Nazi Germany.- FT
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Thank GOD for YOU, Heidianne! BRAVO! And Bless you–––certainly not because you agreed with ME ;-), but because you are RIGHT.
Both CJ and Norwegianwood, who are old friends both of Z's and mine, and several others had a great deal to say on this when this FLDS thing was featured a few weeks ago here at GeeeZ.
Heidianne got it EXACTLY right–––nailed it perfectly at all four corners. If we don't protect our freedoms FIRST, we will very soon have NOTHING at all TO protect.
And I'm sorry, but no matter what the STATE (that perennial usurper of rights and freedoms) has to say––and no matter how anyone FEELS on the subject–––a post-pubescent girl is NOT––I repeat NOT––a "child." It was perfectly "normal" not very long ago for girls of that age to marry and start bearing children–––and still is throughout much of the world.
I don’t believe we have an inherent right to impose OUR personal standards and preferences on ANYONE who does not share them, EXCEPT in cases where MURDER, MAYHEM, RAPE, THEFT, VANDALISM, EXTORTION and persistent HARASSMENT are found.
And by the way, we are supposed to arrest and incarcerate wrongdoers only AFTER sufficient evidence has been gathered that makes it appear likely they would be found guilty in a court of law. And then we can only punish them IF they found guilty by a jury of their peers.
If anyone wants to argue this further (I hope not!), it would be a good idea to review the 150-odd posts made on this subject earlier in Z's archives. There is MUCH of great value to read and digest there.
“The children” are not important enough for us to throw away our liberties and turn ourselves into a POLICE STATE.
FreeThinke
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
Pris, I was with you 100%, until you started supporting the right of government to act like "Nazis" when it seems to support YOUR ideas of what is and is not good for people–––particularly other people's children.
America is supposed to be all about Freedom of Choice, and freedom to pursue happiness any way we choose, unless it involves the classic crimes I just listed in my last post.
And I must say again that "children" per se were not involved in this case. It was the ENEMEDIA that promoted that notion with fierce energy to feed the public's ever-growing demand for cheap sensationalism.
As is their wont the ENEMEDIA has couched things in terms deliberately designed to set us at each other's throats.
Have you taken a good look at the young women in that sect who've recently been seen on television? They all look wholesome, well-fed, squeaky clean, serene, well-mannered and very pretty in an old-fashioned Gibson-Girl sort of way. Frankly, it's refreshing to see young women who are NOT trying to emulate Britney Spears and other brash, immoral, tasteless, ill-clad, badly behaved, vulgar hoydens of the day.
If we really want to rush in and IMPRISON anyone because we don't like their lifestyle or their image, we should START with people like BILL MAHER and everyone involved in MTV. And ALL the Gangstah Rappers and their promoters and producers and FANS, of course.
But why stop there? Surely a bald-faced LIARS like Oliver Stone and Francis Ford Coppola should be deprived of THEIR freedom, and their movies should be BANNED. And on and on and on and on and on!
There is can be no compromising with the Constitution–––no matter WHAT. Once we go down that path, everything our soldiers fought for in all past wars will be LOST and their sacrifice with have been made in VAIN.
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!
Our fighting men "fought and bled for FREEDOM's cause–––not for a Nanny State on ANY level.
~ FreeThinke
––––––––––––––––––––––––
I only suggested that we stop talking about this, because everything that's being said now was ALREADY said and REPEATED OFTEN several weeks ago on this same excellent blog.
Heidianne is new to the discussion, and I appreciated her views and the way she stated them.
You all can go on all weekend, but as far as I can see no one who was involved in this discussion from the beginning has budged a quarter inch from where he started, including me, so what is the use of just repeating ourselves?
If anyone has something NEW and entirely DIFFERENT to say it would be wonderful, but as it looks right now, we're in gridlock. Therefore, I'll agree to disagree and let it go. At least till we hear more concrete, objective reporting on this case.
Let me just add this: If you go on a government-funded "FISHING EXPEDITION" and stick with it long enough, sooner or later you're bound to catch SOMETHING. But it's strictly ILLEGAL––even for policemen––to fish in someone's PRIVATE POND without first being INVITED to do so. If you haven't been INVITED, you are TRESPASSING. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Do you really WANT a government that is empowered to break into your house and rummage through all your drawers and closets anytime they feel thee urge just because they think they MIGHT find something that would incriminate you?
PLEASE!
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
FJ, the POPULAR CULTURE is more damaging to us all than anything I can think of. The ever more degraded pop culture has been the vanguard of all forces cheapening, coarsening, "dumbing-down" and vulgarizing American life.
What used to be merely silly nonsense has become more and more of a menace.
Where once we encouraged each other to look upward and outward–––to aspire to higher thought, finer culture, broader outlook, more refined, humane, charitable behavior–––now our gaze stops at crotch level and our thoughts go no higher.
This is every bit as true for the pious as it is for the heathen. Whether we favor unabashed libertinism or puritanical chastity we are without doubt a morbidly SEX-OBSESSED society.
Too bad! There are so many other things that might take up our time and bring greater rewards. ––––––––––––––––––––––––
Why isn't anyone beating up on the Amish and the Mennonites and Catholic nuns for the "rigid conformity" these sects demand of their women?
Why isn't every Seminary, Rectory and Monastery in the land being raided on suspicion of child sex abuse on a weekly basis at least?
After all, if SEVERAL priests and ministers have committed acts of atrocity, ALL of them should be regarded as suspect and taken into custody till they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they never had sex with a child.
The same should apply to public schools–––and private ones too, of course. After all, we KNOW that SOME teachers have had (gasp!) SEX with SOME students, therefore ALL teachers, principals, janitors, groundskeepers, bus drivers and food-service personnel should be hauled in and given the Third Degree till we have sweated the TRUTH out of them, don't you think?
And what about the possibility of hidden LESBIANISM among the nuns? The habit makes a perfect cover for these vile and sinister acts. Shouldn't this be publicly INVESTIGATED and EXPOSED? Let's round up all the nuns on suspicion of perversion. A good stretch on the rack and the judicious application of thumb screws and red hot irons should get the truth out of them in no time.
And that nice little old man down the street may be the grandfather of eight, but don't you think there's something UNHEALTHY about the way so many little boys in the neighborhood hang around his place while he spends time in his basement workshop? Does anyone really KNOW what goes on down there?
It's time we found out.
Anyone and everyone could be–––and probably is–––a PERVERT waiting for a chance to pounce on YOUR innocent child. Ladies, you can't even be sure of your own HUSBAND. Men are such BEASTS, you know. Incest is on the rise. BEWARE!
AFTER them! AFTER them, I say! AAAAAAAAFTER them!!!
The dungeon, the scaffold, the sword and the STAKE await. We MUST wage war on SIN!
AAAAAAAFTER them!
Welcome to New Salem, the Land of American-Style Stalinism and the Gateway to Hell!
~ FreeThinke
Post a Comment