A possible future Koreshianesque situation?

[hammer4nc]

You might want to fax this detailed information on sex crimes over to the Dallas ATF office...aren't they the "go to agency" for serving child abuse, and zoning violation warrants in that area? Someone needs to stake out BillyBob's farm supply...when a bunch of suits come in to rent cattle trailers, we'll know things are about to take off...

 

[griz]

THESE FOLKS AREN'T PRACTICING POLYGAMY JUST BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS.

Carebear, Maybe I didn't read the article closely enough, but can you point out to me where it says that they ARE forcing marrige on 12YO's instead of the parts that say the locals are worried about it?

 

[tyme]

No, it is not a different law.

A relationship between a 17-year-old and a 21-year-old in TX is perfectly legal, though the 17-year-old's parents might (illegally) mutiliate or kill the 21-year-old.

Statutory rape is by definition rape that occurs because age or age difference precludes ability of the younger participant to consent. Age of consent is directly relevant.

The minor/adult distinction for statutory rape is a social myth. I believed it when I was in highschool because my parents believed it, and they believed it because other parents believed it.

Child rape is something totally different, and usually involves children under a lower age than the age of consent. Typically the "child" age is somewhere in the range 12 to 14. That age is the hard limit below which nobody can have sex, regardless of age differential or the age of the other person.

Recap: The statutory rape laws typically have this form:
Nobody may have sex with anyone under age 13.
Nobody age 17 or over may have sex with anyone under 17, except when the age differential is 3 years or less.
Nobody under age 18 may have deviant sex (this is mostly in southern states, and the age can be different from the age of consent)

If none of those criteria applies, the only way for rape to occur is if consent is lacking.

 

[c_yeager]

Texas must have a different set of laws then. My information on WA state comes from an practicing assistant DA in the field so it is accurate for WA at least.

AH: I think i found the difference.Washington state and several others (link: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm ) have a "split" age of consent which reflects what I said about WA. Texas does NOT have this split so, we are both right with regards to our locations. Of course since this is actually happening in Texas what you've stated is perinent to the discussion.

It just goes to show how much states can vary in legal nuance.

 

[RealGun]

I would consider going after polygamists on grounds of slavery. These are not "consenting" adults in the true sense. Beyond that, any man who wants to create his own private hell by having more than one wife in the same house has my sympathy.

 

[c_yeager]

I would consider going after polygamists on grounds of slavery. These are not "consenting" adults in the true sense.

Thats a pretty sweeping and general statement. Could you provide a source specific to this group of people?

 

[tyme]

Even in Washington State, it's a bit more complicated than that. The 16/18 split is apparently caused by dissonance between the age of consent -- which is 16 -- and another law that prohibits "immoral communication" with minors. It's really pathetic. People wonder why there's a pervasive lack of respect for the law in general, when the law itself is contradictory.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/washington.htm

 

[RealGun]

Thats a pretty sweeping and general statement. Could you provide a source specific to this group of people?

No, and I don't have to, in context with what's already posted. If you would care to offer another point of view, feel free.

 

[c_yeager]

No, and I don't have to, in context with what's already posted. If you would care to offer another point of view, feel free.

The only thing that even remotely supports what you posted is a refference by carebear to a book by Jon Krakauer. If thats all the support you need to make accusations SLAVERY then by all means go with it. I just got the impression that you had something of substance to contribute.

 

[SMLE]

And there's a big difference between idiotic racist propaganda and a journalistic book by a respected reporter that has backing from former members and the law enforcement community.

The "Protocols" once had the backing of the "law enforcement" community too.

"famous journalist" and/or "respected reporter" generally = "professional BS shoveler"
"journalistic book by a respected reporter" often = "train load of BS"

I could write a book about any group I chose that would curl your hair, but would it be true? You have not provided any argument that "Under the Banner of Heaven" IS any more than, in your own words, "idiotic racist propaganda".

FWIW Carebear, I totally agree with you as far as the issue of abusing underage girls. But even an "accused" pederast deserves a fair trial. Once guilt has been firmly established, hang 'em high, but TRY them FIRST. And the "Court of Public Opinion" dosen't count.

PS: I'm playing "devil's advocate" here. Peace.

 

[TheDutchman]

Can I move there and marry the COORS TWINS

 

[carebear]

OK, I guess I'm going on the statement in the article that these are in fact FLDS members. IF that is the case then it is the same group currently being investigated by Utah and Canada for allegations of underage polygamy and the offenses therein. As I am not privy to the details of the case(s) I guess I can't "prove" a damn thing. But the interviews by Krakauer of former FLDS members and the public statements of FLDS elders where they more or less confirm that they do practice this and are not ashamed of it as it is "God's will" are pretty credible.

Krakauer is a pretty solid journalist as far as having his credibility challenged by those he has reported on on negatively in the past goes, if that's any evidence, ie no slander, libel or fraud legally alleged.

There's also no argument presented by anyone that "Under the Banner" isn't true, and since it explicitly names both FLDS elders as criminals and quotes government officials about cases, you'd think SOMEONE would complain if it weren't accurate.

I'm not a particularly credulous person and it all seems to hang together to me. But you are correct, my first assumption is just that, so i should limit my statements to confirmed FLDS-ers.

Does the devil NEED more advocates?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

My Grandmother was 13 when she married my Grandfather back in 1894. He was 20.

They had 11 children that lived past childbirth and survived through 76 years of marriage.

One of my uncles was gassed in WWI. One of my uncles was aboard the USS Helena when it was sunk by the nips. One of my uncles was AT Pearl Harbor. One of my uncles was shot (twice) on Iwo Jima. I was proud of my grandparents.

All this time I respected and loved them only to find out now that they were criminals.

 

[carebear]

cropcirclewalker,

Take heart. They might not have been. Remember the "no ex post facto law" part of the ol' Connie.

Sooooooo, go Grampa!?

 

[griz]

I haven't read the book but I see more of a connection with your explanation. But it still sounds like there wasn't enough evidence to convict them in Utah or Canada, despite the investigation. And the article quotes on estimated 10,000 members of the church in or near Utah. To me it seems if you have that many believers and they use women as described, there would be a lot of pregnat 14 year olds to give proof of rape. I suppose you could conceal a lot, but there also appear to be some former followers who have escaped. At least the one quoted could not provide enough evidence for conviction either.

Maybe I'm a hard sell but I see no real difference between the call to banish people for keeping to themselves and having the POTENTIAL for child abuse, and people who are peaceable but have the POTENTIAL for violence because they own guns.

 

[carebear]

And again, there may be smaller sub-sects who are the real whack jobs. I do believe the investigations are ongoing, it is just difficult to gather evidence, like solving a murder in Chinatown in the 50's.

I certainly wouldn't support "banishing" them, but if they are in fact members of such a sect, the local community should feel free to express their displeasure and local authorities be forewarned in case any evidence of actual crime is brought to their attention (prevent the 'oh, that sounds too weird to be true , go on home little girl' response).

And yes I am aware that it was violent, criminal harassment for their old views on polygamy that caused the actual LDS to move all the way out to Utah in the first place. I am not advocating such actions in any way, shape or form.

 

[Hawkman]

Why the heck would any man want more than one wife?

 

[SLCDave]

And yes I am aware that it was violent, criminal harassment for their old views on polygamy that caused the actual LDS to move all the way out to Utah in the first place. I am not advocating such actions in any way, shape or form.

They were driven out of their homes in Ohio and other places before they practiced polygamy. In Illinois, that was just a convenient excuse, among others that were used to justify it.

 

[SMLE]

They were driven out of their homes in Ohio and other places before they practiced polygamy.

I know a couple of LDS folks and IIRC, the Saints didn't even START practicing polygamy until AFTER they got to Utah.

 

[carebear]

Really? I knew they were unjustifiably harrassed and knew they were pilloried for the polygamy stance.

Guess I put one and one together for a total of three.

Anyway, agree or disagree with someone's religion, til they start breaking laws and hurting people you can't justify attacking them.

 

[Marnoot]

I know a couple of LDS folks and IIRC, the Saints didn't even START practicing polygamy until AFTER they got to Utah.

Actually we (I saw "we" being Mormon and having ancestors who were involved in this portion of history) began practicing it before the murder of Joseph Smith and the subsequent exodus west to escape persecution. For a more precise history, see:
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=145

Why the heck would any man want more than one wife?

Believe it or not, Brigham Young himself thought the same thing when he first heard of the doctrine: "I felt to envy the corpse in a funeral cortege and "could hardly get over it for a long time" (Journal of Discourses Ch3 Pg266).

Also, even when practiced, it was not like you see being practiced by so-called "fundamentalists" today. Both men and women entered into marriage voluntarily.
But as mentioned, we believe that after having restored the doctrine in the last days, the Lord commanded that polygamy no longer be practiced. Since that time, all members of the church found to practice or promote the current practice are summarily excommunicated.
These who force children, young girls, or anyone into these kinds of arrangments will have to answer to God. I agree with SMLE, that any indications of abuse should be investigated, the perpetrators fairly tried, and punished if found to be guilty. We Mormons have a natural distaste for "mob 'justice,'" for obvious historical reasons. Or at least we should, unfortunately there are those that forget the lessons of history.

 

[SMLE]

Marnoot

Thanks for the link! I couldn't remember for certain and I called one of the LDS members I know and he couldn't remember exact details either, but what he did remember jibes with what you posted. Being Jewish, I have "natural distaste" for mob justice as well.

 

[EricOKC]

Why the heck would any man want more than one wife?

Why should we care? I mean, if some man voluntarily subjects himself to that kind of abuse, and doesnt mind having to deal with multiple women who are, lets just say, "a little touchy" one week a month, thats his decision.

 

[fistful]

As a human, a Christian (therefore a member of one of the more persecuted religions), an American, a gun nut, and overall nerd and misfit, I also have a "distaste for 'mob 'justice.''" May I now join the more- sensitive-to-religious-persecution club, too?

 

[Marnoot]

May I now join the more- sensitive-to-religious-persecution club, too?

I was just referring to the fact that for me the effects of mob mentality strikes closer to home than to some people. I don't get warm, fuzzy feelings when I read my great-great-grandfather's account of being forced by the mobs to leave Illinois in the middle of winter with his pregnant wife and young child. Just about all religions are or have been subject to persecution. The Christians by the Romans, the Muslims by the Christians, the Protestants by the Catholics, the Mormons by the Protestants, the Jews by the Nazis.
My point in this is that I wish people, whatever their religion, would look at how their own people have been mistreated in the past and would seek to prevent it from happening to others now and in the future. It's like a disfunctional chain of abuse in the human family; it needs to be broken.

All are welcome in the "No to mobs!" club!