President Obama and the fundamentalist view
Today I have been managing a live blog for the Tribune on President Obama's inauguration. That has kept me busy, but it seems like a good time to share this question I received from a woman in London who is a regular reader. Here is her question:
''Since the raids in April on the Yearning For Zion ranch I have turned to your newspaper for a more in-depth and less hysterical view. I have found your paper very helpful in educating me on the whole subject of polygamy.
However, after listening to Warren Jeffs preach about the evils of the black man and how he should never be allowed to rule, how has the Obama presidency been received by the polygamous communities?''
Well, weigh in but please keep it civil. I'm looking for an informed discussion here, not rants.
''Since the raids in April on the Yearning For Zion ranch I have turned to your newspaper for a more in-depth and less hysterical view. I have found your paper very helpful in educating me on the whole subject of polygamy.
However, after listening to Warren Jeffs preach about the evils of the black man and how he should never be allowed to rule, how has the Obama presidency been received by the polygamous communities?''
Well, weigh in but please keep it civil. I'm looking for an informed discussion here, not rants.
253 Comments:
For me? I'm not remotely LDS but polygamy is not confined to LDS and LDS offshoots. It's the one bright spot in the disaster of an Obama Presidency. We might just end his term with polygamy at least decriminalized.
I am FLDS and was no fan of either Mcain or Obama. My distaste for Obama was because of his positions on the issues, and certain statements that give us a window into his soul, case in point. He said he would teach his girls morals but if they "made a mistake" he didn't want them "punished with a baby". That punished word in that context is startling and in my opinion disgusting. His views on same sex marriage are different than mine, but hey maybe as Pharisee said we can get polygany decriminalized. This idea that we dont want to see people succeed because they are black is pure B.S. I hope the very best for Obama and the USA for the next four years. Congratulation Mr. President
I am fundamentalist in beliefs even though I don't yet belong to a specific group.
We will not deny or ignore the teachings of the Book of Moses or the early prophets of this dispensation regarding the black race of Cain.
"..not one of the children of old Cain, have one particle of right to bear Rule in Government affairs from first to last, they have no business there. This privilege was taken from them by their own transgressions, and I cannot help it; - Brigham Young
It is a sad day for our nation and a harsh indicator of how far the hearts and minds of the people have been turned to Satan's deception.
There will be some differences of opinion/interpretation between the many different Mormon Fundamentalist factions on this issue. They all center around the interpretation of various scriptural passages, and some statements made or attributed to early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ.
The answer to the question from their view point would generally either be that black men cannot rule in government at all, or that they can only rule over their own people of the same black lineage. And, the key reasoning would be centered on the scripture which speaks of Canaan and his lineage trying to rule over Seth's lineage through nefarious means, and being punished by God with a dark skin. The other scripture would be that of Noah blessing his grandson, Pharoah, to rule over his lineage/people.
If I could vote, it would not have been for Obama only because he his not in favor of my husband's and my industry. However I do believe that he has some very good idea's and maybe he can get the country back on track. Decriminalizing Polygamy may not be too far off. If they allow gays to marry (which I am not against - what goes on behind closed doors is none of my business) they will open tons of doors for other in alternative lifestyles.
I'm definitely FLDS and at this point I'm just settling in for the socialist takeover. Bush was a disaster in my opinion so how much worse can Obama be? At least he doesn't lie about his agenda as much as the Republican side of things claiming to be so Patriotic while he's destroying everything possible that America stood for. The color of his skin is not an issue to me and we'll just see if he can do as much damage as Bush.
At least he looks cheerful about it all.
Now here is a non-fundamentalist point of view.
We "all" have been blessed with the gift of free will!
Stence
Do you think there are generational differences inside the FLDS community?
It seems to me that Obama, out of all those who were running, is the most likely to care about the civil rights of fundamentalist groups like the FLDS. So maybe it’s time to have a revelation, just as the LDS church did decades ago. After all, if anyone was a son of Cain, it was George W.
C. Hansen: I'm not sure what scriptures you're referring to; are they in the Book of Mormon?
Let me explain politics as I understand it. Republicans think they are God, and Democrats say there is no God.
Personally, I like a 50/50 balance between Democrats and Republicans. Although I am registered Republican, I would not want Republicans in total control. Checks and balances is something I view very necessary.
I held my nose and voted for McCain, but if I had my choice, neither would have so much power as they do now.
Tell you what Yanks: We'll trade you straight across. You take Stephen Harper, we'll take Obama! And not only that, we'll throw in a slightly used Gilles Duceppe to make the offer a little more attractive. What do you say,eh?
Bruce, Your answer does not surprise me. The FLDS responses of D and Stence so far mirror my own views and I'm LDS. The shade of his skin has little meaning. It's his policies that are loathsome.
Pharisee, I agree that decriminalization of polygamy could be the one bright spot in an Obama presidency.
D-
I think your comments about President Obama's statement concerning a baby being a "punishment" underscores the enormous cultural differences between the FLDS community and much of mainstram America, on some subjects.
In fact, in the world that the Obama daughters will be raised in, and expected to be sucessful in, having a child as a teenager would be a burden. Perhaps punishment was not the best word that could have been used, but it does convey the sentiment intended.
In your world, getting pregnant and having a child is a great blessing. Something to be thankful for and to cherish. At any age.
In our secualr world, not only are we not as strict as perhaps we might be, about sexual activity, there is an acknowledgment that young people sometimes make mistakes. No matter how careful the parents were in teaching them good values. One of the 'mistakes' that is often made is premature sexual activity.
President Obama was saying that he would want his daughters to have the full information about, and availability of, effective birth control methods to choose from if they did make the poor choice of being sexuallly active before they were positioned in life to have a baby.
The reality is, in our secular world, the world the Obama girls are a part of, having a baby too early in life is often not a blessing.
Our culture and yours are worlds apart on this issue. On the other hand, if you want understanding and acceptance of your culture, please don't sit in negative judgment on ours. We both must acknowledge the cultural differences, and respect them. And understand that what works in one culture, may not work in the other.
And just for the record;
I am thrilled with having Barack Hussein Obama as my president!!!!
I am thrilled with having Michelle as our wonderful First Lady.
I am thrilled at the idea of having a young family in the White House!!!!
And I am thrilled at having a man who is brilliant and does not appologize for it, making our national decisions.
I look forward to having a government guided by morality and ethical behavior and a real caring for the average American and those who have been disenfranchised for far too long.
There will never be anyone in the Presidency who will be perfect. That human being does not exist. For me, President Obama more closely mirrors those beliefs about ethics and morals and intelligent behavior and discourse than anyone has in my lifetime.
I do not, and will not, always agree with every stand he takes. But I believe he will work for a world that more closely approximates one of fairness than any of his contemporaries would have.
Reg,
I did not vote for him. I do not like his policies. But he is my President and I will pray for him that he may be a good and righteous leader.
As a believer in the book of Revelations, and hence as Ron likes to call us Conspiracy Nutters!! :) I don't believe it makes any difference who's in there, Obama will be puppeted just like the rest of the lot have been. The new world order is the plan of the elitests and the dragon. The road iAs the same whoever "plays" like their President. So, perhaps the man is a true representation of the times.
D said,
"but hey maybe as Pharisee said we can get polygany decriminalized."
........................
It won't matter if polygamy is decriminalized, the persecution is gonna continue. It really doesn't matter who the president is. There is a God of this world who is in charge and is going to persecute and fight anything that is good until the Lord's second coming.
WC said...There is a God of this world who is in charge and is going to persecute and fight anything that is good until the Lord's second coming.
So God is persecuting the FLDS? And this God is evil?
Love of the Truth
No, no, a "conspiracy nutter" is someone who thinks that everything that happens is some vast governmental conspiracy. Like faking the moon landings or things like that.
People that believe in end times type prophecies, well, oh, never mind.
Ron,
I was recently reminded of a old saying paraphrased..."Sometimes the better part of valor is keeping one's thoughts to one's self..."
First Amendmant,
"So God is persecuting the FLDS? And this God is evil?"
You misunderstood him -- he said "a God of *this* world". In other words -- Satan is persecuting them -- not God in Heaven.
The end is near!
".... if you want understanding and acceptance of your culture, please don't sit in negative judgment on ours. We both must acknowledge the cultural differences, and respect them. And understand that what works in one culture, may not work in the other."
Sorry, I just can't let that one slide by.
Cultural difference and right vs wrong are two different things.
If a practice, such as premarital sex, abortion, etc., is in direct opposition to God's laws...YOU BET we'll "sit in negative judgement" regarding it. And no, there will never be any "respect" for that.
Sorry but God does not allow for "culture" when judging right and wrong and we don't either. His laws are for everyone with an absolute zero regard for one's "culture".
Bruce said:
is in direct opposition to God's laws...YOU BET we'll "sit in negative judgement" regarding it. And no, there will never be any "respect" for that.
Sorry but God does not allow for "culture" when judging right and wrong and we don't either. His laws are for everyone with an absolute zero regard for one's "culture".
Which is why a lot of religious people outside the various fundamentalist Mormon groups would like to see you eradicated. They sit in judgment of your culture for being immoral and have zero tolerance of it.
Funny how it cuts both ways, huh?
Bruce, I don't believe that abortion was the topic, rather, learning about birth control and it's availability was the discussion.
And Maybe we should all stop talking about "we". And simply speak for ourselves as individuals.
I personally respect others right to believe differently than I do and would like the same courtesy shown to me.
I personally believe that everything that works, or is applicable in one culture, may not work or be applicable in another culture.
And Bruce, you can think anything you want to about me. Just don't ever let your beliefs justify you acting in anything but a respectful manner toward me or disrespect and anger is apt to be what you get in return. I've working on it, but I'm not very good at turning the other cheek.
F Merrill
Yeah, we've heard that one before.
Ron,
Sorry to ignore you so long but I am a busy mother. I just got to my computer for a minute and saw your question about generational.
I'll try to answer from my perspective, but I'll disclaim it as "just my perspective".
My Father is probably what you would call racist. He even uses the "n" word. It makes me cringe. My mother has never been that way and is very respectfull and tolerant of others.
I was taught growing up to "live and let live". I thought I had the right to believe the way I do and allow others the same priveledge.
Despite what has been described by some people about Uncle Warren, a lot of the way I feel about others is influenced by his teachings of love for others. He taught love and forgiveness and somewhere in there is the belief that we are all children of a Heavenly Father on this earth and he loves each and every one of us and yearns for us. The "bad" that happens for our growth and developement is usually a matter of perspective and a natural consequence of breaking God's rules and laws.
"Put your finger in the fire and you will get burned."
Generational? I don't think so because some of the people I went to school with were racist and some weren't. The older people I know are the same.
The teachers I had were very influencial about my views and none of them were what I would call racist. Mr. Richter, for instance, would never use bad language and would have discouraged anyone around him from using vulgar, or disrespectful language towards anyone.
I hope this answers your question a little bit but I've got to get back to my children's schooling.
....Later perhaps with brownies and pickles...........
Ron, I suspect F. Merrill is a troll.
Bruce:"If a practice, such as premarital sex, abortion, etc., is in direct opposition to God's laws...YOU BET we'll "sit in negative judgement" regarding it. And no, there will never be any "respect" for that."
You may personally feel that way, but every FLDS person I know (and I know a good many) will fiercely defend a persons right to choose.
That is the basis of this whole thing in Texas, etc.
And no, they DO NOT feel that they have the right to sit in judgment over anyone who chooses these "cultural" differences.
That they choose to not associate with such is not a refusal to allow it in others, it is a refusal to participate of it.
And in turn, they request the same: "Let them worship how, when where and what they may"
It is all about choice.
And leaving judgment to God.
Stence, Honey, You're too funny!!!!!
Ron, Pliggy describes the same kind of experience, by the way. I don't think he's ever said anything about his parents, specifically, but more about racial views being a real mixed bag, across the generations...
He also attributes his lack of racism in his personal views to having lived in a racially diverse world in SAlt Lake when he was young and having attended school with all different ethnic and racial groups.
On the other hand, I've been in many months of conversations with several women, too. And they don't harbor any negative racial views, that I am aware of. They've expressed the same, "Live and let live" philosophy that Stence talks about....
IMHO-
That is exactly the perspective I have gotten from those I have become friends with. They don't push their religious beliefs on me. Ever. We tend to talk about our children and food, and travel and what things are like in our different parts of the world...
If I ask questions I get straight answers. If I ask for more info, more elaborate explanations, I get that...but never have I felt it was prostaletizing....(sp?)
Rebeckah said...
First Amendmant,
"So God is persecuting the FLDS? And this God is evil?"
You misunderstood him -- he said "a God of *this* world". In other words -- Satan is persecuting them -- not God in Heaven.
--------
So is this the Mormon dogma, that the earth is hell (in essence) and is ruled by Satan?
I should let this go, but I just can't. There seems to be some terrible confussion regarding fundamentalist mormon beliefs. Yes, be believe in free agency..in other words you have the "right to choose" to murder/rob/whatever.
However, that does not mean that God's law being violated is any less wrong or that those who violate it are any less guilty. Nor does that mean that there will be any "respect" for the perpetrator.
God's laws are clear. It is each of our duty to know them and obey them. The heck with your, or my, "culture".
FA,
"So is this the Mormon dogma, that the earth is hell (in essence) and is ruled by Satan?"
That sounds plausible but nothing I've read has said so in so many words.
Please keep in mind that I am not and never have been a Mormon. All I can share is what I've learned through research so I'm willing to be corrected by one who actually practices the faith.
IMHO, you summerized the true meaning of "free will" which some on this blog believe FLDS know nothing about. Bravo!
Bruce, I may think your ideas and your behaviors are both crazy and sinful. That's my right to believe that about you, if I so desire. I do not have the right to behave disrespectfully toward you.
I have an obligation to respect you as a person, despite my disagreement with your belief(s).
I think that is the fundamental meaning behind 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. As well as ,"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
I expect the same from you. Irrespective of what you may think of my beliefs.
This post has been removed by the author.
As a believer in the book of Revelations, and hence as Ron likes to call us Conspiracy Nutters!! :) I don't believe it makes any difference who's in there, Obama will be puppeted just like the rest of the lot have been. The new world order is the plan of the elitests and the dragon. The road iAs the same whoever "plays" like their President. So, perhaps the man is a true representation of the times.
:-) Here's one to contemplate. The elite have an agenda. Obama will serve their purposes. Hopefully he can negotiate of few of his personal agendas in spite of the limitations.
I didn't vote this year at all, because I felt that none of the candidates represented the views of our nation.
I respected both men running, just not their views.
1. Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that the "mark" of cain meant he was black?
2. Obama evidently beleives in abortion,(which is legal here) although I disagree with him.
3. Obama has said marriage is one man to one woman. Being Democrat doesnt seem to have changed his mind.
4.Presidents make few decisions on Bills passed in congress. Nor do they have any say in Supreme Court Rulings.
5. Votes in the majority of Congress depend on what how much lobbyists have to spend.
6. We now have a Democratic President, and Democratic Congress.
7.Obama has said and made lots of promises, yet doesn't every candidate?
8.Obama is human , just like everyone else. He is the new President, and I will respect that.
We will all have to just wait and see how the next 4yrs go. I wouldn't wish this office on anyone at this point in history. America's economy is in the dumper, and the most intelligent economists don't have the answers.
Obama has said that he personally abhors abortion, although he supports a woman's individual right to make decisions about her own body. He has further said he agrees withthe supporters of Roe v. Wade that everytime further restrictions are placed on abortion, the closer we come to back room, unlicensed or regulated practitioners, like we had prior to Roe v Wade.
He unequivocally opposes late term abortions, or partial-birth abortions, except when the mother's life is at stake.
If you're going to state what his postion is, at least get it right.
Obama says his personal opinion is that marriage is between one woman and one man and that he would not personally support legal gay marriage, although he does support civil unions, allowing partners the same legal rights marriage does. He agrees with many here that "marriage" is a religious function, and a personal belief.
This post has been removed by the author.
The President doesn't make of changes laws Rericson. Nor does he use personal opinion to guide those he leads. At least I hope he doesn't.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Harley, You are out of your friggin' mind. Box 'o rocks doesn't begin to describe your level of abject stupidity. The scariest thing is, I'm willing to bet you're a product of Texas' public schools....Lord help us all!!!!
Your last post isn't remotely connected to anything...
You make me feel like I want to spray you with a can of Raid....
"R"
What do you mean funny? I'm really serious about those pickles you keep crunching without me!
I know some people take things out of context but how's this for interpretation. "The master of all is the servant of all."
Anyway if those who keep harping about Uncle Warren's teaching on the black race........would understand that some of us think that it's perfectly reasonable to have Obama as the President.
Hopefully he'll make a much better servant to the American people than the previous presidents. Maybe their being white and supposedly thinking they were in charge, gave them a dictator attitude instead of thinking of the needs of the people and being a "true" servant.
My prayers go out to Obama in his "service" to our great nation that is in serious need of help.
Stence,
It's interesting that you zeroed in on Obama and his administration being public servants. That is exactly what he said today....and that he and his staff have to remember that they work FOR the American people...and he froze the salaries on everybody in the Executive Branch making 100k, or more...and a whole bunch of other new rules, including strict regs about lobbying and not taking gifts from lobbyists...and signing contracts if they're going to keep their jobs!
He says that he has to "walk the walk".
I made brownies with cream cheese frosting over the weekend...yum!!!!!
I don't see how anyone could sit in a church and listen to the preacher say "God Damn America" for 20 years be a decent citizen, much less president.
Rericson,
Just letting you know what presidential duties consist of, since you think Obama is the Saviour!
The president doesn't run this country on his personal opinion Rericson, he runs it according to the duties of his office.
I don't really care what his personal beliefs are, as long as he can't change laws according to those beleifs.
WC
If you read the personal interview NEWSWEEK had with Obama about his religious beleifs you will learn much more about him.
The one thing I liked about him, was the fact, he isn't into religiousity, he beleives faith is a personal thing. He wasn't a steady attendee to the church your speaking about.
WC,
Rev. Wright's statement was taken way, way out of context...
He was referring to how we had been behaving like such horrible imperialistic asses for so long....
Pull out a copy of "The Ugly American" and maybe his comments will be more understandable...
Rev. Wright got really mistreated and many times mis quoted because of the media's need to sensationalze and crucify....I'm sure it was a terrible decision for Obama to have to choose to openly turn his back on his old friend inorder to get the media off of his back about somethig so terribly misrepresented....
Harley, You're amazing in your seer abilities...why, I bet you could have your own T.V. show down there in West Texas with all those other brilliant minds!!!!
Reriscon
Sorry but Im from California! A box of rocks huh? At least I have enough Rocks to put in a box, what's your excuse?
WC: It won't matter if polygamy is decriminalized, the persecution is gonna continue.
you can count on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama outlaws home-schooling if given enough time -- the rationale being that parents can't be trusted to give their kids a "well-rounded" education; and they must be exposed to certain government "training for life" or some such garbage.
Imagine if Marci Hamilton were appointed head of the Department of Education! You can bet homeschoolers will be number one on her axe-list.
Ron, I owe you an appology....
You're right...sometimes, ya just can't help it...it just comes out....
Ztg,, Racists Racists remarks, why do you hate blacks and hispanics so badly.
I don't think you will have to worry about much, Obama appointed
Janet Napolitano former Governor of Arizona as Homeland Security. She is the one who sat in office as Arizona Govenor and did nothing about Child abuse in her state.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as “persons” babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother’s wombs are “persons,” and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. link
I wish I could also find the quote of Obama saying something to the effect of it would be wrong to spare the life of an infant survivor of a botched abortion, because it would go back on the mother's initial decision.
Sick.
Found the quote!
“Essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision…”
-- Barack Obama
link
Here is something for you to raise hell about Ztg.
Washington » The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police officers in Utah who searched a suspect's home without a warrant cannot be sued for violating his constitutional rights.
In ruling unanimously for five officers attached to the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force, the court also abandoned a rigid, two-step test that it adopted in 2001 to guide judges in assessing alleged violations of constitutional rights.
harley I'll bet you and Ron are just giddy over that ruling, aren't you. Next we'll do away with the need for probable cause altogether. Just think the of positions you and Ron can make for yourselves in the new politburo police state!
harley said...
"WC
If you read the personal interview NEWSWEEK had with Obama about his religious beleifs you will learn much more about him.
The one thing I liked about him, was the fact, he isn't into religiousity, he beleives faith is a personal thing. He wasn't a steady attendee to the church your speaking about."
beleifs, religiousity, beleives
harley where did you go to 'public school' at? I can tell you didn't home school!
tip: 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' or pronounced as 'ay' as in neighbor and weigh.
And just exactly what does "religiousity" mean?
religiosity
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Also in case no one knows, Monsieur Obama is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Maybe the elite have finally learned that it isn't to their advantage to keep America dumbed down....LOL!
No, no, a "conspiracy nutter" is someone who thinks that everything that happens is some vast governmental conspiracy. Like faking the moon landings or things like that.
--------
Ruby sings......"everything is beautiful"!
:-) Here's one to contemplate. The elite have an agenda. Obama will serve their purposes. Hopefully he can negotiate of few of his personal agendas in spite of the limitations.- Txblogger
-------
Have you noticed how everyone is avoiding the elephant in the Whitehouse? How many people are aware that the Federal Reserve is privately owned? Until people wake up from their slumber and take their power back the elite will continue to make slaves of all. There is no puppet in the Whitehouse or in Congress that is going to come to their rescue, just ask FLDS.
Whoops, did I say that outloud! My bad!
This post has been removed by the author.
Let me explain politics as I understand it. Republicans think they are God, and Democrats say there is no God.
-----------
"United we stand, divided we fall."
I wonder what God thinks of him/her being used as a weapon to divide the country?
I didn't vote this year at all, because I felt that none of the candidates represented the views of our nation.
I respected both men running, just not their views.
Harley, you do realize there were more than two men running, I hope?
Brooke,
At the risk of having someone post telling me it's not my job to speak for the FLDS, I feel as though I have to at least try to speak for some of those I regularly hear from.
Despite those who would have the outside world believe that the FLDS women are a bunch of dolts, many are not. Those I talk with keep up on the news. Have a very diverse set of opinions, and are as well informed as anyone else I know, about politics.
The other thing that is a myth is all the racism that gets attributed to Warren Jeffs. If he is racist, that isn't what his followers are picking up on. Actually, just the opposite.
I think many of the racist kind of remarks he is quoted as having made are actually times he was repeating what earlier prophets have said. And he repeats these things in context that gets lost in the retelling. It is the constant search for things to sensationalize that causes journalists and naysayers to find these little nuggets and repeat them out of context. It serves the purpose of inflaming and fueling the fire of hatred. But they are not what they appear to be.
At least that is the way that this has been explained to me.
Over and over I have had individuals write to me and tell me the "U. Warren does not teach us to hate. Not black people, or people that woud hurt us, or anyone. He teaches us to love everyone. And he is so kind to everyone that all we can do is try to follow his example."
As for President Obama, everyone is praying for him Just as they prayed for President Bush, and every president before him. They pray that he will have the wisdom and strength to lead us and make good decisions for our country. They pray that he will be kept safe from harm and that his family will also be safe. They pray that when he makes appointments of Federal Judges, he makes wise choices of good people who will make fair decisions.
I think if you ask them about politics and politicians, the concern is for those more immediate, State folks who directly impact on their lives.
I think if you ask them about race and the color of people's skin, they will tell you about not inter-marrying, but they will also tell you about being kind and good to everyone. If you ask about the remarks that Warren Jeffs made, they will tell you he was reading old lessons. That it is their duty to take the lesson from what he said and apply it to today's life in ways that are relevant in 2009. The lesson is that one should stay away from 'the occasions of sin', and that real leaders, ones who should be followed, spiritually, will only come from those lines that are blessed, not from the lines where Satan will emerge from. But the leadership that is being talked about is spiritual leadership, not political or secular leadership. It is the leadership of those who will blaze the trail to heaven, not those who blaze the trail to Washington or the bank....
I may be completely wrong. but I don't think so. I've now been given this same description of beliefs and interpretation of lessons from several people, each independent of the other....and not one of these folks has any reason to lie to me or to deliberately misinterpret anything.....
On the other hand, those who promte the sensational, all have something to gain from keeping the negative crap flowing.....
Ziggy
Actually I think government has way, way too much immunity from its wrong doings. It's scary in many ways.
As I see it, from the standpoint of a fundamentalist, those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter.
I am wondering what effect you folks think the president is going to have on an issue (polygamy) that will be decided either in the Supreme Court or in the legislature.
RubyTuesday thinks we have been asleep since 1913. Of course, the Federal Reserve is privately owned and always has been. If the government starts owning banks, then everyone cries "communism". Does it scare you less if the government owns the banks? Because you trust the government? Just curious, but have you been talking to Pliggy?
And what has that got to do with Obama and fundamentalist Mormons?
Betty
Well, a President can push a legislative agenda and a popular President can often get his party to fall in line.
However, with Obama not willing to spend political capital on gay marriage as opposed to civil untion he's certainly not going to do anything with polygamy.
Ron,
Yeah, I'm thinking that the economy and various little problems like the war in Israel and Afganistan, he's going to have bigger fish to fry. I also think that marriage law is an area where representatives are going to be more concerned with their own area's belief system rather than their standing as Democrats. A Democrat in, say, Dubuque, is quite different from one in Philadelphia.
Ron-I was impressed with the start yesterday concerning 'standards' with lobbyists....
I think the president sets a tone...
And so far, the indications are that this president's tone is going to be pragmatism coupled with fiscal prudency...
This could be to the advantage of polygamist communities. It would require bringing the issue to the attention of lawmakers...repeatedly and from various sources...
but there is a lot of truth in 'the squeeky wheel...' theory...
It's pragmatic to get out of people's bedrooms...government has no business in the bedroom...
It's poor prioritizing to spend money on witch hunts and prosecutions of 'bedroom crimes'....
What's the expression about necessity making for strange bedfellows???
I can't remember exactly how it goes...but anyway, as much as homosexuality may be seen doctrinely as sinnful, it would make sense to partner with the GLBT groups to push legislation that gets govt. out of the bedrooms of America and also decriminalizes any collateral activity such as consensual polygamy....
Lucille said "Ron, I suspect F. Merrill is a troll."
A very smart and funny troll. Rock on, F Merrill, whoever you are.
rericson,
It's "politics makes for strange bedfellows" and "necessity is the mother of invention". Although, according to a google search lots of people want to combine these into "necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows".
Ron:
"Actually I think government has way, way too much immunity from its wrong doings. It's scary in many ways."
While I agree here, the Callahan case that started this does not look like as major of a setback as some may see it.
I disagree on how "qualified" immunity is often determined. I'd feel comfortable if the totality of the facts known had to include at least the appearance of intent for the accused to have knowingly violated a person's rights.
I did not see anything on the status of the employer of the officers in this case. I'd hope Callahan won against them.
Ron:
"Actually I think government has way, way too much immunity from its wrong doings. It's scary in many ways."
While I agree here, the Callahan case that started this does not look like as major of a setback as some may see it.
I disagree on how "qualified" immunity is often determined. I'd feel comfortable if the totality of the facts known had to include at least the appearance of intent for the accused to have knowingly violated a person's rights.
I did not see anything on the status of the employer of the officers in this case. I'd hope Callahan won against them.
Betty...thanks...I'm having one of those dys where things I know, I know, are hiding in the recesses of my brain...gggrrrrrrr..
I like the combo....
It appeals to one's sense of the absurd!
ztgstmv said...
harley I'll bet you and Ron are just giddy over that ruling, aren't you. Next we'll do away with the need for probable cause altogether. Just think the of positions you and Ron can make for yourselves in the new politburo police state!
*********************
Ztg, I thought you would like the ruliing by Supreme court, weren't you the one complaining about drug dealers running across your yard??
Your neighborhood full of drugs?
So, which is it Ztg, you want LE to be able to catch those suckers, or you want them to continue selling and using drugs in your neighborhood? you can't have it both ways Ztg.
rericson,
I completely understand. I also voted for Obama and feel hopeful. We have at least two things in common.
harley
Ztg only wants them to catch the illegal immigrant drug dealers. The white guys in the trailer park selling home cooked Meth are probably his friends.
Ron, Ztg is racist, and he vomits up the constitution only when it has something to do with White people.
All other races, don't deserve to be protected by the constitution according to Ztg.
I'm not sure why, but one of my sons, when he was very young, was abjectly afraid of living in a trailer park. It makes absolutely no sense, but then much about children escapes parents...anyway, the worst thing I coud do to him was threatten to send him to live in a trailer...or tell him we were all moving into a trailer...
'course that only worked for a very short time....
I suppose it was like when I was young, parents would tell their children they were going to let the "gypsies" take them...
Lord, what awful things we say to children, without even thinking!!!!
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/jan/22/breaking-news-depositions-scheduled-for-flds/
A top leader of the YFZ Ranch and the most public defender of the polygamous sect housed there have been subpoenaed and will be deposed beginning Friday in Schleicher County.
Lawyer Natalie Malonis, the lightning-rod attorney for imprisoned sect leader Warren Jeffs' now-17-year-old daughter, has subpoenaed:
* Merril Jessop, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints elder believed to have run the ranch since Jeffs was imprisoned
* Willie Jessop, a sect member who has served as its spokesman since a state raid in April
In my youth, it was the bogeyman. But trailer parks ARE really scarey, I completely understand that fear. When they show video of tornado and hurricane damage, have you noticed that trailers often have a lead role in those pictures? And then there are fires. And your neighbors. And the toxic fumes of living in a hot plastic and metal box. Seems like a reasonable fear to me.
On some level, trailer parks exemplify rural poverty. They have been given a really bad rep...probably starting with hollywood and the media...
Sultry, sexy, trashy, white chics of the fifties, all lived in trailers....
And they all had plastic flamingos and tipsy carports....
Fact is, I'd take a trailer in a warm climate, 'bout now, over anything in this frigid place!!!!!
"Lawyer Natalie Malonis, the lightning-rod attorney for imprisoned sect leader Warren Jeffs' now-17-year-old daughter..."
Should we be watching for her on Nancy dis-Grace?
KBP....I have learned to adopt ostrich mode for some things...
when that doesn't work, I squeeze my eyes tighty shut and click my heels together....
for all else, there is scotch...
i'm thinking this is a back door for someone with less than honorable intentions to get a crack at merrill and willie jessop...a prelude to future questions?
Reagan had the perfect answer.
"At this time I have no recollection..."
Unfortunately, we later found out it might have been the truth.
At least we didn't have to play the hypothetical game with her responses again.
Maybe she's looking for more evidence of that "hampered brain development" problem Teresa could suffer from in the final 100+/- days that would follow the ruling.
rericson said...
i'm thinking this is a back door for someone with less than honorable intentions to get a crack at merrill and willie jessop...
--------
Obviously. Like CPS, she's using her "client" as a way of getting at the FLDS. She's basically scum.
1st amendment...is she using her client, or are others using her?
not sure there is much for her to gain...but there is a lot for the state;'s attys to gain at an early crack at willie and merrill jessop....
who's using whom????
Obama(nation):
Declared that newborn infants that had survived late term abortions are not "people". They are not entitled to medical treatment. Not even pain medication or other comfort measures to make their deaths more "humane". He still felt this way after testimony from a nurse that these infants sometimes languish in pain for hours before finally dying.
Anybody who believes that way is pure evil.
I will not support the man, pray for the man or anything else.
Oh and one more thing ...
I won't "respect" him either.
Q: How are a redneck divorce and a tornado alike?
A: In both of them a trailer gets trashed.
WWJD?
I'm betting you are taking things out of context. He may have voted for, or against, any particular bill that contained various things for a variety of reasons.
From everything I have heard he supports a woman's right to choose. He opposes partial birth abortions.
And he is no longer in that realm of politics. He is our president. You need to look at his positions in their aggregate as well as individual issues and compare them to your own ideas and to others vying for his position...
In my book, based on my own positions, he is the best man to get some needed changes underway...
And, as someone else pointed out, whether any one individual boted for him, or not, he is now our president...and he as such, deserves our support, and needs our prayers.
Ron....good one!
OBAMA: If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true. There was a bill that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it. With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this bill did not contain that exception
Oct 18 2008 Presidential Debate
Ron....thank you for posting the Obama quote...I knew he had given that statement/explanation but I wasn't sure where to look....
Oh, I guess reric didn't get it the first time I posted this...
“Essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision…”
-- BO on live births after botched abortions
If he says something else he has contradicted himself (or just thrown his former self under the bus?)
BTW, is it common for ad litems to seek trust funds for their 17 year old clients from their church?
Desert News article on the depositions
When he was voting against this he made NO MENTION of a law already existing as the reason he was against it. He DID give this reason though:
*********
OBAMA:
“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -– a child, a nine-month-old –- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it –- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”
**********
Obama(nation) can back-peddle, spin, lie, LIE, LIE all he wants about this but his words are a matter of public record. The man is everything that is evil ... including a liar.
Basically there is no duty to support past 18 unless the person is in a program leading to a high school equivalence or degree.
However, Malonis is the legal representative and could file some sort of civil action against the church and/or Uncle Merrill.
Sure it's odd, but then this whole case is one study in oddity.
WWJD?
Ya know what? You are entitled to your opinion and spin, and I to mine. But this is not a forum about abortion.
Ron,
Locally we had an instance where two children of a local Dr. were removed because of serious addiction issues. Both were older teens. Eventually parental rights were severed, but ther was an order in place establishing a trust for college or post secondary training to be funded by the parents. The children were then emancipated.
rericson said...
WWJD?
Ya know what? You are entitled to your opinion and spin, and I to mine. But this is not a forum about abortion.
*********
It's a forum about Obama. Funny you haven't attacked anybody else who happened to mention abortion.
Maybe I hit a nerve? Ruining your nirvana by pointing out what a creep your guy really is?
If you don't like abortion I have a whole slew of other creeepy crawlies I can drag out in a conversation about Obama.
However, I guess this particular conversation is about his blackness. I think that's going to be used as the TOOL that is used to ram his crap-sandwiches down our throats. Don't like something he does ... you must be a RACIST! Immediately end any dissent by labeling those who don't agree as the dreaded dirtiest of dirty words ... a racist.
How's that? More on point for ya?
Since when did quoting the man ver-batim from his statements while on record become "SPIN"?
This post has been removed by the author.
WWJD?
I think you're the one getting a little emotional. I haven't said a word to you about racism. You presented your spin on Obama's position, Ron posted the actual quote, I stated my opinion...kinda covers it.
I like him. For many reasons. I don't agree with everything , but I think he fits more of our needs than others. You disagree, but you are stuck on one track.
And it is not a thread about the global issues of "OBAMA". It is about Obama and the FLDS...I also posted my opinion about that.
You seem to prefer to rant and rave about one aspect of a complicated issue...
I choose to consider it a closed subject from my perspective. I'm sorry you aren't getting the fight you seem to want. Maybe you should move on...
Or not...that's your choice. You can spin all night and work yourself into a real frenzy...You're the one who will need blood pressure meds, not me....
rericson ~
You underestimate me. This is a distraction from boredom. Nothing that happens here is going to get me riled up or be more than a distant memory 5 seconds after I shut off my computer.
The only reason I posted about race is because you poked your nose in to offer your opinion that my posting about Obama's stand on abortion was off topic. I posted something more "on topic". Guess you didn't like that either.
Let me just get this straight:
My QUOTE of Obamas words is "spin". Ron's quote is a "quote".
Just want to make sure I have your rules down. Will Ron's future quotes become "spin" if you don't like what was said by the person he quotes?
Really Regina. You claim to be all about the open sharing of ideas ... about having patience and respecting other peoples opinions. That is until I post something you don't like. Then I'm not "sharing" I'm "ranting and raving".
So quick to lecture others on the virtues of tolerance, open-mindedness, respect for others opinions, etc. but yet so quick to be none of those things.
Tsk. Tsk.
By the way, Regina, out of 115 comments on this thread roughly 4 were "on topic" as to Brooke's original question. Who are you to jump on me about posting anything off topic?
Last I checked this was Brooke's blog - not yours.
Ron:
"...Sure it's odd, but then this whole case is one study in oddity."
Soon to be solved!
GRACE: ...where these systematic child bride marriages, abuse of little boys, broken bones, is ordinary.
MALONIS: Right. That`s correct. And one of the big problems in this case is that the victims really don`t consider themselves victims so they`re not -- it`s difficult to help them.
Just give her another 6 months so she can reprogram and save one, by helping her to see that she is a victim who just doesn't know it yet.
RubyTuesday thinks we have been asleep since 1913. Of course, the Federal Reserve is privately owned and always has been. If the government starts owning banks, then everyone cries "communism". Does it scare you less if the government owns the banks? Because you trust the government? Just curious, but have you been talking to Pliggy?
And what has that got to do with Obama and fundamentalist Mormons?
------
For me personally,judging a person by their skin color is insanity.
This video kind of explains at great deal of my financial concerns:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=money+as+debt&emb=0#
Instead of focusing on what we "want" we continually focus on what we don't want which perpetuates more of what we don't want. People are being manipulated by their own discerns. This keeps people distracted and it enslaves them. It is a form of abuse.
Hence when FLDS asked the government to help them intercede on their behalf when their rights were being violated they were ignored. If we allow it to happen to them because we don't like them then it can only enslave us for something someone can point out about something they don't like about us.
The government is supposed to be for the people by the people, what I am talking about above is tyranny (unjust use of absolute governmental power).
Discerns (color, religion, sexual preferences) are being used as distractors from issues of great importance "our economy" which has an importance not only to FLDS but to us all.
No, I have not been talking to Pliggy.
As I said previously, rant on...
I'm personally finished with that aspect of this discussion...which, I might remind you, is my right to choose...*smile*
And I do respect your right to think anything you want. And I exercise my right to think your thinking is nuts. And I exercise my right to choose to describe your selective editing and taking things out of context as spinning....
And I exercise my right to choose to go watch Chris Mathews and his rants and spins....TTFN
Just give her another 6 months so she can reprogram and save one, by helping her to see that she is a victim who just doesn't know it yet.
Are Carolyn and Elissa any happier seeing themselves now as victims? Sure the hundreds of thousands of dollars they rake in from the narrow victims-of-polygamy public sympathy money pool sweetens the bitterness a little, but...what happens when the money runs out? Will TJ and MJ be thrown out in the cold by their ad litems like Flora did to her victims, only to return in shame to their homes?
I don't know why everyone complains about Carolyn and Elyssa being "professional victims". Isn't that what their culture has taught them since the days of Joseph Smith. "We know we are right because others PERSECUTE us!"
harley said...
"Reriscon
Sorry but Im from California! A box of rocks huh? At least I have enough Rocks to put in a box, what's your excuse?"
So what were you doin' checking the gas prices in Eldorado and San Angelo? Were you just snooping or what?
So every minute of every day there are babies in this country being stabbed, scorched, and suffocated to death, and reric is like, Oh too bad, but it has to be done.
Rebeckah said...
"I don't know why everyone complains about Carolyn and Elyssa being "professional victims". Isn't that what their culture has taught them since the days of Joseph Smith. "We know we are right because others PERSECUTE us!"
Except that you forget one thing. If they were doing what they had been taught in the FLDS then they would just "turn the other check" and "take it on the chin" like the Fundamentalist Mormons have been doing for a century now!
So every minute of every day there are babies in this country being stabbed, scorched, and suffocated to death, and reric is like, Oh too bad, but it has to be done
*****************
Seems to me like she's got her fingers in her ears, her eyes squinted shut and is singing, "la-la-la-la-la-la-la!" at the top of her lungs just to keep herself in denial.
Obama-nation is on public record both in the statements he made and in the votes he cast that he does not consider even newborn infants outside of their mothers womb "people". They don't deserve even the slightest of humane treatment. They don't deserve treatment that even animals are afforded in this country ... to be euthenized humanely.
The creep denied it and some people will hold tightly to that denial and ignore everything else that he said and DID before.
Like I said put your fingers in your ears, squint your eyes shut real hard and sing na-na-na-na-na and you might be able to hide from the truth.
When Roe v. Wade came about they justified it by saying it was NOT a baby. It was a glob of cells. Then medical science advanced and we could see inside of the womb. See that it certainly LOOKED like a baby. Then the justification became that it wasn't viable - that it could not survive outside of the mother. Then medical science advanced some more and babies of very young gestational ages are surviving and thriving after their births. Now the justification of killing infants extends even babies who have been born and are alive.
The justification for abortion (infanticide) has shifted from whether the baby is viable life or not to strictly whether the mother values its life. If she doesn't the baby is killed.
Given that shift what is to stop us from becoming a nation that will stick a hypodermic needle full of acid through the soft spot on a babies head into its brain like China does? They do this to babies days and weeks old.
Where does it end?
I don't see Carolyn or Elissa as victims, I see them as overcomers, women who realized slavery was abolished years ago, and they had a right to their own thoughts.
Being told what to do, what to eat, when to sleep, who to marry, when to have sex isn't free will, it's slavery!
Lets see, the post was about Obama and the fundamentalists' view...
Whether FLDS, AUB, Independent, or otherwise I think you'll find most all are going to agree with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor's views on blacks in the priesthood or government.
Please realize that most fundamentalists are not FLDS, although the FLDS is (barely) the largest single group. Although most would like to see plural marriage decriminalized, it's not something that keeps them up at night. Since most don't marry, or advocate marriage to, underage men or women there's really not any persecution from law enforcement.
The fundamentalists that I am most familiar with are conservative and would disagree with Obama on issues such as abortion, welfare, etc.
At the same time, they are Americans and wish for the best from this administration despite the way it appears.
Unless Obama has aborted an infant from his womb I don't know where you people are all coming off as if he is the most evil man in the world.
Obama is NOT and I will repeat NOT responsible for women having abortions. It will take more than Obama to reverse Roe and Wade.
I am sure there could be more constructive things to do other than condemning a person to hell for a belief.
WWJD if a 16 year old woman was raped and became pregnant? What do you think he would want for her? If she had the baby does she have the resources to nurture that baby?
You might think about things that can be done instead of going into rages about people's beliefs.
People can talk the talk but are you willing to walk the walk?
Being told what to do, what to eat, when to sleep, who to marry, when to have sex isn't free will, it's slavery!
And Ellyssa sure believed it too, and practiced it. I hear she was sleeping around behind her husband's back. tsk tsk.
As for Carolyn, she was 18, an adult, with some formal education. She knew her rights, and chose to marry Merril. Nothing illegal about that, and that's all that matters. Perhaps she wishes she was a rascal like Wall and Flora, but sometimes the good girls make up for so much lost time a little too late -- in Carolyn's case a good 15 years too late. :)
People can talk the talk but are you willing to walk the walk?
Sorry, but nothing justifies murder. To let a fetus grow long enough that it becomes viable and then go and break it's neck is simply barbaric. And to justify the practice is unthinkable, and I'm astonished people are still doing it right here on this very board.
I think by focusing on what you want is going to accomplish goals more than condemning people who do not agree with your beliefs.
People can talk the talk but are you willing to walk the walk?
Sorry, but nothing justifies murder. To let a fetus grow long enough that it becomes viable and then go and break it's neck is simply barbaric. And to justify the practice is unthinkable, and I'm astonished people are still doing it right here on this very board.
----------
Who is breaking a fetus's neck on this forum? I will tell you one thing it certainly isn't me.
In my mind nothing justifies the murder of an infant. Period.
Does a rape justify a murder????
In that case let's start executing all the rapists that are sitting in jail right now.
Ziggy said:
To let a fetus grow long enough that it becomes viable and then go and break it's neck is simply barbaric.
The problem is the polarization that occurs. There are a lot of "pro choice" folks that see abortion past the first trimester as morally questionable.
However, the anti-abortion folks like to say "life begins at conception" which is grossly absurd. They lobby against things like the "morning after" pill. They leave no alternative other than outlawing ALL abortion.
There are a number of places where the pro-choice and the anti-abortion folks could find common ground. It's just that their dogma prevents them from every finding the common ground.
WWJD
Before you go into fits of hyperbole - how would you feel bearing the seed of a rapist? What if it was a black person.
Do you want to bring a "seed of Cain" into the world?
In my mind nothing justifies the murder of an infant. Period.
Does a rape justify a murder????
In that case let's start executing all the rapists that are sitting in jail right now.
-----------
I will repeat....then "DO" what Jesus would do!
Rubytuesday, it's very refreshing to hear someone who "gets it"!!
While dumb dumbs like harley are hacking us then we're all being sold down the river! This exact issue is precisely what I was refering to some posts back when I said that it suddenly dawned on me that I was conversing with idiots.
If you think just because Obamanation has not had a fetus scraped out of his very own uterus he is not responsible for any of the abortions performed in this country you are wrong.
Any lawmaker who helps to make it or keep it legal and acceptable to get an abortion is responsible for every infant who is murdered under the protection of their law. Obama helped make sure infants who are born alive after botched abortions are unentitled to medical care. Every infant who lays in a bin of soiled hospital sheets gasping for air until it finally exhausts itself and suffocates or suffers in shock from the horrific injuries inflicted on it during the abortion before succoming to death will be a mark against that mans soul.
Every person on this blog and anywhere else in this country who will stand by and not only allow but defend the murder of infants is just as guilty as if they'd snapped the babies neck with their own hands.
Jesus wouldn't murder babies.
In my mind nothing justifies the murder of an infant. Period.
Does a rape justify a murder????
In that case let's start executing all the rapists that are sitting in jail right now.
-------
One thing I know for sure is that Jesus wouldn't be going around pointing his fingers at victims of rape and condemning them.
In my mind nothing justifies the murder of an infant. Period.
Does a rape justify a murder????
In that case let's start executing all the rapists that are sitting in jail right now.
-------
One thing I know for sure is that Jesus wouldn't be going around pointing his fingers at victims of rape and condemning them.
I am sure he would do a great deal MORE!
Ruby, I was refering to your post at 4:57 above.
WWJD
I don't agree with abortion either. But since I'm not a woman, I'm not sure what decision I would make, I as a woman I was raped and got pregnant.
This is the Point!Whether you agree or disagree, The Supreme Court of the Unites States passed a law, that women could legally have abortions.
I also understand, that in most cases where young girls or women decide to have an abortion for whatever reason, the decision isn't easy to make. And many women never forget it.
You don't have live with the decision they made, they do.
Ron in Houston said...
WWJD
Before you go into fits of hyperbole - how would you feel bearing the seed of a rapist? What if it was a black person.
Do you want to bring a "seed of Cain" into the world?
****************
It sounds like you're assuming I'm FLDS again.
Color of my attacker or color of a baby I'd carry would be irrelevant to me. I've even dated black men so you're barking up the wrong tree with the race stuff. :o)
"Except that you forget one thing. If they were doing what they had been taught in the FLDS then they would just "turn the other check" and "take it on the chin" like the Fundamentalist Mormons have been doing for a century now!"
Eh, no you haven't. Not you, not Pliggy, not anyone I've seen here. You do your level best to trash any credibility anyone who says the slightest negative thing. You trash "apostates", you trash mainstream America as "impure", in short, you don't "take it on the other cheek" at all.
WWJD
If you don't like the law on abortion, then start doing something to change it. Many have tried before,, including the woman who originally was Roe in Roe vs Wade. Years later she changed her mind on Abortion.
Every person on this blog and anywhere else in this country who will stand by and not only allow but defend the murder of infants is just as guilty as if they'd snapped the babies neck with their own hands.
---------
I had a friend that came to me for help years and years ago. She consulted me regarding a decision. She trusted me. I told her NOT to get an abortion, but she went ahead with it anyway. We lost a 10 year friendship over it, now you are going to tell me I am responsible......bite me!
The Supreme Court used to allow people to own slaves too. Didn't make it right.
Medical science has advanced our understanding of the developement of fetuses and it's time to re-think decisions that were made before we had the information we have today.
This post has been removed by the author.
Cheese,
Grow UP! Just because people dont excuse Flds for breaking laws, that are enforced, doesn't make everyone who is against what Flds practices wrong.
See, I don't care what your religous beliefs are, what I care about are children being taught, they have a right to have individual thoughts of their own without being smoothered by fear from an adult. I care about actions of Adults pressuring children to agree with decisions which are illegal.
You don't like that, and I understand that, however, it doesn't preclude others disagreeing with you.
OK WWJD
Assume Joe the Generic Rapist....
Evil, angry, hateful....
Want to bring that child into the world? Even assuming you say "maybe" wouldn't you like to have the "choice" rather than being told what you *MUST* do????
Ruby, I was refering to your post at 4:57 above.- cheese
----------
Personal and professional experience Cheese..
Thanks..
The whole rape question is ridiculous to me. Would you justify the mother drowning her infant in a bathtub because it was traumatic for her to listen to it screaming? How about a woman whose husband beats the crap out of her? Is she justified suffocating the baby because she doesn't want to be tied down to somene who beats her?
You say because there was a rape the baby is the one who has to pay for it with its life. To me that's stupid. No matter how horrible the situation is it does not justify the death of an infant.
So I'll ask you a question now. If we will kill a baby conceived of a rape why do we not execute rapists in this country?
For all the people that think women should be allowed to abort their baby due to rape, they should watch North Country with Charlize Theron. The child isn't too blame.
I also think if a woman ever would have a chance to make the "choice" it would be the "morning after" and not a day later, a week later, and certainly not 9 whole freakin months later!
For those of you who assume that I don't understand these decisions or the circumstances that might be in play:
I was raped when I was 14 years old. It happened in the woods in the dark and cold of winter. It was pretty vicious. He choked me to subdue me while he raped me. He left me miles from anywhere in the pitch black and freezing cold. I did not get pregnant as a result of the rape but considering the hell I went through for the next few years I doubt it would have made much of a difference.
My first husband beat the crap out of me on a regular basis for 6 years. I had 2 small children and was pretty well trapped. It was while I was hiding in a battered womens shelter after being beaten unconscious that I discovered I was pregnant with my third child. I hated my husband. I did not have sex with him willingly. I did not want more children to keep me trapped with him. Everybody told me to get an abortion. It sure would have made things easier for me at that time in my life but I weighed my life being easier against my childs right to live. I didn't get the abortion. I look at that child and I see her fathers face. I love her with as much intensity as I still hate him.
I'm sharing these intimate details of my history so people will see that I'm not somebody who is clueless about scary, challening or inconvenient times to be facing a pregnancy.
What's the matter, Ron? Got nothing to say now?
This post has been removed by the author.
Rebeckah said: "Eh, no you haven't. Not you, not Pliggy, not anyone I've seen here. You do your level best to trash any credibility anyone who says the slightest negative thing. You trash "apostates", you trash mainstream America as "impure", in short, you don't "take it on the other cheek" at all."
To simply say that what they are saying isn't the truth is "trashing" them, while what they are saying is just a "slightest negative" that "O by the way just incites a mob to come in on us under the color of law cart off the women and children threatening with annilation. "Oh no big deal".
Right, Cheese, 'cause no one at the ranch was deliberately violating the laws of the land...
That's exactly my point. "Ohs! Ohhh! They were MEAN to us! They passed laws to prevent us from living out religion! They PERSECUTE us!" Why don't you tell it to the people who died in the Mountain Meadow Massacre? Maybe to the people who were killed in Missouri because they decided God gave it to them? Or the man casterated on Bishop Snow's orders when he wouldn't give up his betrothed to the Bishop. Shall I go on? The Mormon church has a long, violent and dishonest history. Since the FLDS claim that they have to live exactly as the Moromons lived back then, I'd say any sensible citizen of the US would be worried about them.
One more time....
What Texas did to the FLDS community was criminal. The pain and suffering that was caused is unforgivable. There is no excuse. None. We as a society know better. We have better ways of handling situations.
Hating a group of people because they are different is wrong. Hating their beliefs or practices is individual choice, but acting on those feelings as an agent of the state is wrong.
The fact that arrests and prosecutions resulted from what was an illegal and immoral set of actions on the part of Texas will be decided in the courts. Some of us will pray that the outcome is in favor of the law taking precedent over emotions, and the FLDS charges are dismissed. If the state prevails, some of us will continue to support the FLDS community and do whatever we can to be supportive and help them get through their ordeal.
I personally also disagree with very young marriage, even if it is a betrothal and not a consumated relationship. I think most of the people in the FLDS also are not comfortable with such young commitments. It is not the norm in their community. They have looked at the practice and internally agreed to stop it. That should be the end of the story.
Barack Obama has been elected our president, whether individuals like him or not. As our president, many of us will pray that he is blessed with wisdom and clarity of thought and good health.
I have not made my personal opinion about abortion known on this blog because it is not germain to the topic(s) at hand, and it is no one's business but mine.
As for some of the side issues...I do not believe that the majority of the FLDS community are racist, although I do think they have doctrinal beliefs about the role of the races in the "big picture". I believe them when individuls tell me they harbor no ill will toward any person of color. I believe them when they tell me they believe God loves all of his children.
The FLDS women that I talk to are free thinking, strong, kind, funny, very independent thinking women. They choose to be a part of their community and practice their religion in this way. Notone of them feels forced and each of them believes they have choices.
On a very personal level I believe I have an obligation to stand up and speak out when this kind of travesty occurs or it could be me, and my loved ones, next. Having made friends and found individuals I like is a collateral bennefit.
This post has been removed by the author.
From sea to shining sea, aspects of this country have a long, violent, dishonest history.
From our inception as a colonized land, and perhaps before that, we have had groups fighting and killing each other. For all sorts of ignoble reasons.
And persecutionof specific groups is real. And making laws and instituytionalizing that persecution for some, has repeatedly occurred in our history. The FLDS are not alone in it. And it is wrong, where ever it happens.
The fact that they are just beginning to speak up and stand up for themselvves is to be applauded, not scorned.
And it is to our national embarrasment that it is necessary.
We know better.
All of the ugliness of our collective history has taught us nothing except to be better at selective persecution. No wonder we hear anger and frustration coming from the pulpits and the prayer meetings across this land. It is an awful embarrassment.
I sincerely hope that we have turned a corner and can begin to identify ways to help each other and respect each other and help heal the wounds all across this land and never let another YfZ debacle happen again....
Ruby, You can't have a reasonable conversation with idealogues. All you can do is work hard, everyday, at keeping people empowered who will make wise decisions and move us forward....
Right, Cheese, 'cause no one at the ranch was deliberately violating the laws of the land...
--------
So in other words citizens that violate the laws of the land deserve to have their human and Constitutional rights violated? Is this your idea of vindication?
Is this the kind of future you want for our country?
You don't seem to understand what I am saying here, I do not advocate abortion but I can not be held responsible for the choices of others.
You can truly only be responsible for your own actions. Just because you decided to do what you chose to do doesn't give you the authority to force your will upon every woman in the USA.
Personally, I believe abortion statistics are a symptom of a social dis-ease and in dire honesty making abortion illegal is NOT the cure-all.
By stating I would be doing what Jesus would do....I am NOT referring to having an "abortion". I am talking about actively participating and seeking a cure for the current social dis-ease. Get rid of the dis-ease and there will be no more symptoms.
All of the ugliness of our collective history has taught us nothing except to be better at selective persecution. No wonder we hear anger and frustration coming from the pulpits and the prayer meetings across this land. It is an awful embarrassment. -Rericson
------------
It is pure blasphemy to me. If people truly experienced "Divinity" in their lives these thoughts and deeds wouldn't even enter their minds.
Jesus forgave and healed WWJD!
cheese
What's to say - WWJD has known her share of tragedy. However, she had a CHOICE, no one told her what to do.
The irony of folks like you cheese is that you want the freedom to CHOOSE to live polygamy but want to impose your will upon others when it comes to abortion and leave them no CHOICE.
Ron,
I don't think you're correct about cheese and others in his community. You're correct that they are adamantly anti-abortion. On the other hand, you won't see them out participating in rallies, or even here on this board condemning anyone. It seems that their belief in free agency is the trump card. They seem to be saying that, ultimately, on this and any issue, each individual has to decide what they believe and where they stand, and stand before God to judge their beliefs and actions.
So they may collectively believe one thing, but they don't prosteletize. And they don't hate those who believe differently. It is the abundance of these practices in our larger society that has led them to choose to live seperately. And that isn't because they hate anyone, or judge anyone, they leave that to God. They just choose to not be around those behaviors and beliefs they personally don't ascribe to.
The folks that are doing the carrying on here, and are probably of the ilk that do the carrying on publically, are not the members of the FLDS community who participate.
If you ask anyone of them, they will tell you, ifyou ask, what they personally believe. What they won't tell you is how anyone else should believe.
Regina
I think what cheese fails to understand is that condemnation and judgment is very much a two way street.
He thinks they're horrible immoral people. Well, a lot of other religious folks would see Cheese as a horrible immoral person.
If you want tolerance you have to give tolerance.
It sure would have made things easier for me at that time in my life but I weighed my life being easier against my childs right to live. I didn't get the abortion. I look at that child and I see her fathers face. I love her with as much intensity as I still hate him.
I'm sharing these intimate details of my history so people will see that I'm not somebody who is clueless about scary, challening or inconvenient times to be facing a pregnancy.
That's admirable, I suppose. While you honor "your child's right", might you honor other women's "right to choose" what they believe to be in their best interest? It's their life, NOT yours. It's between them and their god. What business is it of yours?
Ron,
I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm equally unsure if I'm up to the task of adequately explaining my dissent.
If Cheese or others choose to believe that the restof us are horrible, immoral people, that is their right to believe that way. If they choose to seperate themselves from what they see as an immoral or amoral lifestyle, again, they have the right to make that choice.
There is no obligation for them, or any of us to be tolerant. Or at least there is no legal obligation. There is no presumed obligation. There is no inherent obligation.
The obligation is for each of us to allow others the right to think differently than ourselves and not to infringe on their ability to do so.
I don't hear cheese saying that we must believe as he does. I hear him saying we must afford him the right to choose what to believe. And I hear him saying he affords all others that same right.
I personally choose to not engage in the debate about abortion. I personally choose to not surround myself with people who tell anyone else what the eternal result of their thinking will be. Ergo, I do not go on blogs where the topic is abortion. I resent those persons who brought the kinds of behaviors and thinking I choose to stay away from, to this thread. I respect their right to make those choices for themselves. I make no judgment about the rightness or wrongness of their right to hold whatever beliefs they choose. I also have the right to resent their imposing those beliefs on me.
Tolerance is a choice. And it is also subjective, in some ways. There are degrees of tolerance. One of the most tolerant positions is one where you acknowledge your own personal opinion about something, but also acknowledge another's right to have a differing position, and truly believe that, ultimately, God, or a 'higher power', will judge each of you. That is the position I see most in the FLDS taking.
You do your level best to trash any credibility anyone who says the slightest negative thing. You trash "apostates", you trash mainstream America as "impure", in short, you don't "take it on the other cheek" at all."
Why might that be Rebeckah?
Apostate Narrative cost the taxpayers of Tx $20+ million.
No mass suicides at the ranch.
No cache of weapons.
No mass graves of babies.
No human incenerator.
No one being held against their will.
No excessive broken bones from punishment.
No abuse found.
Not even excessive births to teens.
How do you trust anything they say? Do the means justify the end?There should be action taken against them for creating public panic for no just reason but their own revenge and personal gain. And there might be, if there agenda didn't support Tx LEs agenda.
I guess I see the FLDS position(s) as more 'tolerant' than most. I have been told by several members of the FLDS faith the following....and here I'm paraphrasing...
"We have a set of beliefs about this life and what we are expected to do in this life. We have a set of beliefs about how our actions in this life effect what happens in the next life. We want to be allowed to practice those beliefs about how we should behave in this life freely. However, our underlying, and most fundamental belief is in a just, kind, and loving God. We believe that He will be the ultimate judge of all people. We believe He wants us to show love and respect for all people, as part of meeting our individual obligations on this earth, in this life."
Now that is pretty darn tolerant thinking, to me, anyway. They are quick to acknowledge that we are all human. That human beings make mistakes. That all we as humans can do is keep going, and try to make amends and do a better job tomorrow than we did yesterday. It seems to me that kind of puts in a nutshell what I have always believed. It puts in a nutshell what I have tried to teach my children.
The Mormon church has a long, violent and dishonest history.
And you honestly can say that other religions DON'T, or that the US government doesn't. LOL
You badly need some perspective. We could fill a forum of heinous violations of law and human rights perpetrated by either group. Necessary evils?
Regina
I get what you're saying about leaving people the freedom to believe what they want.
That ultimately resolves down to a paradox.
I'd say a majority of society sees polygamy as immoral. They *believe* that something must be done about it.
You don't like that and say that society must learn to be tolerant.
So you're not letting the majority of society to be free in their *belief* that polygamy is immoral and needs to be eradicated.
It's ultimately a clash of *belief* systems. To me, it's hypocrisy to cry and moan about intolerance of your beliefs when you're not tolerant of other's beliefs.
Or you could just as well say:
Humanity has a long, violent and dishonest history.
Ron, I have no problem with individuals who choose to believe that Polygamy, or the FLDS specifically, are immoral, or anything else. It is their right to believe whatever they choose.
My problem is when people take actions to force their beliefs on others. Like actually doing things toward the realization of their belief that they should be eradicated.
It's one thing to believe it, it's another to act on it. Because that action, in and of itself, constitutes a violation of allowing others the right to differ.
Regina said:
It's one thing to believe it, it's another to act on it.
You realize that was the exact rational in Reynolds v. US.
It's one thing to believe in polygamy, it another thing to act on it.
Are you seeing the paradox?
Ron, I have no problem with individuals who choose to believe that Polygamy, or the FLDS specifically, are immoral, or anything else. It is their right to believe whatever they choose.
My problem is when people take actions to force their beliefs on others. Like actually doing things toward the realization of their belief that they should be eradicated.
It's one thing to believe it, it's another to act on it. Because that action, in and of itself, constitutes a violation of allowing others the right to differ.
---------
Excellent explanation of tolerance!
The majority of society sees polygamy as immoral. They *believe* that something must be done about it.-Ron
Has the majority ever been wrong? I much prefer CONSENSUS model of decision making when the results directly affect individuals.
So you're not letting the majority of society to be free in their *belief* that polygamy is immoral
BELIEF
(fyi, R is not and can not control others beliefs)
and needs to be eradicated.
ACTION
Ron,
The "act of polygamy" with consenting participants does not infringe on anyone's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose.
In fact, it can be seen as an act of civil disobedience, a time honored method of dissent.
I don't see a paradox, here.
It's one thing to say I don't like your beliefs. It's quite another to say, "I'm going to pass bad laws to implement my desire to regulate your actions."
The larger paradox, or real paradox, is in our need to honor freedom of ideas and be responsible for protecting the general welfare of society.
Rericson, that is how I think the Constitution should be taught. In my mind you just summerized what "America" is supposed to be all about.
Txblogger
The majority is wrong a lot of times. Just look at Jim Crow laws.
However, it is a function of the majority in society to pass laws that regulate morality. Why should government care whether two consenting adults engage in sex for money in private?
While pretty much futile, the majority that controls the government passes laws all the time to eradicate things they see as immoral.
You can make "due process" or "free exercise" arguments about the validity of those laws, but as it stands right now society has as much right to pass laws against and attempt to eradicate prostitution as it does to pass laws against and attempt to eradicate polygamy.
Rebeckah said "Right, Cheese, 'cause no one at the ranch was deliberately violating the laws of the land..."
Right, Rebeckah. And like no one in the legislature was making laws specifically 'for' them. When legislators specifically mention a specific religion while they are deliberating then they have stepped WAY OVER the line. Even if their law is targeted toward one religion's tenets and they "don't specifically mention them" in their deliberations, it's still not right, ethical, and specifically legal. Hilderbran didn't just specifically mention the FLDS, he invited Shurtleff, Krakhauer, and others to "the party".
If you make a law outlawing the use of peyote in ritual ceremonies then it's not constitutional. Even though you don't specifically mention "native americans" in your deliberations. Ask Ron, he'll tell ya.
"So in other words citizens that violate the laws of the land deserve to have their human and Constitutional rights violated? Is this your idea of vindication?
Is this the kind of future you want for our country?"
No, Ruby, I didn't say that at all. What I said was that there is a difference between "persecution" and a society trying to protect it's laws. The Mormon and Funamentalist Mormon religion have made a practice for the last 150 years to thumb their noses at the law of the land. You don't preach sermons and reference racist doctrine and then complain of persecution when people put you on a "hate" list. You don't start a new community by lying to your neighbors and then cry "persecution" when they no longer take you at your word. You don't violate the basic ethics of the larger community and then cry "persecution" when they try to enforce their laws. I'm not saying that LE and CPS in Texas didn't do things wrong. What I am saying is that the FLDS did/have been/and still continue to do things wrong too. One of those things is to hang onto their feelings of victimization rather than look at solutions that THEY can take to improve matters. Which are THEY doing Ruby? Swimming upstream or down?
Regina said:
I'm going to pass bad laws
Your belief....
is in our need to honor freedom of ideas
Again, your belief - you see a "need" others don't see. Besides, religion does not honor freedom of ideas - it tells you WHAT to think.
be responsible for protecting the general welfare of society.
Gee, what do you think society *BELIEVES* itself to be doing by outlawing polygamy? Do ya think it might *BELIEVE* itself to be protecting the general welfare of society?
Still not seeing the paradox yet?
Ron,
The "act of polygamy" with consenting participants does not infringe on anyone's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose.
In fact, it can be seen as an act of civil disobedience, a time honored method of dissent.
I don't see a paradox, here.
It's one thing to say I don't like your beliefs. It's quite another to say, "I'm going to pass bad laws to implement my desire to regulate your actions."
The larger paradox, or real paradox, is in our need to honor freedom of ideas and be responsible for protecting the general welfare of society
---------
If this country could possibly get through all this discrimination (racism, sexism, etc.)then possibly this country can start making some "progress" again!
cheese
The fundamental problem with the argument that laws against polygamy "target" your religion is that those laws existed long before your religion was revealed by Joseph Smith. Those laws go way, way back to English common law.
They also apply to everyone. The law says no Muslim polygamists, no Christian polygamists, no Atheist polygamists, and no Wiccan polygamists.
"Or you could just as well say:
Humanity has a long, violent and dishonest history."
Absolutely true. And I doubt civilization as a whole would have gotten as far as it has it we'd all stood around wringing our hands and complaining of persecution. It's when we hitch up our belts and look for solutions that we begin to progress.
Gee, what do you think society *BELIEVES* itself to be doing by outlawing polygamy? Do ya think it might *BELIEVE* itself to be protecting the general welfare of society.
-------
It protects society just about as much as segregation did. Give it a break already.....
Think outside the box for once.
"The "act of polygamy" with consenting participants does not infringe on anyone's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose."
Change "participants" to adults and I'll agree with you. Otherwise you're just opening the door to child abuse under a mantle of religion.
Rebeckah said: "The Mormon and Funamentalist Mormon religion have made a practice for the last 150 years to thumb their noses at the law of the land."
We don't see it that way, Rebeckah. The elected officials have made it a practice to thumb their noses at the Constitution for the last 150 years and make laws of the land that specifically target a religions tenets. Remember the Revelation to the Prophet Joseph from Heavenly Father was given in 1831 and the first legislation against Mormon Celestial and Plural Marriage was 1862. I think that antquity is on our side.
Rebeckah
Yes that was an interesting choice of words.
"Particpants" huh? Hmmmm....
Perhaps the problem lies in "our" failure to discern between real protection and assurance of well being, and emotionally based, personal or group distillation of 'moral authority'.
Ron in Houston said...
cheese
The fundamental problem with the argument that laws against polygamy "target" your religion is that those laws existed long before your religion was revealed by Joseph Smith. Those laws go way, way back to English common law.
Ron, did you forget about the Revelutionary war? And the fact that we aren't "England" anymore. With that kind of reasoning I'm suprised that you aren't arguing some 'law' that the Native Americans had in place they were here first. Of course you know that!
Rubytuesday - you're coming in a little late into the conversation.
If you read the whole thread you might understand how it evolved.
Besides, society doesn't want to think outside of the box. The vast majority of society is very smug, content, and happy in their boxes.
They see people outside the box as dangerous or a threat.
cheese
No matter how "revolutionary" we want to think of America, our law is a direct descendant of the British common law. (Well except in Louisiana where a lot of law descended from the Napoleonic code.)
I'm not arguing "right" or "wrong." I'm just stating the facts as they exist.
Post a Comment
<< Home