posted
First, what other thread is everyone talking about? Second, I find it disturbing that they were taken away in Baptist busses in the state of TX. That is like the LDS Church participating in the deportation of a minority religious group in the state of UT. Too close for my comfort to church and state mixing in police matters.
By the way, is there anyone who is representing this group in legal matters? Maybe not to the majority religious nutjobs, but for me the ACLU would greatly improve my perception of them if they stepped in to side with the polygamists; at the least as legal council to make sure the state isn't abusing the rights of the believers. This rounding them up like so much cattle is disturbing. The extent of democracy and freedom isn't measured with how we treat those we agree with, but those we don't.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a large community of ex-polygamists who will probably be forthcoming with support for the mothers - those who wish to make a transition. Keep in mind a lot of them might have come along to protect the children from the authorities and not necessarily to flee. I could be wrong, but it's a possibility.
quote:Also, the LDS group, specifically their president, rejects any other groups as being Mormons, in a similar way that certain Christian groups reject Mormons as being Christian.
I'll grant this is a pretty reasonable position. But for Mormons in the church who accept Hinckley's authority, I'd say he's right to clarify that "fundamentalists" are not part of the church he leads. You have to understand he was speaking to an audience that has been emerging an awareness about fundamentalist Islam over several years. The use of fundamentalist is not correlary at all to the LDS church.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, the state wasn't rounding up people for being polygamists; they were rescuing children from a place where they were possibly being abused. I don't think that even the ACLU would consider statutory rape a civil liberty.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, I find it disturbing that they were taken away in Baptist busses in the state of TX.
They used school buses, too. Unexpectedly having to bus 400 kids and 100+ adults is going to require the use of private resources in most places.
quote:By the way, is there anyone who is representing this group in legal matters? Maybe not to the majority religious nutjobs, but for me the ACLU would greatly improve my perception of them if they stepped in to side with the polygamists; at the least as legal council to make sure the state isn't abusing the rights of the believers.
I suspect the group and the fathers will have legal counsel at the court hearings. I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU is involved somehow. Those charged criminally will definitely have them, although appointed counsel in Texas can be kind of iffy.
quote:I don't think that even the ACLU would consider statutory rape a civil liberty.
I'm sure they wouldn't. However, the ACLU defends lots of people whose actions they don't support.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of my perception of the ACLU is that they get a lot of money from Big Tobacco. And I don't think them defending polygamists would be a plus of any kind in my book. But I'm a bit less tolerant of polygamists than the average Mormon, it seems.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly disagree kmbboots. They can use excuses all they want and it seems to be working. But, all I see is an entire religious community abused by the state at least as much as the accusations of abuse by the believers. You better have a whole lot more public evidence than a phone call before rounding up an entire group of people.
Oh well, the United States is not a very religiously tolerant place to live anyway. Never has been. I shouldn't be surprised by this at all.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I strongly disagree kmbboots. They can use excuses all they want and it seems to be working.
Do you have evidence that forced marriage of teenagers isn't occurring? Because there's substantial documentary evidence that it does happen. There is a specific allegation that it happened here. There is additional information that has not been released yet.
quote:You better have a whole lot more public evidence than a phone call before rounding up an entire group of people.
Like 401 affidavits? They've been investigating since last week. It's not like they got the phone call and put everyone on a bus immediately. They have gotten search warrants.
Oh, and you can put your concerns about legal representation to rest:
quote:Attorneys for the church and church leaders filed motions asking a judge to quash the search on constitutional grounds, saying state authorities didn't have enough evidence and that the warrants were too broad. A hearing on their motion was scheduled for Wednesday in San Angelo.
This is the same protection you or I would get, although few of us would have the time to file against a warrant before the search was complete.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then you should upgrade your perception now: "The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah told the paper that it plans to back the group's challenge to Utah's bigamy law."
Well, good for them. I still don't like the ACLU, but at least this is one instance I can support them. I really like the quote:
quote:"Living arrangements are really the most intimate kinds of decisions people make," said ACLU of Utah Legal Director Stephen Clark. "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives, and not live in fear because of whom they love. So certainly that kind of privacy expectation is something the ACLU is committed to protecting."
Its about time someone from the ACLU understood this logic.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its about time someone from the ACLU understood this logic.
What do you mean by "about time"? Are you aware of the ACLU's long history of supporting free exercise of religion, especially for people who belong to smaller religious groups?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I mean is that every arugment for gay and lesbian freedom of marriage has been counter argued it would allow for poligamy as legally recognized. That counter has always been countered by the ssm groups it is NOT the same thing. This is the first time I have ever known ssm supporters say it is the same thing.
By the way, when and how did we decide morally and legally the age of marriage? And by "we" who can that be defining?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, if it has been 1999 then something tells me it was more a symbolic rather than practical statement of support.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: By the way, when and how did we decide morally and legally the age of marriage? And by "we" who can that be defining?
For me, the fact that several of these girls have said they were forced to marry is more relevant than the age they were at the time. Although the age certainly contributes, as I imagine it would be harder for a 13 or 14 year old to resist (or just leave) than for an 18 or 19 year old. But whatever "we" decide the legal age of marriage is, forcing an unwilling person into one is wrong.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am trying to make a distinction between polygamy among consenting adults - which I believe should be a private issue, and sexual relations with minors - which is where I believe that the state should intervene. Sadly, the latter seems to be how most polygamous situations play out in this country.
edit to add: harder to prove lack of consent, though, unless the adult is willing to admit to being forced. In which case it is rape rather than statutory rape.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Occasional, I want to be very sure I understand you. Are you suggesting that society should not determine a legal age of consent?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh well, the United States is not a very religiously tolerant place to live anyway. Never has been. I shouldn't be surprised by this at all.
:snort: Dude, you're off your rocker.
P.S. Is there intolerance in America? Sure, that's because there are people in America. But I can't think of a place where there is more tolerance.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are you suggesting that society should not determine a legal age of consent?"
I think that what has determined the age of consent (particularly about marriage) is currently too arbitrary or undefined. By all accounts, it comes down to when you graduate from High School - although "age 18" is something that is used because it is more consistant. The law also indicates age 21 for drinking, although I am at a loss as to why for that one as well. Don't get me wrong, I have an idea of the arguments for those ages. It's just that I don't think they are very good reasons.
Where would you say Mucus? I guess with my U.S. comment I was saying that it might be "the most tolerant place on earth," but that doesn't mean it is tolerant enough.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand why you don't like an arbitrary cutoff like that, but I can't think of anything better than an arbitrary age.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Wow, if it has been 1999 then something tells me it was more a symbolic rather than practical statement of support.
The glass is always half empty, eh?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about a more thoughtful reasoning than "can't think of a better way" for the decision. Perhaps there should be more thought about history, cultural, and nature. My personal belief is that 16 (with consent of both parties) is a more traditional and natural cut off date.
Jon Boy, life is always half-emty. I will accept that as an accurate perception of my views.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Occasional, would you consider 13 or 14 old enough? Where would you draw the line at when a person is old enough to consent to sexual relations?
quote:How about a more thoughtful reasoning than "can't think of a better way" for the decision. Perhaps there should be more thought about history, cultural, and nature.
You are mistaken in thinking that I have not put a lot of thought into this topic. Just because I haven't taken the time to elaborate my reasoning to you doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Also, I was only talking about the arbitrariness of having a single age restriction which applies to all people. After all, the 16th birthday is just as arbitrary as the 18th birthday.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S. Is there intolerance in America? Sure, that's because there are people in America. But I can't think of a place where there is more tolerance.
There is more tolerance here in Trinidad and Tobago. In the 2000 census the population was 26% catholic, 22.4% Hindu, 7.8% Anglican, 6.8% Pentecostal, 5.8 % Muslim, 5.4% Spiritual Baptists, 4% Seventh Day Adventists, 3.3% Presbyterian plus numerous smaller Christian denominations, Jews, Rastafarians, Buddhists and Bahai's.
Within walking distance of my home is a Hindu Temple, a Mosque, a Catholic church, a Baptist church, a seventh day adventist church, and an LDS meeting house. The major holidays of the major religions are all public holidays including Easter, Diwali, Eid-ui-Fitr and Baptist Liberation day. People of all religions join in celebration with their neighbors for the holidays. In my classes I have students who wear head scarves, those with a bindi marking on their forehead, those wearing crosses and those in rasta colors and dread locks.
Although there are only 1.3 million people in the country, the religious diversity is both more evident than in the US and more accepted.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if we're going for arbitrary, 18 is a much better cutoff, since the odds of a person having gone through puberty are better at 18 than 16 (I could think of at least 10 people in my class of ~470 in high school that didn't have secondary sex characteristics at 16, but none by the time we graduated).
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why 16? If we are going natural and traditional, how about as soon as a girl reaches menarche? Or for a boy, as soon as he is able?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was going to guess Holland as being more tolerant, but I guess I've always associated Holland with the Dutch Reform Church, though now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the Dutch Reform Church was actually in Holland or formed in South Africa.
Well, I haven't been to wikipedia yet today.
Ick, the google ad a second ago appeared to be for Asian mail order brides.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
camus, I agree with you. The age of 16 is pretty vague and my reasoning as well. It was an attempt to include all of my listed considerations together. As for "natural" that isn't *as* vague. My own personal never happen and equally self-revolting idea is that age of marriage can be when the body can have a child. I am perfectly aware that can be age 9 or 10 in some rare cases.
As for "I'm not so sure that consent can adequately be given by a 16 year old," I assume you are talking about maturity of decision making. Considering the kinds of "mature" choices adults make, that argument is a little less believable, but understandable.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
erosomniac, how about if two people before the age of 18 have to have a medical examination to determine physical preparation for marriage? Or, how about we have 18 as the predominat cut-off date, but leave open the legal ability for lower ages besides minors for minors that already exists? It used to be, and might in some places, legal to marry a minor with parental consent.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Where would you say Mucus? I guess with my U.S. comment I was saying that it might be "the most tolerant place on earth," but that doesn't mean it is tolerant enough.
I was thinking Canada, maybe Australia. Rabbit pointed out one good place too. Speaking for Canada, I know that I certainly feel more comfortable as an atheist in Canada rather than the US, whether it be in the political arena or the legal arena. I also have Middle Eastern friends that are definitely not big fans of travelling to the States when required to for their jobs. (In fact, personally, I think government policy is a little too politically correct/tolerant in some cases, but thats slightly different)
Things aren't perfect, but on the whole I think we have a slightly better balance.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a feeling it was Canada, but some of the laws that have been put into place in Canada seem to offset some of the more tolerant aspects of its laws. For instance, I would feel less comfortable as a conservative Christian in Canada than I do in the United States. I could be fined or go to jail for speaking my "intolerant" mind.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as semantics go, read the Style Guide from the LDS Newsroom. The last bullet point says that the Associated Press Stylebook says "Mormon" only applies to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and not to any break-off groups.
Anyway, as far as the article goes, I'm glad that they are taking care of the problem, but I am also a little concerned. What's to stop the SWAT team from breaking into one of our temples if they thought someone was being held there against his/her will?
I guess it helps that we don't live in our temples. Posts: 172 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there were credible evidence that the LDS church was holding people in temples against their will I hope the SWAT team would break in. Or other appropriate athorities.
A group's right to control their own private space ends at kidnapping, whether there are religious reasons for the privacy or not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Occasional, I might suggest that "intolerant" might be the wrong word here. For example, you would tolerate rather more sexual behavior toward and with adolescent girls than I would. Perhaps "differently tolerant"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, as far as the article goes, I'm glad that they are taking care of the problem, but I am also a little concerned. What's to stop the SWAT team from breaking into one of our temples if they thought someone was being held there against his/her will?
I certainly hope that if there was credible evidence that people were being held against their will in the temple or (more to the point) that children were being sexually molested in the temple that SWAT teams would break in.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I am not talking about my toleration of younger women (and men) getting married when talking about Canada. (P.S., there is a difference between blatant sexual acts and the act of marriage in my toleration). There are actual laws on the books in Canada that if you publish negatives about particular groups or religions (and not just doing acts against them) that will get you a fine or jail time.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional: Has that ever actually happened? I can think of one case, a case that is still in progress where a conservative author criticised Muslims, but that case is still unresolved.
I'm not a big fan of the hate crime laws in Canada (thats specifically what I was referring too when I said that Canada is too politically correct) but I do not think that they've *actually* done all that much.
On the other hand, I can think of more than a few specific laws and policies in the US that *do* affect large numbers of people.
Thats what I meant when I said "balance", part of that is weighing the amounts of potential harm against actual harm.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would be the difference between blatant sexual acts and the act of marriage? Are you talking about marriages that aren't consumated? Clearly that is not what was happening in Texas if the reports of 14 and 15 year old girls having babies was true.
Would this be okay with you if it had nothing to do with religion? A high school teacher having relations with a student, for example.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is what is done in marriage and what is done out of marriage. If a school teacher and a student wanted to get married, I would still be ok with it. It would be ethically problematic.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never restricted my remarks (in either country) to laws that affect people due to *their* religion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then can you explain what you meant? The context of the discussion was tolerance of religion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I mean is that every arugment for gay and lesbian freedom of marriage has been counter argued it would allow for poligamy as legally recognized. That counter has always been countered by the ssm groups it is NOT the same thing. This is the first time I have ever known ssm supporters say it is the same thing.
I support same sex marriage and polygamy rights both. I think a lot of the arguments in favor of same sex marriage apply to polygamy. However, most of the arguments against polygamy that I've heard do not apply to same sex marriage. That's perhaps why proponents of same sex marriage don't like the issues being linked in a debate.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Former church president Hinckley famously stated "There is no such thing as a Mormon fundamentalist",
Tell that to a Mormon Fundamentalist.
Hinckley did a great job at making the perception of Mormonism, specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more mainstream.
The church itself has made great efforts in appearing more Christian. Not that they are not Christian, I am just talking about the face of the church not the doctrine.
I remember when LDS faithful were encouraged NOT to use the word Mormon. I remember when the text on the Book of Mormon was changed so that Jesus Christ's name was bigger. I guess I don't get the hypersensitivity to polygamous groups being identified as Mormons. LDS faithful have distance themselves from the name. Even if the population identifies Mormonism with polygamy, I would think LDS Mormons are mature enough to deal with that without playing with semantics.
Is Mormon a legal name like the official name of the church? If not then anyone can be a Mormon if they identify themselves as such--particularly if they believe in the Book of Mormon.
Maybe there is no such thing as a "Fundamentalist LDS Mormon" because that very self defined individual would likely be excommunicated, but I don't think the LDS church has enough authority of the term "Mormon" to get to decide who can self identify as a Mormon.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently read a paper that touched on the tolerance of differing customs/traditions and of differing religions in Europe & the US (paper as a whole was on attitudes towards immigration). The authors found that the US population is more open to both religious diversity and cultural diversity. The questions asked were:
It is better for a country if almost everyone shares the same customs and traditions.
It is better for a country if there are a variety of religions among its people.
posted
Dagonee: I was referring to laws that affect people because of *other* people's religion.
The context of the discussion is still tolerance of religion. For me, that includes toleration of both people that are not religious or people that are "presumed" to be of one particular religion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
