BF2S Forums How to Deal with the FLDS

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

When did I say anything about killing people?

As for judging, we all make judgment calls.  I'm sure I could find a stance you support that might lean in the authoritarian direction.  If not, then you are a very rare individual indeed.

It was hyperbole. The fact you found something wrong with the second half of the statement and nothing with the first is interesting.

Our government is based on a collective ideal, not an individual reality. When we start sacrificing individual freedoms for reality without anyone realizing what is happening, that is when we aren't living in the America I know anymore.

I make provisions for things like the Patriot Act because even though I realize they are a significant breach of personal freedoms and such, there are many many people that realize this and speak out against it. I also have no doubt that one day they will be declared unconstitutional.

I support the Patriot Act, but that's another discussion.

America has never been the "ideal" people say it is, and it never will be.  We are one of the freer nations of the world, but we have to limit these freedoms for practical purposes -- one of which I see as ending cults.

Governments are never as liberal as they are written to be, because there are always times where personal freedoms must be sacrificed to some degree. That does not mean we should write off the ideal, it means that we need to hold it as a standard in order to constantly be judging ourself against it, not lower the standards we know will never be met.

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

We've already covered the illegalities of abusing kids, so let's leave that out.  If a group of people don't want to hang out with the rest of us, they aren't threating anyone.  Why go round em up?

The only threat a cult poses that doesn't abuse kids physically is one that does so mentally.  I would consider it child abuse to keep children isolated from the outside world -- especially if they were forced to live like it's the 1800s.

I make an exception for the Amish because of the policy they have of letting their young experience the outside world when they come of age.

Even keeping children isolated from the outside world is subjective.  Many children are isolated from the outside world until they begin to attend school.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It was hyperbole. The fact you found something wrong with the second half of the statement and nothing with the first is interesting.

Our government is based on a collective ideal, not an individual reality. When we start sacrificing individual freedoms for reality without anyone realizing what is happening, that is when we aren't living in the America I know anymore.

I make provisions for things like the Patriot Act because even though I realize they are a significant breach of personal freedoms and such, there are many many people that realize this and speak out against it. I also have no doubt that one day they will be declared unconstitutional.

I support the Patriot Act, but that's another discussion.

America has never been the "ideal" people say it is, and it never will be.  We are one of the freer nations of the world, but we have to limit these freedoms for practical purposes -- one of which I see as ending cults.

Governments are never as liberal as they are written to be, because there are always times where personal freedoms must be sacrificed to some degree. That does not mean we should write off the ideal, it means that we need to hold it as a standard in order to constantly be judging ourself against it, not lower the standards we know will never be met.

For the most part, I do that.  I still don't support letting people raise children under demented conditions.  The issue is that children are forced into this madness without a choice.  A sensible government shouldn't allow such things.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I support the Patriot Act, but that's another discussion.

America has never been the "ideal" people say it is, and it never will be.  We are one of the freer nations of the world, but we have to limit these freedoms for practical purposes -- one of which I see as ending cults.

Governments are never as liberal as they are written to be, because there are always times where personal freedoms must be sacrificed to some degree. That does not mean we should write off the ideal, it means that we need to hold it as a standard in order to constantly be judging ourself against it, not lower the standards we know will never be met.

For the most part, I do that.  I still don't support letting people raise children under demented conditions.  The issue is that children are forced into this madness without a choice.  A sensible government shouldn't allow such things.

Children are forced to be born into homes that are utterly unfit for them because abortion was illegal.

The problem is you're picking and choosing. A government can't do that.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For the most part, I do that.  I still don't support letting people raise children under demented conditions.  The issue is that children are forced into this madness without a choice.  A sensible government shouldn't allow such things.

Children are forced to be born into homes that are utterly unfit for them because abortion was illegal.

The problem is you're picking and choosing. A government can't do that.

Now, abortion is legal and hopefully will stay that way.

Picking and choosing is something that all social work requires.  We have social services to protect children from insane parents, and I think cults should fall under this principle.  It's kind of hard for government oversight to work if people are isolated.

People are going to scream Big Brother when I say this, but seriously, EVERY society needs a certain amount of government oversight on these kinds of parenting issues, and my personal feelings are that America is too lenient on this sort of thing.  There's a lot of shit parents can get away with in America that they can't in many European nations.

The point is...  the oversight must be there, and it can't be done with isolated cults.

I'm confused then, why don't the Boy Scouts need watching?

Turquoise wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I'd love for someone here to define what a cult is in real terms.  Turquoise says Mormons were a cult and then says they evolved out of it because 'we' forced them into the mainstream?  First, that's BS, the mormons were not forced by anyone into a mainstream...they're still very much considered non-mainstream, and by some, not considered christian.  What i'd like to know is, since Mormon's earned their "stream" categorization, what was the actual reason they are no longer considered a "cult?" ..hence my question to have someone define a cult in real terms.

For further discussion, is a 'cult' necessarily bad?

We forced them to stop having polygamy.  We also put them in a position where they essentially had to stop being so isolated.  In other words, they had to adapt to the modern world.

The mormons in Utah territory were not breaking any laws since the law forbidding "bigamy" had not been declared.  When it was created, due to the Mormons attempting to have statehood, they waited further until finally in 1890, it was revealed that the doctrine/principle had fulfilled it's purpose.  Shortly thereafter Mormons were granted statehood.  Also, it wasn't just the polygamy that kept them from statehood, it was the lies a few governors were telling the white house about the mormons...hence the president dispatching the US Army to destroy them falsely.  THe army arrived and realized there weren't militant mormon psychos preparing to attack the US.

Also, even if you think "we" forced the mormons to submit to anything, do you really think that was the point when mormons were not considered a cult or that they were accepted into the mainstream?  Not by a long shot...you're about a hundred years off.

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

But as an atheist of sorts, you consider all religions to be a delusion, so what's to stop you from locking up all the religious?

Because people like yourself are sane, don't abuse kids, and are part of outside society.  You pose no threat to anyone.

And that's for people like you to decide?

Fuck you.

No, it's for society to decide.  I'm simply presenting my personal opinion on this, since it's a debate.

Now, why don't you follow Cheney's advice to Senator Leahy instead?

IRONCHEF wrote:

The mormons in Utah territory were not breaking any laws since the law forbidding "bigamy" had not been declared.  When it was created, due to the Mormons attempting to have statehood, they waited further until finally in 1890, it was revealed that the doctrine/principle had fulfilled it's purpose.  Shortly thereafter Mormons were granted statehood.  Also, it wasn't just the polygamy that kept them from statehood, it was the lies a few governors were telling the white house about the mormons...hence the president dispatching the US Army to destroy them falsely.  THe army arrived and realized there weren't militant mormon psychos preparing to attack the US.

Also, even if you think "we" forced the mormons to submit to anything, do you really think that was the point when mormons were not considered a cult or that they were accepted into the mainstream?  Not by a long shot...you're about a hundred years off.

It's rather "convenient" that Mormons are always revealed certain changes by God whenever they face a major challenge to their traditions.  I have to admit, it's quite an effective con though.

Turquoise wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

The mormons in Utah territory were not breaking any laws since the law forbidding "bigamy" had not been declared.  When it was created, due to the Mormons attempting to have statehood, they waited further until finally in 1890, it was revealed that the doctrine/principle had fulfilled it's purpose.  Shortly thereafter Mormons were granted statehood.  Also, it wasn't just the polygamy that kept them from statehood, it was the lies a few governors were telling the white house about the mormons...hence the president dispatching the US Army to destroy them falsely.  THe army arrived and realized there weren't militant mormon psychos preparing to attack the US.

Also, even if you think "we" forced the mormons to submit to anything, do you really think that was the point when mormons were not considered a cult or that they were accepted into the mainstream?  Not by a long shot...you're about a hundred years off.

It's rather "convenient" that Mormons are always revealed certain changes by God whenever they face a major challenge to their traditions.  I have to admit, it's quite an effective con though.

You make a lot of presumptions about Mormons. Whackos come in all flavors. I genuinely fear the bigoted world you imagine. It's a world where everyone suffers for the crimes of a few. A society based on ignorance and generalizations.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

The mormons in Utah territory were not breaking any laws since the law forbidding "bigamy" had not been declared.  When it was created, due to the Mormons attempting to have statehood, they waited further until finally in 1890, it was revealed that the doctrine/principle had fulfilled it's purpose.  Shortly thereafter Mormons were granted statehood.  Also, it wasn't just the polygamy that kept them from statehood, it was the lies a few governors were telling the white house about the mormons...hence the president dispatching the US Army to destroy them falsely.  THe army arrived and realized there weren't militant mormon psychos preparing to attack the US.

Also, even if you think "we" forced the mormons to submit to anything, do you really think that was the point when mormons were not considered a cult or that they were accepted into the mainstream?  Not by a long shot...you're about a hundred years off.

It's rather "convenient" that Mormons are always revealed certain changes by God whenever they face a major challenge to their traditions.  I have to admit, it's quite an effective con though.

You make a lot of presumptions about Mormons. Whackos come in all flavors. I genuinely fear the bigoted world you imagine. It's a world where everyone suffers for the crimes of a few. A society based on ignorance and generalizations.

...and you don't see this "bigoted world" around you already?  Look, what I'm proposing is nowhere near as "bigoted" as what already passes for law in much of the world.

Look at the Islamic World, for example.  They persecute non-Muslims, gays, and women just for being who they are.  These targeted people aren't abusing children.

I'm suggesting that we stop pretending that people have a right to warp the minds of their kids.  You can blanket defend against my position with the freedom of religion, but if you don't see a difference between mainstream religions and what we normally call cults, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-04-30 21:03:06)

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You make a lot of presumptions about Mormons. Whackos come in all flavors. I genuinely fear the bigoted world you imagine. It's a world where everyone suffers for the crimes of a few. A society based on ignorance and generalizations.

...and you don't see this "bigoted world" around you already?  Look, what I'm proposing is nowhere near as "bigoted" as what already passes for law in much of the world.

Look at the Islamic World, for example.  They persecute non-Muslims, gays, and women just for being who they are.  These targeted people aren't abusing children.

I'm suggesting that we stop pretending that people have a right to warp the minds of their kids.  You can blanket defend against my position with the freedom of religion, but if you don't see a difference between mainstream religions and what we normally call cults, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You've got this habit of using current problems (persecuting non-Muslims, Gays, and Women) as justification for making matters worse. Your solution is to import the failed ideas of a decayed and non progressive civilization? Wrong way bud.

You keep assuming that's what I mean.  I'm using the extreme to show you what true bigotry is.  It's NOT bigotry to restrict the behavior of people who aren't fit to raise kids in the first place.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

...and you don't see this "bigoted world" around you already?  Look, what I'm proposing is nowhere near as "bigoted" as what already passes for law in much of the world.

Look at the Islamic World, for example.  They persecute non-Muslims, gays, and women just for being who they are.  These targeted people aren't abusing children.

I'm suggesting that we stop pretending that people have a right to warp the minds of their kids.  You can blanket defend against my position with the freedom of religion, but if you don't see a difference between mainstream religions and what we normally call cults, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You've got this habit of using current problems (persecuting non-Muslims, Gays, and Women) as justification for making matters worse. Your solution is to import the failed ideas of a decayed and non progressive civilization? Wrong way bud.

You keep assuming that's what I mean.  I'm using the extreme to show you what true bigotry is.  It's NOT bigotry to restrict the behavior of people who aren't fit to raise kids in the first place.

If you are making that distinction based upon a persons lifestyle it most certainly is bigotry.. sorry there is no escape from that one Turq.