BF2S Forums Polygamy in Texas

Turquoise wrote:

I can logically defend that, actually.  Think about how these situations become a burden to the rest of society.  If we were to give in to the creationists, we'd dumb down our science classes to the point of uselessness.  Thankfully, we draw the line where they must choose homeschooling if they want to be ignorant.

So we, as a society, allow them to indoctrinate their own children by themselves, right?

Turquoise wrote:

To me, the cults present a worse situation because of the effects they have on children.

Which is no different than homeschooling children.  Both affect kids, and negatively in our mainstream opinion.  But one is more OK than the other?

Turquoise wrote:

The core of my reasoning is that only mentally ill people start cults, and that they spread their illness through charisma.  I see no benefits in allowing them to have their way with people's minds -- even if said people will likely be manipulated among mainstream society as well.

Cults are just small religions.  Are you seriously classifying religion as a mental disorder?

I suppose the real question is:  how much say should the state have in how you raise your children?  I think the state should keep its nose out of your business unless actual, quantifiable harm is taking place.  Any more, and the state has too much power.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I can logically defend that, actually.  Think about how these situations become a burden to the rest of society.  If we were to give in to the creationists, we'd dumb down our science classes to the point of uselessness.  Thankfully, we draw the line where they must choose homeschooling if they want to be ignorant.

So we, as a society, allow them to indoctrinate their own children by themselves, right?

Turquoise wrote:

To me, the cults present a worse situation because of the effects they have on children.

Which is no different than homeschooling children.  Both affect kids, and negatively in our mainstream opinion.  But one is more OK than the other?

Homeschooling doesn't involve keeping a child from experiencing the outside world.  Although, if it can be proven that a parent is locking a kid up in a basement without contact to the outside world, social services can intervene.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The core of my reasoning is that only mentally ill people start cults, and that they spread their illness through charisma.  I see no benefits in allowing them to have their way with people's minds -- even if said people will likely be manipulated among mainstream society as well.

Cults are just small religions.  Are you seriously classifying religion as a mental disorder?

Legally speaking, I would like the law to define a cult as a religion that isolates its members from the outside world in a coercive way.  Coercion would be seen as implicit when talking about children stuck in these situations, because they wouldn't know any better.

SenorToenails wrote:

I suppose the real question is:  how much say should the state have in how you raise your children?  I think the state should keep its nose out of your business unless actual, quantifiable harm is taking place.  Any more, and the state has too much power.

I used to feel that way, but the more I look into these subcultures, the more I see that things have gotten way out of hand.

I know it typically grates with the American viewpoint, but a certain amount of collectivism isn't such a bad thing.  I trust the government more than I trust cult leaders, if you know what I mean.

That being said, this trust is only a matter of degrees.  For example, I don't trust the government with Social Security, but that's another discussion altogether.  We each trust the government with different things, no matter how libertarian we may lean.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

First, while it is true that the FDLS probably provides a comparatively safer environment for its children, it also robs them of experiences they would otherwise have that are positive.

Somehow I think Disney will manage to get by. In time these isolationist ideologies will be eliminated naturally. Don't shit on everyone else's belief in the mean time. I don't think you are aware of how open ended your suggestions are.

Yes, I am.  But everything the government does is open-ended.  This does not excuse inaction.  We must be proactive about this, and if abuses of governmental power occur, we should prosecute the guilty parties involved.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There is a practical limit to believing all cultures are equal.  Eventually, you realize certain lifestyles just aren't useful or healthy to society.  I would argue that these strange communities of people pretending to live in the olden days is rather psychotic or, at the very least, mentally off.

If acting within the legal bounds of the laws it is their right. No matter how much you might disagree with it.

Currently, yes.  Laws can be changed though, and now would be a good time for that.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If all it takes is a hoax to create this absurd situation we currently face, then it occurs to me that these communities are an aberration that should've been dealt with long ago.

Exactly, all it takes is and article based on speculation about a minority of people hundreds of miles away for people to trash freedom of religion.

There is a fine line between religion and insanity, and these cults prove that.  As a result, we must more clearly limit certain aspects of the freedom of religion.  If this is alarming, consider how much we've limited other freedoms for far less of a reason.

All I'm saying is that freedoms have limits, and so far, these cults have exploited the loopholes present in our current freedom of religion.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

As for digging myself into a hole, do explain.

Holes have been used to bury non like minded individuals before.

...and they will continue to do so.  Again, I'm aware of the dangers involved here, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

First, while it is true that the FDLS probably provides a comparatively safer environment for its children, it also robs them of experiences they would otherwise have that are positive.

Somehow I think Disney will manage to get by. In time these isolationist ideologies will be eliminated naturally. Don't shit on everyone else's belief in the mean time. I don't think you are aware of how open ended your suggestions are.

Yes, I am.  But everything the government does is open-ended.  This does not excuse inaction.  We must be proactive about this, and if abuses of governmental power occur, we should prosecute the guilty parties involved.

At what point did you consider rounding up over four hundred people and running DNA test inaction?

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There is a practical limit to believing all cultures are equal.  Eventually, you realize certain lifestyles just aren't useful or healthy to society.  I would argue that these strange communities of people pretending to live in the olden days is rather psychotic or, at the very least, mentally off.

If acting within the legal bounds of the laws it is their right. No matter how much you might disagree with it.

Currently, yes.  Laws can be changed though, and now would be a good time for that.

Changed as in contorted to strip a parents right to raise there children? No thanks.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If all it takes is a hoax to create this absurd situation we currently face, then it occurs to me that these communities are an aberration that should've been dealt with long ago.

Exactly, all it takes is and article based on speculation about a minority of people hundreds of miles away for people to trash freedom of religion.

There is a fine line between religion and insanity, and these cults prove that.  As a result, we must more clearly limit certain aspects of the freedom of religion.  If this is alarming, consider how much we've limited other freedoms for far less of a reason.

All I'm saying is that freedoms have limits, and so far, these cults have exploited the loopholes present in our current freedom of religion.

You will need to elaborate on exploited. You have voiced your disdain over them living an isolationist lifestyle. This is not enough to hack up the bill of rights. "If this is alarming, consider how much we've limited other freedoms for far less of a reason.".. is this supposed to be a reason to allow it? How much illogical can you be? It's kinda like saying sorry I punched you in the face.. but since I did I might as well cut your head off.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

As for digging myself into a hole, do explain.

Holes have been used to bury non like minded individuals before.

...and they will continue to do so.  Again, I'm aware of the dangers involved here, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Luckily there are some of us who aren't willing to lay down and leave these matters unchallenged. Again, who is being brainwashed? Maybe we can have a good old fashioned book burning party after this is all said and done.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

First, while it is true that the FDLS probably provides a comparatively safer environment for its children, it also robs them of experiences they would otherwise have that are positive.

Somehow I think Disney will manage to get by. In time these isolationist ideologies will be eliminated naturally. Don't shit on everyone else's belief in the mean time. I don't think you are aware of how open ended your suggestions are.

Yes, I am.  But everything the government does is open-ended.  This does not excuse inaction.  We must be proactive about this, and if abuses of governmental power occur, we should prosecute the guilty parties involved.

At what point did you consider rounding up over four hundred people and running DNA test inaction?

I didn't.  I was making a general statement.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There is a practical limit to believing all cultures are equal.  Eventually, you realize certain lifestyles just aren't useful or healthy to society.  I would argue that these strange communities of people pretending to live in the olden days is rather psychotic or, at the very least, mentally off.

If acting within the legal bounds of the laws it is their right. No matter how much you might disagree with it.

Currently, yes.  Laws can be changed though, and now would be a good time for that.

Changed as in contorted to strip a parents right to raise there children? No thanks.

That right is limited by what society deems acceptable.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If all it takes is a hoax to create this absurd situation we currently face, then it occurs to me that these communities are an aberration that should've been dealt with long ago.

Exactly, all it takes is and article based on speculation about a minority of people hundreds of miles away for people to trash freedom of religion.

There is a fine line between religion and insanity, and these cults prove that.  As a result, we must more clearly limit certain aspects of the freedom of religion.  If this is alarming, consider how much we've limited other freedoms for far less of a reason.

All I'm saying is that freedoms have limits, and so far, these cults have exploited the loopholes present in our current freedom of religion.

You will need to elaborate on exploited. You have voiced your disdain over them living an isolationist lifestyle. This is not enough to hack up the bill of rights. "If this is alarming, consider how much we've limited other freedoms for far less of a reason.".. is this supposed to be a reason to allow it? How much illogical can you be? It's kinda like saying sorry I punched you in the face.. but since I did I might as well cut your head off.

I was pointing out that what I'm suggesting is far less invasive than previous restrictions put upon us.  I'm only restricting the actions of fringe groups.  This doesn't apply to you or me unless we were foolish enough to try and start a cult.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Holes have been used to bury non like minded individuals before.

...and they will continue to do so.  Again, I'm aware of the dangers involved here, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Luckily there are some of us who aren't willing to lay down and leave these matters unchallenged. Again, who is being brainwashed? Maybe we can have a good old fashioned book burning party after this is all said and done.

I suppose we must agree to disagree here then.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

They're doing a metaphorical equivalent, but admittedly, that doesn't translate into a legal precedent.  I'll concede on this one. 

Turquoise wrote:

No kidding...  I hope they catch that woman because she's managed to waste a lot of tax dollars and effort.

Yep.

Turquoise wrote:

You make a fair point here, but the question is...  Would they feel different if they hadn't been raised this way?  My argument is that the adults have been molded in such a way as to prefer this bizarre situation.  At least the Amish have had exposure to the outside world without being coerced into it.

So these people never leave their compound?  I find that hard to believe, but, it's the parent's right to raise their child as they see fit, as long as no laws are broken.  Wait for the courts.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm essentially saying that a true cult environment lobotomizes people's perspective to prefer isolation.  The choices they are making are essentially child-like in nature when compared to the choices we can each make being citizens of the outside world.  We take in much more information and have a far more comprehensive perspective.

So your opinion on how to raise their children matters more than theirs?  I abhor that very concept.

Turquoise wrote:

In effect, cults conclusively show that half of what we are is a product of our environment, which is why control over this environment cannot be granted to cult leaders.

Control over this environment cannot be handed to the government either.  Ultimately, the control is in the hands of the parents, and that's where it should stay, unless there is an egregious breach of responsibility.

Turquoise wrote:

They already do.  They're called the Religious Right.  We all have political interests.  We all have agendas.  In many ways, I try to leave people be on most things, but I draw the line with cults.  For some people, it's abortion.  For others, it's guns.

The point is, all the other groups are pushing, but I have my own way of pushing back.  Cults just happen to be my target.

I draw the line when lobbying attacks rights that are guaranteed to every person in this country.

You make some solid arguments here.  As far as legal precedents go, you have the advantage here.  I operate on a different logic though.  I believe freedoms are ultimately granted by society, not by doctrines.  The Constitution may have the official power to grant our rights, but it is the majority's interpretation of those rights that determines how we are able to live by them.

I'm suggesting a shift in interpretation so that cults are not as protected by the freedom of religion.

I don't think you have much to worry about though.  The majority of this country would probably support your view on this if they were pressed for a decision and it was worded as well as you have shown here.

Thanks, you too.    Most of the time, I agree with the principle of what you're saying here, but I treat cults very differently.

To me, cults are the "exception" as you put it.

I figured that was coming.

Maybe I am...  do ya feel lucky punk?  Well do ya? 

Out of curiosity though...  If I'm being re-programmed away from the State, then who's going to do the programming?  The FDLS?

SenorToenails wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

As opposed to your definition of freedom which includes telling people where they can't live and having a state (and often self serving) government administer parenting skills. Dangerous road you choose to follow. It rather naive to turn on the TV and pretend you know enough about the situation to challenge a parents right to raise their children.

Seriously, B.Schuss--Freedom does not mean 'free to do only what I agree with'.

I realize that, that's why this is called "opinion".

I don't mind freedom of religion. What bothers me is that you're putting the rights of the parents to raise their children as they please over the rights of the children. You're talking a lot about freedom and such, but who governs the freedom of the children ?
If their parents don't do it, who will step in and protect the rights of these children not to live in some fundamentalist theme park ?

These kids are being deprived of so much by having to live under those circumstances. Personally, I find it absurd and sad, really, that anyone would use the term "freedom" to describe or justify what is going on in that compound. It has nothing to do with freedom.

These cultists use the very laws that were once designed to protect them from being persecuted to manipulate, brainwash and enslave their followers. They don't even stop at their own children. And all you do is stand there on your high legal horse and say "what do I care how these kids are raised, everyone is free to raise their kids as they please".

Don't get me wrong here. I think it is great that american law puts so much emphasis on personal freedom and personal responsibility.
In some areas here in germany, I think we would be bettter off with less government intervention, and more personal responsibility.
But when I look at cases like this, I cannot help but think that the United Stated have taken liberalism ( understood as giving as much power and responsibility to the individual as possible, and as little as necessary to the state ) a step too far.

The result is that innocent people, who have the same right to personal freedom, and choice, end up getting abused and enslaved by their own families. I mean, ask yourself, what is more important, freedom of religion, or the protection of a child that can't protect itself ?
Whose freedom do you value higher ?

Or are you, as with the gun control issue, willing to accept that a few suffer to preserve the rights of the many ? Where do you draw the line ?

I find these to be pressing questions that go beyond legal matters, and touch on morality and ethical behaviour.

B.Schuss wrote:

I realize that, that's why this is called "opinion".

I don't mind freedom of religion. What bothers me is that you're putting the rights of the parents to raise their children as they please over the rights of the children. You're talking a lot about freedom and such, but who governs the freedom of the children ?
If their parents don't do it, who will step in and protect the rights of these children not to live in some fundamentalist theme park ?

It's not the state's place to tell parents how to raise their kids.  As long as no one is in any quantifiable danger or real harm, who is to say what is best for these kids?  Surely, pulling them out the only life they've ever known (for no good reason) is not the best.  And if the state steps in here and says "You aren't raising your kids right", where else will they step in?

B.Schuss wrote:

These kids are being deprived of so much by having to live under those circumstances. Personally, I find it absurd and sad, really, that anyone would use the term "freedom" to describe or justify what is going on in that compound. It has nothing to do with freedom.

It seems that way to us, because it is so different to what we are used to.  I use the term 'freedom' to describe their right to live that way, even if I disagree with it.  Like I said, as long as there are no laws being broken, there is no reason for the government to step in.  If there are actually laws being broken, then that's a different story and the state would have an obligation to step in.

B.Schuss wrote:

These cultists use the very laws that were once designed to protect them from being persecuted to manipulate, brainwash and enslave their followers. They don't even stop at their own children. And all you do is stand there on your high legal horse and say "what do I care how these kids are raised, everyone is free to raise their kids as they please".

What else am I supposed to do?  Tell everyone how to raise their kids?  As long as these kids are being taken care of, educated (even if we don't agree with the material, they need to pass state standards), and healthy, what else can the state ask?  This is contingent on there NOT being crimes committed here.

B.Schuss wrote:

Don't get me wrong here. I think it is great that american law puts so much emphasis on personal freedom and personal responsibility.
In some areas here in germany, I think we would be bettter off with less government intervention, and more personal responsibility.
But when I look at cases like this, I cannot help but think that the United Stated have taken liberalism ( understood as giving as much power and responsibility to the individual as possible, and as little as necessary to the state ) a step too far.

When the government gets its foot in the door, it's hard to kick it back out.

B.Schuss wrote:

The result is that innocent people, who have the same right to personal freedom, and choice, end up getting abused and enslaved by their own families. I mean, ask yourself, what is more important, freedom of religion, or the protection of a child that can't protect itself ?
Whose freedom do you value higher ?

Are you sure these kids are being abused?  Once there is proof, I'm with you.  Until then, they are innocent until proven guilty.  It seems that people are too quick to judge others that are different from them in belief and lifestyle.

B.Schuss wrote:

Or are you, as with the gun control issue, willing to accept that a few suffer to preserve the rights of the many ? Where do you draw the line ?

I find these to be pressing questions that go beyond legal matters, and touch on morality and ethical behaviour.

They are pressing legal matters.  I do value the first and second amendments, just as much as I value the rest of the US constitution.  If the government were to try and eliminate the 'few that suffer', there would be no end to government control.  Then we all suffer.

This whole thing is based on what seems like a nasty prank from some woman in Colorado.  Everyone jumped on the "oh man!  They're different and bad!" bandwagon and have already condemned them.  If this turns out to be a hoax, then it is an example of mass character assassination at it's finest.  If it isn't a hoax, then shut them down because they are breaking the law.  But you can't forget-- Innocent until proven guilty.

Edit1:  I forgot to address the moral concerns.  I don't agree with the FLDS lifestyle, but that doesn't make it morally wrong.  I would find it more wrong, morally, to ban certain belief sets and practices simply because the majority does not agree with them.  The precedent that such an act would set is alarming and, more importantly, dangerous.  For the good of the whole, let them practice their religion as long as it stays within the bounds of the law.  Any less than that would be violating their guaranteed freedoms.

Edit2:  If I forgot to address any points, it's not because I am avoiding them.  Just let me know which ones, and I will address them.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-25 01:32:32)

B.Schuss wrote:

It's just my opinion, and I gotta tell you, I am abhorred by the thought that things like these are allowed to go on under the protection of freedom of religion. This is a travesty of everything that freedom used to stand for.

Is it?  One would think that freedom of religion exists to protect all religions from state persecution.  Even this one.

However, if they are committing crimes, they need to face the consequences.

SenorToenails wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

It's just my opinion, and I gotta tell you, I am abhorred by the thought that things like these are allowed to go on under the protection of freedom of religion. This is a travesty of everything that freedom used to stand for.

Is it?  One would think that freedom of religion exists to protect all religions from state persecution.  Even this one.

However, if they are committing crimes, they need to face the consequences.

yeah, but the leaders of these cults are using that exact same law providing freedom of religion to manipulate, brainwash, enslave, and possibly abuse their followers emotionally and physically.
I realize that the law is the important line here, but when you allow these people to isolate themselves in closed compounds and avoid contact with the outside world, a lot of violations of the law will simply go unnoticed.

I mean, how are you going to be able to enforce the law when you have no way of actually detecting that it is being broken ?

These cultists lock themselves in in closed communities because they reject the law of the land, and feel it doesn't apply to them. And to me, that is simply unacceptable. The state must have some limited way of making sure that no laws are being broken, and respect the freedom of religion at the same time.
In germany, one aspect of doing this is "Schulpflicht", i.e. a law that makes it mandatory for all children born in germany to attend public or private schools. One the one hand, it ensures that all children receive at least some basic education. On the other hand, it provides the authorities with the opportunity to at least see every child from time to time and make sure they're ok.

The reason why this issue is so important to me is because, in germany, there have recently been a couple of cases of parental abuse, neglect, and even parents killing their own children, without anyone really noticing it before it was too late.
In one really gruesome case, the parents of a 2,5-year-old boy had abused their son physically ( including not feeding him ), and after he had died, put his dead body in the freezer to hide him.
From my point of view, the law must provide a way to ensure this doesn't happen, while still respecting applicable privacy and/or freedom of religion laws.
I think it is a mistake to allow people to isolate themselves so much from society, that these things can go unnoticed.

I realize there is a fine line between a liberal democracy and a police state. But I cannot bring myself to accept the negative implications of granting people that much freedom without any feasible means of proper oversight.

B.Schuss wrote:

yeah, but the leaders of these cults are using that exact same law providing freedom of religion to manipulate, brainwash, enslave, and possibly abuse their followers emotionally and physically.
I realize that the law is the important line here, but when you allow these people to isolate themselves in closed compounds and avoid contact with the outside world, a lot of violations of the law will simply go unnoticed.

There are countless other ways for crimes to go unnoticed for years, especially regarding children. 

B.Schuss wrote:

I mean, how are you going to be able to enforce the law when you have no way of actually detecting that it is being broken ?

Are we going to have telescreens now?  People commit crimes all the time without getting caught.  That doesn't make it OK, but if you implement one way of watching because of children, you give the government untold amounts of power. 

B.Schuss wrote:

These cultists lock themselves in in closed communities because they reject the law of the land, and feel it doesn't apply to them. And to me, that is simply unacceptable. The state must have some limited way of making sure that no laws are being broken, and respect the freedom of religion at the same time.

When I lock myself in my home, does that mean I am rejecting the laws of the land?  I doubt these people are 100% self sufficient, so they do leave eventually.  But if the state is to have a way to make sure no laws are being broken, are you implying that there should be government surveillance on private property?  We are back to telescreens again.

B.Schuss wrote:

In germany, one aspect of doing this is "Schulpflicht", i.e. a law that makes it mandatory for all children born in germany to attend public or private schools. One the one hand, it ensures that all children receive at least some basic education. On the other hand, it provides the authorities with the opportunity to at least see every child from time to time and make sure they're ok.

I can see the benefits of that, but does Germany allow homeschooling?  Those two concepts do not mesh, unless you start implementing more government oversight.

B.Schuss wrote:

The reason why this issue is so important to me is because, in germany, there have recently been a couple of cases of parental abuse, neglect, and even parents killing their own children, without anyone really noticing it before it was too late.
In one really gruesome case, the parents of a 2,5-year-old boy had abused their son physically ( including not feeding him ), and after he had died, put his dead body in the freezer to hide him.
From my point of view, the law must provide a way to ensure this doesn't happen, while still respecting applicable privacy and/or freedom of religion laws.
I think it is a mistake to allow people to isolate themselves so much from society, that these things can go unnoticed.

There are people who commit all sorts of abhorrent crimes everywhere.  Expecting the government to watch all of us to try and catch those few people is absurd! 

B.Schuss wrote:

I realize there is a fine line between a liberal democracy and a police state. But I cannot bring myself to accept the negative implications of granting people that much freedom without any feasible means of proper oversight.

What defines 'proper oversight'?  Telescreens?  Large CCTV Camera Networks?  I don't want either of those, or any others.  Why should I be constantly monitored because of a few bad apples?  What you propose is creeping towards totalitarianism, which we all know is bad.  Nothing good can come from a police state.