Yet another religious cult raided

[kandrathe]

You really think they're not in it for the sex with underage girls? I find it beyond belief that this is not at least a major part of what is going on.

-Jester

These are hard line fundamentalist religious people. For them, sex is for procreation. Also, "the plurality of wives is a general requirement for the highest eternal salvation", and so it leads to women being married off to the oldest men to assure their salvation, then when the old men die, the wives are reassigned. It is a weird custom by our standards, but it has been their practice for almost 200 years. I also think that due to the shortage of women, they reach to younger and younger women/girls for marriage prospects. My belief is that by living within a nation, you are obligated to follow that nations laws when they don't conflict with Gods laws. This is the stance the LDS took 100 years ago when Utah became a State, they suspended the practice of polygamy and acknowledge their fealty to the State.

I'm also beginning to be skeptical of the original "phone call", which perhaps was a false call. The burden of proof falls on the State here, and meanwhile families are being torn apart and the children are being put into foster homes. It appears to me that there is an organized and systematic persecution going on here across Utah, Arizona, Texas, and with the FBI. This is nothing new to this sect, and maybe this is the time when they will be destroyed. It looks from my research that the Eldorado situation and the public NIMBY-ness began as soon as the FLDS arrived at YFZ ranch in 2001. This is merely the latest chapter in that drama.

[Bun-Bun]

You really think they're not in it for the sex with underaged girls? I find it beyond belief that this is not at least a major part of what is going on.

-Jester

I don't think the adult males are in it for sex with underaged girls, at least not in the majority.

They're in it for the power it grants them over others. Sex is just an expression of that.

[kandrathe]

She was not of legal age when impregnated, IIRC.

That's hard to determine since Texas just recently raised their legal age of marriage to 18 without parental permission. If under the age of 16, the law requires that the couple receives a court order before being allowed to marry.

It used to be 14 with parental consent and/or permission of judge. Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females. Most State now require both parties to be 18 for marriage without parental permission, except Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21). Many states have the language that allows for under aged marriages with parental, or court permission. New Hampshire allows for persons as young as 13 year olds to marry with court and parental permission.

The permissiveness of the Texas law is what probably attracted this sect to Texas in the first place.

[Jester]

These are hard line fundamentalist religious people. For them, sex is for procreation.

Right. I'm sure hormones don't work on them. After all, they're religious.

My belief is that by living within a nation, you are obligated to follow that nations laws when they don't conflict with Gods laws.

You're also obligated to follow them when they *do* conflict with God's laws, and if you don't like it, go set up your cult compound on a barge in international waters, or go to prison.

I'm also beginning to be skeptical of the original "phone call", which perhaps was a false call.

This would be a very serious issue, if it were true. Is there any evidence of this? Or just musing aloud?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Right. I'm sure hormones don't work on them. After all, they're religious.

Have you talked to any religious fundamentalists about sex and lust?

You're also obligated to follow them when they *do* conflict with God's laws, and if you don't like it, go set up your cult compound on a barge in international waters, or go to prison.

Actually, in our country I believe the Constitution allows for people to practice their religious beliefs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The issue legally, is can a religious group continue to practice what they've been practicing for 180 years? The AG of AZ, Terry Goddard, has made tearing down Jeffs and FLDS one of his missions. In 2005, the State of AZ seized the Colorado City school board away from FLDS control, and then had a State judge freeze their assets ($115 million). The AG has been instrumental in bringing changes to AZ laws to target FLDS practices. In response, FLDS has been trying to get out of AZ, only to find themselves unwelcome in Texas. The beliefs of this sect deny freedom to ALL women and subjugate them in marriage and motherhood at too early an age, and as such they are repugnant to me. Women's rights and the definition of who is under age has obviously changed over the past 100 years, but obviously not for the FLDS. This is their problem. So, the question is do they have religious freedom to continue as they have been, or is it time for this sect to be destroyed? Characterizing them as a cult of pedophiles is pure demagoguery.

This would be a very serious issue, if it were true. Is there any evidence of this? Or just musing aloud?

The fact that the guy, Dale Barlow, who was fingered by the phone caller was a well known publicized FLDS character who was on probation for his underage marriage violations and living in Colorado City, AZ and after being interviewed by Texas Rangers was not detained or arrested. His story was that he had never been to Texas. The Rangers then reported that they might be looking for someone else, that they need to find this girl to be certain of who she was lodging the complaint about. Having emptied the entire compound, no victim has surfaced yet to my knowledge.

And, after the Rangers interviewed the suspect named in the warrant, Barlow's attorney said, "I think these gentlemen are here in good faith. I think they're willing to take a look at the possibility that a mistake has been made, and they're not putting the cart before the horse," he said Saturday. "I think they've got a lot of collateral information that's indicated that Mr. Barlow is not an individual that they should have any interest in."

[TheDragoon]

Actually, in our country I believe the Constitution allows for people to practice their religious beliefs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly there are limits to the first amendment argument. If I were to go set other people's houses on fire or steal a car and then claim that those were key practices for my religion, I would still be arrested regardless of my religious beliefs. Sure, that's a somewhat exaggerated case, but the same would apply to things like rape and polygamy as found in this issue.

[Jester]

Have you talked to any religious fundamentalists about sex and lust?

I'm not sure we'll reach any agreement here, but I think it is silly to suggest that, because they hold extreme opinions about sex and lust, that somehow they are immune to the basic biological urges shared by almost all humans. The remarkable number of cases of extreme hypocrisy, where a fundamentalist religious leader (from any religion) preaches total sexual control and is then caught with a young girl/boy/hooker/gigolo/whatever puts the lie to that suggestion.

And yes, I have talked to many religious fundamentalists about sex and lust. I've also seen many make terrible decisions over lust, like getting married and divorced in rapid succession because they were clearly trying (and failing) to reconcile their extreme faith with their innate sexuality.

Are you really trying to suggest that it's impossible (or even terribly unlikely) for a religious fundamentalist leader to be a pervy old man?

Actually, in our country I believe the Constitution allows for people to practice their religious beliefs. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, yeah. If you practice the Aztec religion, you can go round up people through ceremonial combat to sacrifice at a pyramidal altar, in order to feed Huichtipochtli. The state can't interfere with you, because they can't prohibit the free exercise of your religion. Sure.

Funnily enough, the Supreme Court decision that determined that your interpretation is incorrect was apparently Reynolds vs. the United States, which was over Mormon polygamy. The right to religious freedom does not extend to the ability to break the law. The state cannot make laws establishing religion, but once they've made a law for non-religious reasons, "it's my faith" is not an impenetrable defense, and certainly not in cases of cult polygamy. The test is apparently compelling interest, and physical or sexual abuse almost certainly qualifies.

(Edit: This apparently is *not* your interpretation, given your response to TheDragoon, so I'm at a loss as to why you wrote what you did earlier. If the Constitution does not give blanket protection here, then what argument is it to invoke the first amendment?)

-Jester

Afterthought: Interesting about Dale Barlow. We'll see how this plays out. If he actually has not been to Texas, then this just got a lot more suspicious.

[kandrathe]

Clearly there are limits to the first amendment argument. If I were to go set other people's houses on fire or steal a car and then claim that those were key practices for my religion, I would still be arrested regardless of my religious beliefs. Sure, that's a somewhat exaggerated case, but the same would apply to things like rape and polygamy as found in this issue.

I agree. I mean, there are still peoples that practice ritual sacrifice, which would not be tolerated even if they were just sacrificing animals. My question is why now are they cracking down on a sect that has violated polygamy and marriage laws for 180 years?

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure we'll reach any agreement here, but I think it is silly to suggest that, because they hold extreme opinions about sex and lust, that somehow they are immune to the basic biological urges shared by almost all humans. The remarkable number of cases of extreme hypocrisy, where a fundamentalist religious leader (from any religion) preaches total sexual control and is then caught with a young girl/boy/hooker/gigolo/whatever puts the lie to that suggestion.

And yes, I have talked to many religious fundamentalists about sex and lust. I've also seen many make terrible decisions over lust, like getting married and divorced in rapid succession because they were clearly trying (and failing) to reconcile their extreme faith with their innate sexuality.

Are you really trying to suggest that it's impossible (or even terribly unlikely) for a religious fundamentalist leader to be a pervy old man?

Certainly some individuals identifying themselves as religious (like Tammy Faye and Jim Baker) are noteworthy failures and iconic figures in the tabloids and scandal rags. But, to then characterize every religious leader or man as essentially lustful and plagued with perverted thoughts is painting with a pretty broad bigoted brush. Yes, it is possible some men beat their wives, and some of these men marry under aged girls and maybe some of them do so with impure intentions. I don't think that is generally the FLDS motivation. Whenever there is evidence of a crime the proper authorities should investigate and bring the individuals responsible to justice. But, did that happen in this case?

Funnily enough, the Supreme Court decision that determined that your interpretation is incorrect was apparently Reynolds vs. the United States, which was over Mormon polygamy. The right to religious freedom does not extend to the ability to break the law. The state cannot make laws establishing religion, but once they've made a law for non-religious reasons, "it's my faith" is not an impenetrable defense, and certainly not in cases of cult polygamy. The test is apparently compelling interest, and physical or sexual abuse almost certainly qualifies.

I agree with you, as I commented to TD. The basis of their decision was "The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based."

[eppie]

I'm not sure we'll reach any agreement here, but I think it is silly to suggest that, because they hold extreme opinions about sex and lust, that somehow they are immune to the basic biological urges shared by almost all humans. The remarkable number of cases of extreme hypocrisy, where a fundamentalist religious leader (from any religion) preaches total sexual control and is then caught with a young girl/boy/hooker/gigolo/whatever puts the lie to that suggestion.
-Jester

I agree with Jester here. (Here were supposed to be a few sentences about religion but because I don't want that bolty has to use his eternal power to shut down this thread I deleted them.)

To put it in more relaxed words. Kandrathe seems to think that somebody that is religious does this for a good cause and can make mistakes but merely because he tries so hard to do good, or is just simply confused. Well this might be so for the followers (the people that get lured in to these sects, or religions in general) but it certainly is not true for the sect leaders, most of whom are narcissistic, egocentric, sociopaths that only want power.

[Jester]

Certainly some individuals identifying themselves as religious (like Tammy Faye and Jim Baker) are noteworthy failures and iconic figures in the tabloids and scandal rags. But, to then characterize every religious leader or man as essentially lustful and plagued with perverted thoughts is painting with a pretty broad bigoted brush.

Wow, that degenerated into accusations of bigotry pretty fast.

Humans, in general, have sexual urges. This is not bigotry, this is biology. Plumbers, Rastafarians, Astronauts, Butchers, Bakers (and Bakkers) and Candlestick makers all experience "lustful" thoughts. I'm sure, amongst the approximately 2.5 billion "religious men" there are some who are completely asexual, some who are strictly monogamous, some who are sexually promiscuous, and some who are sexual predators. There are probably millions in each category, and "religious people in general" is an absurdly huge group of people to make any single statement about. I'm not making any such claim.

However, the negative "all" claim is ridiculous. The idea that religion yields some kind of immunity to sexual temptation is not only wrong, but hopelessly naive.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

To put it in more relaxed words. Kandrathe seems to think that somebody that is religious does this for a good cause and can make mistakes but merely because he tries so hard to do good, or is just simply confused.

Actually, no. I question my government anytime they act in force against people without having made a just case for doing so. I don't think the government had the right to march in and seize everyones children. They had the right to protect those children that were being abused, but I've seen no evidence by the State that there is any evidence at all. So far, there is only rumor and a phone call which has not been substantiated. I'm not defending polygamy, or marrying under aged girls. I question the motives of the government moving against a cult that has not changed its practices for 180 years.

Well this might be so for the followers (the people that get lured in to these sects, or religions in general) but it certainly is not true for the sect leaders, most of whom are narcissistic, egocentric, sociopaths that only want power.

Firstly, the people at Eldorado were mostly born into FLDS, they weren't lured into it. Is your opinion of their leadership based on some evidence?

[Jester]

I question the motives of the government moving against a cult that has not changed its practices for 180 years.

You continue to bring this up... what does it mean?

The US government has been moving against Mormon polygamy with legal force for over 130 years now. If you're suggesting that this has been widely tolerated, and is only now becoming an issue for some odd reason, that would be wrong.

There has always been a careful line between letting people be and preserving the status quo in the name of religious freedom, and aggressively pursuing these cults to defend individual rights against abuse. Sometimes the government has erred on one side, and sometimes on the other. But they have not just left these people alone for 180 years, and then performed a sudden about-face in Texas.

What motive are you suggesting for the government, exactly?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Wow, that degenerated into accusations of bigotry pretty fast.

Humans, in general, have sexual urges. This is not bigotry, this is biology. Plumbers, Rastafarians, Astronauts, Butchers, Bakers (and Bakkers) and Candlestick makers all experience "lustful" thoughts. I'm sure, amongst the approximately 2.5 billion "religious men" there are some who are completely asexual, some who are strictly monogamous, some who are sexually promiscuous, and some who are sexual predators. There are probably millions in each category, and "religious people in general" is an absurdly huge group of people to make any single statement about. I'm not making any such claim.

However, the negative "all" claim is ridiculous. The idea that religion yields some kind of immunity to sexual temptation is not only wrong, but hopelessly naive.

-Jester

I'm not insulating religious people from lust or biology. I'm saying that in general they tend to try to rise above the base instincts of rutting and grunting. Sometimes they fail spectacularly, but mostly they do not. Is it possible Warren Jeffs is just a dirty old man? I guess, but the evidence suggests he is carrying on the teachings of his father and the primary tenet of their separation from the LDS from over 100 years ago.

[Jester]

I'm not insulating religious people from lust or biology. I'm saying that in general they tend to try to rise above the base instincts of rutting and grunting. Sometimes they fail spectacularly, but mostly they do not. Is it possible Warren Jeffs is just a dirty old man? I guess, but the evidence suggests he is carrying on the teachings of his father and the primary tenet of their separation from the LDS from over 100 years ago.

I believe that the original teachings were motivated by the desire for sexual control, and that the splintering of the Mormon faith following the ban on polygamy was in large part due to the unwillingness of some members to part with that control. That it would then be passed down from fathers to sons as religion does not in any sense exclude it from also being an issue of sex. Indeed, to my mind, it seems to reinforce the idea. A mysoginistic, abusive attitude towards women, along with the concept of a chosen few male leaders who are entitled to nearly limitless authority and gratifictaion, seems like it would pass down through the generations quite easily, given the cult conditions of their isolation.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What motive are you suggesting for the government, exactly?

I'm not sure I understand it. I think some of it has to do with the motivations of Terry Goddard, the Attorney General of Arizona, Mark Shurtleff, the Attorney General of Utah and former Arizona State Senator Ron Allen. It might be them making political hay. It might be that they finally have finished licking their political wounds from the debacle at Short Creek in 1953 when they decided to just leave them alone... for 50 years...

It smacks to me also of the continued devolution into a "nanny" state where the government knows best, and personal liberties can be damned.

[kandrathe]

I believe that the original teachings were motivated by the desire for sexual control...

I think it's hogwash as well, which is why I'm not a Mormon. I doubt that Joe Smith Jr's visions were motivated by his subconscious desire to dominate and have sex with many women. Then again, he might have been a delusional sexual psychopath. But, historical evidence would indicate that he wasn't.

[Jester]

I think it's hogwash as well, which is why I'm not a Mormon. I doubt that Joe Smith Jr's visions were motivated by his subconscious desire to dominate and have sex with many women. Then again, he might have been a delusional sexual psychopath. But, historical evidence would indicate that he wasn't.

I'm not saying Joseph Smith was a delusional sexual psychopath, although I'm sure he was delusional, at the very least. Or a liar.

But, to establish widespread polygamy, in the sense that the Mormons practiced it, requires a certain concept of the role of women, one which is incompatible with the idea that they are free to decide things for themselves. That kind of situation tends to bring out the worst in men with authority, and if Joseph Smith was innocent on the charge of sexual abuse, I'll give you dollars to donuts that a great many of his descendants were not, and I suspect the worst of them are the ones who refused to give up polygamy, and instead retreat to compounds in the desert, safe from the long arm of the law and free to practise whatever religious tyranny they liked.

-Jester

[Jester]

It smacks to me also of the continued devolution into a "nanny" state where the government knows best, and personal liberties can be damned.

However badly this can be applied to the US government, it can be applied one hundred fold to the FLDS. What personal liberties did the cult members enjoy? What choices did these young girls make? What choices did the "lost boys" have? Is it not relevant that their liberties are being oppressed by the patriarchs of their religion, or is only state tyranny a problem?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

However badly this can be applied to the US government, it can be applied one hundred fold to the FLDS. What personal liberties did the cult members enjoy? What choices did these young girls make? What choices did the "lost boys" have? Is it not relevant that their liberties are being oppressed by the patriarchs of their religion, or is only state tyranny a problem?

You have no arguments from me on that. I think that if the FLDS would have not married off girls under 18, and allowed women to leave with their children whenever they pleased that the State's may have left them alone. As it is, the sect has become overly oppressive and antithetical to modern American notions of liberty. But, it's another Waco, without the violence. The government is intent on destroying this sect, which should make people stand up and take notice.