RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some.

RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

BrigandDoom -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 6:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen From time to time here, we get a number of posters who see a bloody revolution against the US government as the inevitable result of growing disenfranchisement, manipulation, division and exploitation. And yet, when we come across a group which has taken a stance which premeditates for such a situation, we are informed that they are a dangerous bunch of sexual predators, against whom the US government must act. Does anyone here think, that this is not all a little convenient that those who make the effort to separate themselves from subjection to what is often described here as a corrupt system, all turn out to be dangerous, violent, sexual predators? E If that is your defense of a group with a reputaton for being racist, violent, child molesters long before this incident, you aren't doing too well. The history of this bunch has been posted repeatedly here on the CM forums and in the news, and yet people still want to ignore that and pretend this is all about freedom from the 'evil gummint'.[&o] Thats is not even anywhere close to a defence, more an observation on how certain elements use the good old "there out to get us 'cos we're different" excuse are actually the monsters that people claim they are. Unfortunately the news media are well known for printing their "version" of the truth, it helps sell their papers. Thus the more enlightened among us tend to take a lot of reporting with a big pinch of salt. May be if our wonderful journalists and the editors stuck to proper journalism and reporting the actual facts people might just take more notice of whats being said.

BrigandDoom -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 6:07:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: BrigandDoom As the original poster I wasn't fully aware of the background to this case. It seems there was justification for fears, just a pity the authorities didn't do a wee bit more research before stampeding in. Unfortunately, the state having a finger wagged at it by a judge has given some legitimacy to the cult in the outside world. I've no doubt that there are those who choose to use the chat forums as a way of hiding their own warped ways, however there does seem to be an OTT response in both the UK and the US in regards to certain alleged activities, which seem not to be against legitimate kinksters, but more for "good press"! •[image]http://my.eimg.net/x.gif[/image]The American Spectator Apr 21, 2008 ... Bizarre and illegal though the FLDS sect's practices may be, however, ... Claiming to be the 16-year-old mother of an 8-month-old infant and ... http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13085 Seems to be a lot more to this than meets the eye, but again the problem is exactly how impartial are the media sources. The article in the American Spectator seems to be a fair report on the goings on as it is considerably more detailed and thought out. In my experience I find aerticles like that are often the most accurate and truthful. Only time, a proper indepth investigation, and a full report on the goings on will be the way to confirm or dismiss all of the allegations. re-editerd due to typing slave mis-spelingm, wel thats my xcuse!

LadyEllen -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 6:07:59 AM)
Indeed, it was no defence whatever of this particular instance. Just a general observation about such instances. E

BrigandDoom -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 6:12:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Indeed, it was no defence whatever of this particular instance. Just a general observation about such instances. E I hate to say this, but that was blindingly obvious, even to a 5 year old! Still, nothing like a good bit of loathing to blind the reader is there?

LadyEllen -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 6:17:25 AM)
It doesnt surprise me it was taken to mean something else by some - its a fairly common occurrence with a few here who seem to read something that isnt there and then want to argue about what they read, rather than what was written. E

Irishknight -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 6:34:43 AM)
LadyE, there are also those who like to read what they want as opposed to what is written. Don't forget those guys. No matter how many times you clarify your statements, they cannot even begin to read what is there.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 6:59:05 AM)
quote: Oh, I guess it's okay that they kill their own members and stockpile weapons in case they need to shoot it out with law enforcement. I guess it's okay that they have taken over entire towns before. No to the first. Yes to the second (that whole 2nd Amendment business). On the third, as best as I can determine from what I have read about the group, they have "taken over" towns by legal methods, using the power of the ballot box. Their doctrine is a disturbing one--which is a given considering they are an offshoot of Mormonism (Joseph Smith was, among other things, an unrepentant liar, lech, and scam artist). However, stockpiling weapons anticipating predations from the police and being more politically savvy than their neighbors do not constitute a direct threat--certainly not one that needs police raids and CPS interventions.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 7:11:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Seems to me like the concept of 'religious freedom' is used to justify a sectarian society that doesn't give a damn about the welfare of its youngest members, but is only concerned with the self-fulfilment of its leaders. Perhaps. However, that charge can be levelled against a number of mainstream churches and even whole denominations. Where do we draw the line on religious matters? The First Amendment exists for a reason. It even protects those who find ideas such as God and spirituality noxious nuisances. I am not so cavalier about its importance in the fabric of American culture.

DomKen -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 7:25:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife •[image]http://my.eimg.net/x.gif[/image]The American Spectator Apr 21, 2008 ... Bizarre and illegal though the FLDS sect's practices may be, however, ... Claiming to be the 16-year-old mother of an 8-month-old infant and ... http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13085 I hope the Texans weren't taken in by a hoaxster but this group does need to be broken up. Consider very carefully what has to happen to allow a closed group to maintain a one man, multiple wives marriage system. Where do the 'excess' males go? We know there aren't hundred of unmarried adult men in the cult. We also know that very few males have left the group in the last few years. So where are all those men? This is of course in addition to what happens to the females.

kittinSol -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 7:27:11 AM)
Sometimes, ideas are harmful to those people who have not chosen to live by them: which do you protect then, the idea or the innocent? Religious freedom is all very well, but it ought to be implemented within reasonnable limits.

kdsub -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:11:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol That's what happens when people don't have their ID in Texas and they piss off the constabulary [:D] . Thankfully, the Courts prevail [8\|] . To me...regretfully not thankfully... I do believe the children should return to their parents however. That is a weird bunch down there...of course just in my opinion Butch HELL YES!! Why I even heard them weirdos have men running around in pantyhose down there! Damn how decadent…I say tie them all to a fence and rape the hell out of those pantyhose wearing fairies....please

Archer -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:21:20 AM)
I end up torn here, because while I hate that CPS (insert name of whatever child protective services is called where you are) has a history of overstepping their bounds and using scortched earth tactics, the facts in the case seem to be indisputable that there have been abuses. (sorry but pregnant 14-16 year olds in a religious cult group draws no other conclussion than that there is at the bare minimum statutory rape happening inside the group, and being condoned by the group)

celticlord2112 -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:22:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Sometimes, ideas are harmful to those people who have not chosen to live by them: which do you protect then, the idea or the innocent? Religious freedom is all very well, but it ought to be implemented within reasonnable limits. That's the funny thing about religious freedom. It's either/or, not in between. The disturbing aspect of this fiasco with the FLDS is that the government is predicating its actions on the thesis that the religion is "abusive". I cringe at the notion that a government-paid psychiatrist can sweepingly categorize FLDS doctrine that way--government ought not to be in the position of vetting religious doctrine and practice. I also cringe at the sheer lack of necessity for the villification of FLDS doctrine. The age of consent laws are clear and unequivocal in the state of Texas. Investigations and prosecutions on that basis, without reference to the religious practices of the parties involved, would accomplish the same goal of ensuring the welfare of the children involved.

LadyEllen -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:30:36 AM)
Surely the law is not interested in the beliefs and practices of any person or group - unless that person or group commits an offence? The beliefs themselves cannot be held to be offences. The practices arising from them however may well be an offence. If there is no offence in law, then the authorities have no business with the person or the group, however distasteful or crazy the beliefs or practices might be held to be. (special note to certain people - please re-read this post carefully, prior to responding with what you thought you read the first time) E

kittinSol -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:41:43 AM)
Religious belief doesn't excuse antisocial behaviours - the law protects religious nutters. They, in turn, have a contract to respect the law. And the law says... that marriage doesn't happen before a certain age (I'm treading carefully here for obvious reasons of terms of service).

Archer -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:43:44 AM)
On the other hand I may be skating thin ice, LOL But I think I remained on this side of the line. Of course the Mods may disagree and I could find myself in trouble. LOL

kittinSol -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:45:25 AM)
Talking about this case is like walking on eggs.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:48:36 AM)
quote: Surely the law is not interested in the beliefs and practices of any person or group - unless that person or group commits an offence? The beliefs themselves cannot be held to be offences. The practices arising from them however may well be an offence. You would think that to be the case. However, that is not how this case is being handled by CPS. http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=68b6d57c-b041-4294-87f0-3f816d88a7ee

Archer -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:49:03 AM)
Oh wait I forgot there is another conclussion that can be drawn. 15 (or whatever the number is) immaculate conceptions. LOL

kittinSol -> RE: Not Waco 2 as claimed by some. (5/23/2008 8:51:17 AM)
[&:] That was pretty bad lol.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875