| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2008 11:54:04 PM · #1 |
I have been having a discussion with co-workers over the recent events in Texas and some othem don't see my views on the events that took place.
I am curious as to what everyone here thinks of what has happened.....
ETA;
Let me also add this question, do you agree with what the government has done?
Message edited by author 2008-04-10 23:58:21.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 11:56:48 PM · #2 |
Basically rape of young girls, from the info I seen at least.
Edit
If what has been reported is true then I would agree with the actions of the government. We are talking about child molesters here that use religion as an excuse for their raping of young women.
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 00:06:56. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:11:04 AM · #3 |
Child molesters hiding behind religion? Brainwashing their flock into xenophobia to better control them?
IMO, there isn't a penalty harsh enough. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:43:46 AM · #4 |
Spaz - would you believe you and I agree on something?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 11:47:11 AM · #5 |
| Ok Ben, your turn, we all answered what's your take:) |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 12:14:26 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Spaz - would you believe you and I agree on something? |
I'm not surprised at all really.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 07:01:50 PM · #7 |
Maybe Texas should go back to castration....
SICK SICK SICK people. The govt did the right thing by intervening here. Those girls had no choice but to be there and those sick perverts raped those little girls. They are children, and you cannot rape children and hide behind your religion!
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 07:04:50 PM · #8 |
Those sick people need to be incarcerated or institutionalized. What they did to those young girls was horrible. I feel for the girls. :(
Why do them wacky people decide to come to Texas to do their biddings? Geez... |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 07:20:39 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Those sick people need to be incarcerated or institutionalized. What they did to those young girls was horrible. I feel for the girls. :(
Why do them wacky people decide to come to Texas to do their biddings? Geez... |
Because we are sick of them being in southern Utah. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 09:09:01 PM · #10 |
My turn huh....
I think that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and that right may have been trampled on.
Now I don't ocndone abusing and moletsting the children. But in thsi raid they rounded up every woman on the compound as well, leaving only the men. If the interest were only to protect the children then why take the mothers (who are of age)? Someone replied because they want to keep the women with the children, ut they have already said that they are not letting the women see the children.
In the end, have these peoples freedom of religion been trounced?
|
|
|
|
04/11/2008 09:41:32 PM · #11 |
I understand the women left voluntarily, if that is true. Don't forget, they have lived there all their lives and know no different and I can believe they would be very fearful after being uprooted from the only thing they have ever known.(You do know what I mean by that?) I'm sure the men or most of them thought it was normal to rape the women/young girls, as in any cult you blindly follow what others do, unless you manage to find out what the real world is like.
They should be given a choice if they want to remain in that sick cult or not.
I do NOT agree with the women/young girls being raped, or the lack of education they were denied. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 09:54:40 PM · #12 |
| The issue, from my understanding, is that many of these women were being held against their will and unable to leave. Taking them out of the situation and away from the men allows for the women to answer questions or tell of abuse without fear from the men. The rumors and what appears to be hard proof of sexual abuse of the children would constitute removing every child until they can make sure that no children are being endangered. Since many of these women probably were aware of the abuse and allowed it to take place,for whatever reasons, then separating them from the children until further psychiatric examination and questioning makes sense, at least to me, to ensure truthful answers. This doesn't come across as a trampling of anyone's religious rights, this comes across as protecting victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Religion is being used as a shroud for what is pedophilia in this case. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 09:58:47 PM · #13 |
One thing to be cautious of is that the law uses the word 'rape' a bit differently than people in general.
Last I heard, even if the girl consents, but is below the government's set age, it's considered a form of rape.
If it's genuinely true that these girls have grown up entirely in the compound, it's unlikely that they would have any objection to sex based on age. It's far more likely that they would have had objections for other reasons such as simply being afraid due to lack of education.
The one girl who has started it all sounds like she had some outside knowledge brought to her (I mean how would she even know how to call a rape hotline)... From there, the government _MAY_ have taken it upon themselves to extend the 'rape' word to the other cases where age was the only factor.
A number of years ago (maybe 10 or so?), BC changed the 'age of consent' to 14. That lasted all of 2 weeks or less due to strong protests. I've got no idea of how many people took advantage of those two weeks, but it just struck me as very, very odd that one day the law could consider a person a rapist (statutory), the next - a regular guy who's got a young girlfriend, and a few days later, he's back to being a rapist again... Such is the odd nature of sex and the law.
Please understand I'm not saying this is necessarily so, just that it pays to be a bit cautious when reading news articles, especially when sex is involved and doubly so when a religion is involved.
Personally, I feel that rape as an action of forcing sex on another is a bit different and a lot worse than finding some way to coerce an 'underage' girl into bed, and there really ought to be different words in use. Of course, there really ought to be a bit more self-constraint in use too. Most of the government searches seem to be centering around girls who fall into the 'underage' category, whereas many of the older women who have left on their own volition may have had a number of other reasons... perhaps they thought that this would allow them to stay near their children... perhaps they had genuinely been physically abused... perhaps even they thought that the act of sex in itself was criminal and that any sexual contact was an abuse.
It just makes me scratch my head a bit at the big searches for girls with evidence of sexual conduct under an age arbitrarily set by the government. There's nothing physically different from a girl 15 years, 364 days old and a girl a full 16 years old. It's just a legal term - and one that varies greatly depending on the place, local customs, and indeed the era in which the girl exists.
This from your friendly local 30 year old virgin. :)
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 22:11:00. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 10:15:01 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
One thing to be cautious of is that the law uses the word 'rape' a bit differently than people in general.
Last I heard, even if the girl consents, but is below the government's set age, it's considered a form of rape.
If it's genuinely true that these girls have grown up entirely in the compound, it's unlikely that they would have any objection to sex based on age. It's far more likely that they would have had objections for other reasons such as simply being afraid due to lack of education.
The one girl who has started it all sounds like she had some outside knowledge brought to her (I mean how would she even know how to call a rape hotline)... From there, the government _MAY_ have taken it upon themselves to extend the 'rape' word to the other cases where age was the only factor.
A number of years ago (maybe 10 or so?), BC changed the 'age of consent' to 14. That lasted all of 2 weeks or less due to strong protests. I've got no idea of how many people took advantage of those two weeks, but it just struck me as very, very odd that one day the law could consider a person a rapist (statutory), the next - a regular guy who's got a young girlfriend, and a few days later, he's back to being a rapist again... Such is the odd nature of sex and the law.
Please understand I'm not saying this is necessarily so, just that it pays to be a bit cautious when reading news articles, especially when sex is involved and doubly so when a religion is involved.
Personally, I feel that rape as an action of forcing sex on another is a bit different and a lot worse than finding some way to coerce an underage girl into bed, and there really ought to be different words in use. Of course, there really ought to be a bit more self-constraint in use too.
This from your friendly local 30 year old virgin. :) |
Having sex with a person who is under the age to consent is considered rape, they call it statutory rape but it is rape none the less. Even if you disagree with the term used the act of coercing a 12 year old into having sex with you is despicable and should result in the stiffest penalty possible. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 10:20:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Why do them wacky people decide to come to Texas to do their biddings? Geez... |
They picked Texas because they had a slacker 14 year old marriage law. I believe this group is the reason they changed the law. |
|
|
|
04/11/2008 10:37:34 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
My turn huh....
I think that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and that right may have been trampled on.
Now I don't ocndone abusing and moletsting the children. But in thsi raid they rounded up every woman on the compound as well, leaving only the men. If the interest were only to protect the children then why take the mothers (who are of age)? Someone replied because they want to keep the women with the children, ut they have already said that they are not letting the women see the children.
In the end, have these peoples freedom of religion been trounced? |
Man, what a bunch of liberal softies! Get some spine people! And a dose of moral courage would do you well too! Why take the women? Because they are accomplices to the crimes against the children. They should be prosecuted as well. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, sure, but if my religious beliefs tell me that I must kill you, or that I must drive drunk, or that I must molest children, or that I must shoot heroine, or (you fill in the blank with any act that negatively affects someone else) don't you think the Government should step in? The Constitution is a document that effects a wonderful balancing act -- checks and balances - remember that from High School civics class? Yes, you've got freedom of religion -- but your freedom is balanced against the rights of everyone else in the country. You've also got freedom of speech -- but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theatre or advocate the violent overthrow of the government or encourage someone to break the law.
Hang 'em high!
Message edited by author 2008-04-11 22:43:56. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 02:08:26 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
In the end, have these peoples freedom of religion been trounced? |
No, religion is not a shield for criminal activity.
What was occurring was child rape and polygamy masquerading as a practice of faith. The women were either victims themselves or complicit in the criminal acts. In any event, they need to be removed.
The men should be...well...like I said before, the law doesn't allow what I think they deserve.
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 02:11:15. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 03:52:53 AM · #18 |
Well Said Spam, I am actually more liberal than conservative, although I try to be moderate. But I feel that saying this is a religion is absurd. Polygamy dropped like a stone from another unnamed religion when they wanted to join a union that disallowed it.
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 03:53:35.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2008 05:26:17 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
Well Said Spam, I am actually more liberal than conservative, although I try to be moderate. But I feel that saying this is a religion is absurd. Polygamy dropped like a stone from another unnamed religion when they wanted to join a union that disallowed it. |
Although, over here where I live, you can have four wives... |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 01:13:45 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
In the end, have these peoples freedom of religion been trounced? |
Sure it has. But I suspect some child molesting as most of us would define it was going on. The SS tactics used by the lawmen will verify this in some cases. It will result in the destruction of this community and quite a bit of suffering for the foreseeable future for the girls involved. But maybe it will bring them some peace and a real future.
At least they made out better than the last religious sect that was raided en-mass in Texas. In that case David Koresh worked with the ATF to set the stage, then David Koresh with the FBI's assistance managed to kill most of the members, including most of the children that the FBI used as the rational for using MILITARY FORCE on their compound. Something that is strictly prohibited in the Constitution of the United States of America.
In the current situation it appears someone learned a litte from the Branch Davidian debacle. Koresh jogged almost daily. A panel van with 3 deputies could have snached him from the road on his daily jog. Most of us
would never had heard of him, and all those people, especially the children, would still be alive. Cut off the head of the snake, and it can't bite itself, or you. So this time they captured the leader before he could sequester himself with his followers. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 01:21:19 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Although, over here where I live, you can have four wives... |
Well, polygamy is illegal in the US so I guess most of the men in Texas are in deep doo doo just for that, plus the added charges of molestation and rape for some.
I wonder in your country, how did the powers that be decide that four wives was the right limit? Could it be that six would be manageable? I assume this was decided by religious means and any trace of the decision process has been obscured by history. Just curious. I've a friend in the next county who maintains 3 girlfriends. And lives with them in the same house. It has nothing to do with religion, he's athiest. He's insane! |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 02:37:12 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Although, over here where I live, you can have four wives... |
Well, polygamy is illegal in the US so I guess most of the men in Texas are in deep doo doo just for that, plus the added charges of molestation and rape for some.
I wonder in your country, how did the powers that be decide that four wives was the right limit? Could it be that six would be manageable? I assume this was decided by religious means and any trace of the decision process has been obscured by history. Just curious. I've a friend in the next county who maintains 3 girlfriends. And lives with them in the same house. It has nothing to do with religion, he's athiest. He's insane! |
It's definitely a religious thing. Islam allows four wives. I guess it must be in the Qur'an somewhere. I couldn't speculate as to how the number 4 became the magic number as opposed to 3 or 5. I'm not a Muslim. If I had four wives, I would sleep with all of them at the same time in the same bed; but Islam doesn't allow that - or so they tell me. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 02:50:50 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by BHuseman:
In the end, have these peoples freedom of religion been trounced? |
Sure it has. But I suspect some child molesting as most of us would define it was going on. The SS tactics used by the lawmen will verify this in some cases. It will result in the destruction of this community and quite a bit of suffering for the foreseeable future for the girls involved. But maybe it will bring them some peace and a real future.
|
So, you think it's OK for child molesters to hide behind religion and keep raping children? Simply because they've established a "community" to keep themselves supplied with fresh victims?
Have you read anything about this so-called community?
Message edited by author 2008-04-12 14:53:53. |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 02:52:52 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Although, over here where I live, you can have four wives... |
Well, polygamy is illegal in the US so I guess most of the men in Texas are in deep doo doo just for that, plus the added charges of molestation and rape for some.
I wonder in your country, how did the powers that be decide that four wives was the right limit? Could it be that six would be manageable? I assume this was decided by religious means and any trace of the decision process has been obscured by history. Just curious. I've a friend in the next county who maintains 3 girlfriends. And lives with them in the same house. It has nothing to do with religion, he's athiest. He's insane! |
It's definitely a religious thing. Islam allows four wives. I guess it must be in the Qur'an somewhere. I couldn't speculate as to how the number 4 became the magic number as opposed to 3 or 5. I'm not a Muslim. If I had four wives, I would sleep with all of them at the same time in the same bed; but Islam doesn't allow that - or so they tell me. |
I had an english professor from Nigeria. He told us about his brother who had four wives, saying,, "I don't know how he does it, I have enough trouble keeping one wife happy." |
|
|
|
04/12/2008 04:41:51 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
A number of years ago (maybe 10 or so?), BC changed the 'age of consent' to 14. That lasted all of 2 weeks or less due to strong protests. I've got no idea of how many people took advantage of those two weeks, but it just struck me as very, very odd that one day the law could consider a person a rapist (statutory), the next - a regular guy who's got a young girlfriend, and a few days later, he's back to being a rapist again... Such is the odd nature of sex and the law.
|
I don't believe this is right. The "age of consent" is federally controlled. Provinces control "age of simple majority" and "age of consent for marriage".
reference
On Feb. 27, 2008 the Senate passed a bill raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 in some cases, basically to protect those under 16 from being pressured by adults.
Bill C-22
further reference |
|
