thoughts, whims, and delusions of a middle aged mama

Friday, March 06, 2009

Brooke and the Trib Have Sprinkled Salt in the Wounds of the FLDS

Brooke Adam's article on the front page of yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune may have been seen as fair and newsworthy by many, but for the FLDS community, it served no purpose save to rip the scab off a wound barely starting to heal, and pour salt directly on it.
While Brooke's note of explanation, and acknowledgement of the feelings of the community, that she posted on her blog is appreciated, it does little to assuage the terrific hurt felt by those who love Warren Jeffs. Perhaps this is the nature of being a reporter in the "big leagues".

Here is Brooke's blog post:
http://166.70.44.68/blogs/plurallife/2009/03/listening-to-the-lord/
(I don't know why, but I can't get it to show as a link. You'll have to cut and paste. Sorry.)

These words, written in a short note I received early yesterday begins to capture the general sentiment in the community;
"I didn't read the article, just the first couple lines and didn't want to read more. How can someone see such a different man in him than how I see him? He doesn't control me, he never has. He has, however, given me sweet and sound advice from time to time and if I chose to follow it, I do. How do Brooke and others think the flds have stood strong....and true.... lo these many years, but for the teachings and examples of the Prophets?"

I communicate, back and forth, with half a dozen or so women in the FLDS community, and these were the same kinds of words I heard all day, yesterday. As word of the article spread, so did the renewed anger and hurt.
For these people, the steadfast followers of Warren Jeffs the Prophet of the FLDS Faith, there is no need or desire to read his private writings. There is no need or desire to know his private thoughts or his business dealings on their behalf.
Their individual, and group, experiences with Warren Jeffs are the foundation for their abiding faith in his position as their Prophet. From that perspective they have experienced a gentle man. They have experienced a man who has given good, sound, caring advice to them. He is a man who has been humble in his carriage, calm in his approach to crisis and hardships, and giving of his time and belongings to those in need. He has had the capacity to draw people together, convey and teach the messages of God, and model the behavior of the righteous.

Each and every person knows full well Warren Jeffs is human. Each person knows that as a fellow human being he will sometimes falter. He will sometimes make mistakes. He will sometimes experience all of the frailties inherent in the human condition. This is the nature of a Prophet on this earth. To walk amongst us, with us, and be of us, the people. Some will recognize him as a Prophet of God. Some will not. Some will deny him. Some will accept him. And for those who accept him as their Prophet, there is no need to know the mundane or the earthly aspects of his person. There is the need to accept him as their guide to living a life of righteousness that will bring them closer to God, and the rewards of the afterlife.

To see his private thoughts, and the private interactions he had with their friends, family members, and fellow members of the faithful being picked over like the carcass of a jack rabbit who has died in the desert is extraordinarily painful. This picking and pandering does nothing but solidify their faith that this man is the true Prophet in their lives. That he, his life, and his loved ones, would be so subjected is yet another of the many trials that his faithful know God will bring before Zion is achieved. So they will bear this quietly, and with dignity.

But for those of us who have come to know and respect many of the individuals in this community, standing quietly by is not an option.
We each feel the need to speak out and tell you, our fellow gentiles and outsiders, that this salacious picking and devouring and souring of the private words of a respected and loved religious leader is ugly, demeaning , and speaks to our basest inclinations.

Rather than sit in judgment of a people who have made a choice each of us has not, and perhaps would not, make, we each need to understand that the faith of the FLDS community is so strong, and the fundamentals of their teachings so adamant about love and forgiveness as their constant guidance, that we need to respect that. We need to respect the fact that they are intelligent people. They have not been led blindly. They have made a choice to put their lives in the hands of God. If errors or mistakes have been made, they will work to correct them, strong in their faith that God, through the act of inspiring their leaders and Prophet, will show them the way to Him. That if God is paving the way for change in their community, it will be because He has inspired it. Not because anyone in the outside world has demanded it.

Irrespective of the opinions or writings of anyone outside the faithful, the FLDS will continue to love and respect a man that has constantly, and consistently, guided them in their journey toward Him. And irrespective of what any outsider, including Brooke Adams, says about their "intent", the faithful will shun all attempts to take them down a path that is not righteous. And that includes all attempts to demean their faith in, and respect for, Warren Jeffs as their Prophet and guide through their earthly journey.

148 comments:

Ron in Houston said...

Well, I certainly understand why they're upset and empathize with them.

However, I don't have very much sympathy. When you follow a guy who marries 12 year old girls, such things tend to happen.

rericson said...

I think the people of the FLDS community want outsiders to begin to understand their faith. I'd refer you back to the piece I wrote on 'Marriage". I don't think anyone is looking for converts. Just understanding.
With understanding comes a less angry approach. And it also brings a better sense that they too are entitled to a fair and impartial application of the law. Not an overly zealous application brought about as a result of misunderstandings and bad information.
And most of all they want people to stop protecting the fact that the law itself has been applied not just over zealously, but inappropriately, to them. Because people have decided they don't like what, or who, they think the FLDS are, they justify thwarting the law by some rationale of "the ends justify the means".
Until there is a detrmination of whether these papers were legally gotten, they should not be public. And they certainly should never have been allowed to be made public through a trumped up Family Court process.
And, despite all that, the people I've talked to understand the media circus. They just want no part of it. It hurts.
Their experience of Warren Jeffs is not the same as the outside's world's perception. And they are willing to put their faith in their own experience.
And we should try to understand their choice so we don't further the harm and pain they are already feeling. We can do that by being judicious in our choice of how to phrase things on sites, like this, that we know are read by members of the community.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I did read the article, and I also see why the FLDS are upset. That said, I think the article did confirm what many have been pointing out- that marriage to 12 year olds was not widely practiced OR widely known- so when FLDS members said they didn't know of some of those marriages, they were telling the truth- sometimes not even parents were told.

Also, the article confirmed that 'marriage' in FLDS culture, particularly when to a younger girl, is far more like biblical betrothal. There are some subcultures outside of FLDS that practice something similar, although not usually for girls as young as 12. Google Maranatha Chapman's wedding story or Jonathan Lindvahl's writings on courtship and betrothal to find out more about this.

Love of The Truth said...

Wonderful words Brooke, I couldn't have said it better. You have a way of conveyance that the Lord has blessed you with, and I for one thank Him for you and the good work you do.

Ron,

Again you have only one side of the story, and you wouldn't understand the other side in a million years because of your tradition and already calloused hatred.

Ron in Houston said...

Love of Truth

Point out facts is not hatred, even if they are inconvenient ones.

I agree with headmistress that things like marrying 12 year old girls was neither widespread nor well known.

I remember well Pliggy's cognitive dissonance over finding out about Uncle Warren and his 12 year old bride.

The fact remains that these things did happen and are the source of the wounds that Regina accuses Brooke of salting.

So, yes, I understand why this upsets you and I have a fair degree of empathy with the fact that you're upset.

I just don't have any sympathy since following Uncle Warren is ultimately a choice you've made.

rericson said...

Ron, No! you missed my point, entirely. The majority of the FLDS community are not even aware of what is in the Warren Jeffs papers. It is the fact that what to them are private writings are being publically disseminated. Period. Not content. Act.
That they continue to be discussed does nothing except keep the hurt alive and raw.
The fact that they were made public through a nefarious route simply adds insult to injury.

Ron in Houston said...

Regina

What doesn't compute about your statements is that these are not "private" writings. Much of the writings are Warren's dictations from God. If God is speaking through Warren then those parts were clearly meant to be disseminated. Besides, these were found in the possession of church Bishops. They're documents that clearly belong to the FLDS church, but they aren't like his "private" diary.

I can't speak for Pliggy, but I know one thing he's highly upset about is that details of folk's lives that have nothing to do with this are now splattered on the internet. That's a rather ugly reality that I think Brooke has done a fairly good job of handling.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the majority of Flds haven't read the writings of Warren Jeffs.
It's human nature , curiousity to peek, skim, or read. They are public and don't fool yourself ducky, Flds have computers, and read.

duaneh1 said...

I read the article and as DHM pointed out, they confirm that the young marriages were not to be consummated until the girls were older. Jeffs makes this quite clear and if we are to believe everything else he wrote, then we are going to have to believe this as well. You can not have it both ways! The young marriages were for all practical purposes, betrothals.

Anonymous said...

Oh outsiders are definately beginning to understand their faith. It is so much clearer after reading their prophets explanation.

rericson said...

Ron, I'm guessing here...because "the papers" tend to be lumped together in discussions...
I think if all that was disseminated were the specifically defined "revelations", it would be distressing, but not leave such a feeling of horrible intrusion...it is the private diary writings that just "feel" awful to have picked over....

I know next to nothing about what is, or isn't able to be considered protected church materials...and since each denomination or religion defines the same things in so many ways, I don't know how the standards cross over...but there is a general feeling that much of this should be considered protected....

To 'anon', There me be some who have read these papers, but I am confident that most have not. There public existance offends the average sensibilities in the community. And many do not want to know, or weigh, what the papers contain. They want the Warren Jeffs they know to remain exactly as he is, in their min's eye. They will avoid changing that. Their personal experiences with him are good ones. They do not believe it is their place to judge him by any other standard.

Ron in Houston said...

Regina

I don't doubt that the distribution of these documents was not to go any further than the select church leadership.

Either way, having your church's private documents made public would be distressing for the rank and file.

Love of The Truth said...

It's no use to argue Regina, it takes a special something given after asking to understand the things we understand, Ron can't do, why? He won't even give it a chance, all he see's is "12 yr old", he doesn't know anything about WSJ, other than what he has read, he doesn't even understand that.

@ anonymous,

I haven't read the dictations, and I have a computer and know how to read. So, what do you have to say to that?

I never lend any credence to anonymous posters anyway.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Anonymous, I do not think it's reasonable to judge members of a religious faith you don't share by your own standards- you, it appears, would read other people's diaries and mail if given the opportunity. It does not, however, follow that others would.

Duane: "I read the article and as DHM pointed out, they confirm that the young marriages were not to be consummated until the girls were older. Jeffs makes this quite clear and if we are to believe everything else he wrote, then we are going to have to believe this as well. You can not have it both ways!

here's something that bothers me about that- these documents have long been available to CPS, and presumably to LE and perhaps the Grand Jury. Yet, CPS uses these documents on the one hand to prove some under-aged marriages occurred, yet ignores the same evidence that a young 'sealing' is not necessarily sexual abuse. I understand that a birth is de facto evidence that a physical relationship occurred and the state has legal grounds for pursuing such cases.

But absent of that physical evidence, the state actually KNEW that it was making false charges of sexual abuse where no such activity had occurred. I find that as disturbing as anything else in the documents, or perhaps more so, since we are all at the mercy of the state and have no choice to separate ourselves from a dishonest CPS agent, whereas, as Ron points out, following Jeffs is ultimately a choice.

TxBluesMan said...

Headmistress: But absent of that physical evidence, the state actually KNEW that it was making false charges of sexual abuse where no such activity had occurred.

Exactly how did the state know that those charges were allegedly false?

First, in this state, the marriages in and of themselves were illegal, with or without consummation of the marriage. Second, based on the number of underage girls that had been illegally married AND had given birth to the product of that illegal marriage, the State had no way to know whether the 12 and 14 year old children had been sexually assaulted or not. Remember, there are 20+ criminal charges relating to underage marriages and the concurrent sexual assault of children.

I also hate to be the one to tell you this, but the absence of a baby is NOT evidence that no sexual assault took place. People have unprotected sex all the time without getting pregnant.

Plus, the more that comes out in this case, the less it looks like CPS lied. On of the examples that has been constantly used is the CPS statement that the women kept switching kids and nametags.

Does that sound anything like Teresa switching her baby with another? And who provided the other child? Another factor is that we know Willie Jessop was present, and presumably knew of the switch.

The simple way to have avoided all this, including the dictations becoming public was to merely do what every other citizen is required to do. Obey the law.

rericson said...

Okay, Bluesman...Fire up your keyboard and type;
"Dear Headmistress,
I was wrong. You were right.
Sincerely,
TxBluesMan"

Simple. Don't deflect. Don't obfuscate. Do not pass "Go"...do not collect......

Rose said...

Yes, it is our "choice" to follow Warren Jeffs. I'm proud to stand up and say I follow him. He is my prophet. I'm proud and grateful to know him. I would die for him if I was only worthy of it. And yes, I will do anything he asks me to do..willingly! Its my choice. I have never been forced to do anything! I love our prophet.
Yes I have a computer. Yes I can read. No, I have not read his personal dictations. My choice once again. Funny how the word choice is suddenly something we have. I remember the days when we supposedly had no choice. Funny how things chance when some un educated outsider, (about the FLDS) decided it was our choice. Hmmm so do we have our choice or not? I thought everyone was out to rescue us poor women who had no choice. Now some are saying it is our choice to follow him! I don't get it.

rericson said...

Rose!!!!!!!
Hey! Hey!
Nice to 'see' you!!!!

I don't think Ron is one of the "They're all brainwashed robots" crowd. Or Blues.

They have always said people have choices and the FLDS make bad ones!

We left the "the women are robots" crowd on Brooke's site! But talk about robots...every last one of them sound the same!

Oh well....we're all trying to play nice and share toys, over here....but if we get out of ine, you can come and correct us...a kick in the seat of the pants usually works!

Head Mistress dug up an interview with Sherriff Doran that I had thought was long lost! It is probably the last interview he gave where he didn't lie!

Rose said...

Howdy..
So they think I made a bad choice?? Hmmm..... =)
I love my choice. The more persecuted we are, the more I know I made the right choice! =)
No matter what ugly stuff anyone says, it only makes my love for Uncle Warren grow stronger. Only because I know him.
I didn't read Brookes article nor am I interested, but it sounds like it wasn't as terrible as it could have been. Just her way of being un-bias.
You know, I would not like to be in her shoes. Its got to be hard to report, and report fair.

TxBluesMan said...

Regina,

I admitted that on the other thread.

I do have a question about choice and the law of Sarah that maybe Rose can answer.

It is my understanding that the Law of Sarah means that the first wife has the right to consent to, or prohibit, additional wives.

It also states that if the wife does not consent, she becomes a transgressor, and the husband is then freed from the restrictions of the Law of Sarah.

So either the first wife consents to another wife(s) or if she doesn't, the husband can marry the additional wife(s) anyway.

Do I understand that correctly? Isn't that sort of a Hobson's Choice?

TxBluesMan said...

NP, I figured it was something like that...

rericson said...

Blues, I saw that...but not until after I had posted here....mea culpa, mea culpa...

I'm not terribly good at going back and forth between threads...For that I like the format at Brooke's...you can see the running neweer comments on the page and go directly....

rericson said...

It will be interesting to see how the different courts and legal teams handle the challenges to the warrants...
I do think there is substantial material to make the argument that, particularly in consideration of the time that was allowed to elapse, due dilligence was not effected adequately....
It may be the case that there simply were too many people involved, but that doesn't cut it when the end result was people's rights were trampled....

I have a hypothetical question...
Say the warrants are quashed....
But there is substantiation, albeit unusable, that certain crimes occurred...how does Texas approach that?

Ron in Houston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron in Houston said...

Rose

Whether following Warren is a bad choice or not, I have no idea. I know that a number of your brethren are highly unhappy about things as they exist.

Here is your current reality:

1. The UEP is being managed by gentiles.

2. Warren's dictations are public records and are being disseminated far and wide on the internet.

3. Warren is in prison for a long time.

4. It is highly likely that a number of high ranking members of the church will follow him into the prison system.

5. The FLDS are hemorrhaging money to lawyers to deal with 1-4.

I admire loyalty. It is as Regina would describe a decent trait.

Rose said...

The law of Sarah is named after Abrahams wife Sarah, because she gave him another wife. Yes, the first wife gives the other wives to the husband. If she wont, so be it. I know she loses her husbands trust and confidence as well as the prophets. But she rightfully deserved that. This is the Celestial law, given from God. It is the most pure law.

Rose said...

Ron, I believe these are just tests to see if we will have the faith to do Gods will. Even in all the turmoil we seem to be in, we can still be happy, forgiving. We can still worship our God. There is no reason for doubt or fear. We know who God is, We know who His prophet is. We have the faith our God will see us through. I know He will. It may not always be in the time we think it should be nor in the way we think it should be, but He has never failed His people yet, and He will not fail them now. Some may go to prison for Him, but it isn't this life we are after. It is Heaven we are after.

Ron in Houston said...

Rose

It's interesting. There is no winning argument with the "if you persecute me, my religion must be true" theory. There is no contra-argument that "I'm not being persecuted" therefore maybe my religion is false. Instead it's, "well, of course, we're not being persecuted, God loves us."

It's like Warren in his dictations. While he was successfully on the run, God was watching out for him. However, when he got caught and thrown in prison it never passed his mind that perhaps that was God's work also.

It's clearly a very selective filter on reality.

Ron in Houston said...

Rose

Come on now. If Warren felt he was doing God's will and was only concerned about his afterlife then why run? If he was truly doing God's will, then there is no need to run.

Running to me shows a distinct lack of faith in God. Did Daniel run away from the lion's den?

TxBluesMan said...

Rose,

I do admire your faith and your loyalty, like Ron.

I just don't (and probably never will) understand how you view the Law of Sarah as a choice. Either way, the man gets multiple wives, and the only choice (as it appears to me) that the first wife has is to agree or be damned.

In any event, I enjoy learning about your culture, even if I do believe that you must either change some of the illegal practices. I know that is probably not going to happen, but it is still nice to discuss things in a civil manner.

Rose said...

Oh Ron, this thing is much to complicated for you to understand.
I don't want to hear about Uncle Warrens PERSONAL dictations here.
I want to hear them from him when he himself tells me.
You see, I don't like people reading my personal writings.
Uncle Warren did what he was directed to do. End of subject! That is my faith and belief.

rericson said...

Ron, Why would you expect Rose, or any other individual to know why Warren Jeffs made a particular decision? Because he has shown them, through his actions and interactions and words, that he is their Prophet, why would you think that the whole community can explain all of his choices?
Maybe if you were to ask his close advisors, they might know....
Trusting someone, and having faith in him, and believing he is your guide and intermediary with God doesn't equate to knowing all of his business!!!....*laughing*

Rose said...

Thanks Txbluesman. I would love to help you understand, as long as its not attacking my prophet. I love him more than you could know or comprehend. We all do. The faithful followers do. I will admit, this has been a test on the peoples faith. Some have broken under this pressure, but for most of us, it has made our faith and love for our prophet increase, daily.

Rose said...

Your right Regina,
That is his business, and I'm sure grateful its not mine. I have enough of my own problems to worry about let alone the whole community's.
Besides, if God told him to do something, whether it looks right to me or not, it is Gods will and I should never question Gods will. No one should. =)

rericson said...

Blues, Quite awhile before Willie Jessop announced it, the group had made the decision that they would no longer allow marriages to anyone under the legal age in the jurisdiction where they lived.
I know, I've heard it a million times, the same promise was made in 1953 and broken...
That was almost two generations ago...and all we can do now is take them at their word.
And help them work at changing the laws concerning how informal polygamous relationships are viewed from a legal perspective.
It's like the 'loaves and fish'....We can advocate for them, or help them learn to advocate for themselves...
Maybe we can get Mary Batchlor to do a workshop in Shortcreek teaching advocacy skills and techniques?????

Rose said...

Ummmm....No thank you. I don't think that would be a go. She could try....

rericson said...

Okay....guess that was a bad idea!...lol...She and I have written back and forth, some...I bet she would put together some information on advocacy if I asked her to......
Or maybe she knows someone who is outside the whole polygamy mes who is a good advocate who does trainings...
Anyway, it's just an idea for the future....*smile*

Rose said...

=) Your a sweetie Regina! =)

duaneh1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rericson said...

Rose...I don't know about being terribly sweet! I'm trying...but I am pretty practical....
My darling is busy huffing and puffing all over because he can't find anything....not that he should have thought about packing anytime sooner than the night before he is leaving!!!!.....grrrrrrr........I'm telling you, in my next lifetime, I'm going to be a nun in a convent in the South of France...ah...warm, balmy weather, good wines...living the contemplative life....ahhhh.......

duaneh1 said...

Rose, according to the super smart activists, your choice is not an "authentic" choice cuz no one women would choose that therefore it is their duty to force you to make "authentic" choices-by gunpoint if necessary. Rose, they also say that FLDS women are completely sealed off from the outside world including all media and electronic communications is that true? Rose, are you completely cutoff from all outside communications? The next you logon to your computer and internet, please let us know ok?

Also is the "Law of Sarah" actually a formality? In other words, is the decision to take an additional wife actually hashed out in informal discussions between man and wife beforehand?

rericson said...

duane, I think you're a bit behind the times in what true activists and feminists believe are authentic choices...
"CHOICE" being the key word here.....

duaneh1 said...

Rericson, have any of them compiled a list of official "authentic" choices in order for us to distinguish between "real" choices and "fake" choices?

TxBluesMan said...

Rose,

Other than the legal issues, I don't see a reason to attack Warren.

On the legal issues, I just call it like I see it. Despite what some think, I have no animosity towards the FLDS, I just feel that they are required to obey the law, just as you feel that you are required to take certain actions or make certain choices.

I am fairly secular in that regards. I also think that certain of the Catholic bishops should be prosecuted for their role in covering up abuse among their priesthood, that Alamo should be prosecuted, that the members of the House of Yahweh should be prosecuted, that in certain cases, Planned Parenthood workers / volunteers should be prosecuted, etc.

I'm fairly equal opportunity - if someone violates the law, I'm for prosecution.

Please don't misunderstand that as an attack on your beliefs, or my respect for the way you stand up for your faith.

duaneh1 said...

the same promise was made in 1953 and broken...

Correction Rericson, in '53 the promise was to discontinue polygamy. But in this day and age with alternative lifestyles like "swinging" and polyamory in vogue and featured on respectable news programs and talk shows, I have a hard time understanding how we can justifiably crack down on Mormon polygamy. The laws against polygamy are archaic and irrelevant unless you believe attacking a particular religious belief is ok.

rericson said...

Duane, it's not so much something carved in stone as it is a philosophy about living and gender roles and choices...
Back in the dark ages when I was young it was a whole different culture...women were 'feeling their oats'...burning bras and being angry and vocal...
But we have evolved...and it isn't about being a construction worker compared to being an Avon Lady...it is about knowing we have choices and can do anything...
And it is about things like pay equity and nondiscrimination in employment practices...and generally dispelling old stereotypes about what women are capable of...

Rose said...

Sorry.. I wasn't ignoring any of you I was away from my computer for a minute.
Choice... Its a funny thing. Its our choice as long as the world in general agrees with it.

As for our religion not abiding the laws... The laws were set up against our religion, as Joseph Smith prophesied it would be.

duaneh1 You made me laugh. =)
We are so secluded for the internet,etc. that my husband got this computer for me, with the internet. Its a must. He knows I am on this blog. Did I ask his permission? No.... He trusts me. I have a lap top and will have an internet card very soon here. Just not sure which one or carrier is the best. I definitely want a USB internet card. They are by far the sweetest. But to think we can't go on line, Ha Ha Ha... sorry, I do my business and everyone of my family members that are not able to because they are busy at work. I search things on the internet, buy things, sell things, pay bills, you name it. I think I am about as modern as they come, I just wear a "Prairie dress". *smile*

Rose said...

Sorry that was suppose to read:

We are so secluded from the internet

rericson said...

Well folks...my darling son has decided to allow us to have dinner with him...so we are all headed out to the local Chinese buffet.....
For those who aren't aware, my son is leaving tomorrow to move to Florida and get married...so I'm having some last minute "mama blues"...

Rose said...

Enjoy Regina....

TxBluesMan said...

Rose,

I'm a little different. A choice is a choice. Some may be good, some may be bad, may be legal or not, but it is still a choice. Although I don't understand the choice in the Law of Sarah, I recognize that it is still a choice.

I do have one question. In my readings of the history of the Reynolds case, it noted that he had been sealed to six women that were deceased, and that these sealings were valid in the afterlife (I'm sure that is not the correct terminology, my apologies).

If those are valid, why not comply with the secular laws prohibiting polygamy and do that type of sealing. It would look to me that this would comply with the requirements of your faith and the law at the same time.

As for the anti-polygamy laws? They go back well before Joseph Smith. The first one in the U.S. was in Virginia in the late 1700s.

I may not get on this weekend - if the weather is good (like it is supposed to be), I intend on being on my Harley... :D

Ron in Houston said...

Rose

I respect your right to believe as you choose. I certainly don't think you're brainwashed.

Well, at least not any more brainwashed than those folks that think the ex Nazi that lives in the Vatican is infallible.

Ron in Houston said...

Yeah Regina

I think Duaneh has you there. Define "fake" and "real" choices.

When are you going to post Regina's list of real and fake choices?

rericson said...

Ron, On some level comments like that confound me. Maybe because I remember when there were some in the women's movement who held that being a stay at home mother wasn't a valid "choice", but that kind of thinking quickly gave way....

I think there is a great deal of stigma associated with the term feminist that is rooted in the 1970's and has little or no connection to the reality of today...

Susan said...

I have been reading in silence for a few weeks. Why would one not want to know what your prophet thinks. What if he is a false prophet and is leading everyone astray. In the Old Testament the test of God was if a prophecy did not come true then the prophet was false and must be put to death. Warren Jeffs predicted the world would end in 2000. Wrong it didn't. His dictations are proof that many other prophecies were false as well. Was God wrong?

Stence said...

The Law of Sarah?

The first wife accepting the Prophet's will in being married to a good Priesthood man should automatically assume others will follow. To be honest most of us don't know whether we'll be the first or not and a lot of us hope we're not. If we want something other than what's offered most of us know to speak up or leave before we make that covenant. When I was told where I was going to be I knew that if I didn't want to go there, I'd better say so before I said I do.

If we don't want other wives to follow us in marriage, the option is to not marry in this religion.

By the way I haven't read the stuff being talked about and I wouldn't want to unless I was invited. I was taught that it wasn't nice to eavesdrop and believe it or not, I don't.

Susan said...

Rose--Sarah's law is NOT a choice. If you can not say no and have your choice respected then there is no choice

Stence said...

Susan,

Uncle Warren wasn't the Prophet in 2000. Sometimes we understand that prophecies aren't fulfilled in the manner that some expect.

I remember an instance in the Bible somewhere that a Prophet told a king something to the effect that he wouln't see certain things come to pass and another Prophet said he would live when certain things happened. Both Prophets were right because when his country was invaded, the conquerers put his eyes out so he didn't "see" certain things happen but he "lived" through them before he died.

Ron in Houston said...

OK

I want to throw out a question to you FLDS guys that simply confounds me.

Before "one man rule" it seems it was a group of folks who arrived at a consensus that a particular person was the prophet.

To me, Warren's only claim to being a prophet is that he was Rulon's son. Naomi gave some testimony that he was the prophet, but it just seems to me that there is an inherent conflict of interest there.

So, really who discerns who is the prophet? How was the decision made that Warren was the prophet? Who said?

suzie said...

Ron,

Since Joseph Smith was the Prophet, there has only been one man as our Prophet. When Uncle Warren became our Prophet, he was the first counselor to his Father. The people who sustained his Father as the Prophet knew that he was in line behind his Father. Naomi had nothing to do with Uncle Warren being the Prophet except as a witness for him. Her testimony to us only verified my own feelings. I thought it was sweet of her and all but it wasn't necessary in my case to make him my Prophet. Obviously, some didn't agree and it is their choice.

suzie said...

Ron,

Sorry I didn't include in my previous post that we believe that the Prophet is inspired to choose who will follow him and so It's our belief that God chooses the Prophet.

rericson said...

Ron,
I think you're talking about the governance of the UEP. Not who is prophet, and how he is "chosen".

Ron in Houston said...

Regina

Actually, I'm trying to find out how the "prophet" is chosen. It appears to me that as Rulon got more infirm from strokes that Warren used his status as his son to maneuver into power.

In times past the FLDS used a sort of Catholic model where a council reached a consensus. For Warren all I've seen is his wife testifying that Rulon said he was the prophet.

I'd even like to know how they deal with things like failed prophesies. Warren hasn't done very well in that department either.

rericson said...

Ron,
I've asked the same question and I was told that each prophet, individually, identifies the next prophet. That it is believed that he, the current prophet, is inspired by God as to who should next lead.
From what I was told, Warren Jeffs never announced he was Prophet. That people just "knew". Some say as early as when he eulogized his father, his demeanor, his words, his person, emanated that he had been chosen....

I think when you are talking about a group making a choice it is for the Presidency of the UEP.....but that is for the governance of the secualr aspects of daily living; the business end of maintaining the larger community. The spiritual leadership is the Prophet, and the succession is divinely inspired and revealed to the current Prophet...

rericson said...

Ron, Again, I've asked about "failed prophesies" and the 'answer', or explanation/discussion was that prophesies don't 'fail'. They are not wrong, per se....it is our interpretation or understanding that is wrong.
Like the prophesy of the world ending. Was "ending" the correct word to use in defining the revelation? Did it actually mean something, yet to be revealed, happened in that time that was catalytic? Was it the end of a particular aspect of thinking or doing things, that will be shown to have been the beginning of the end? Was it a test of the faith of the message bearer, the Prophet?

There is a very strong belief that everything is part of a larger plan. That God reveals parts of His plan, through the Prophet. Sometimes in parables and "lessons", sometimes in specific words. The Prophet has to find ways of conveying the revelations to his people in ways that can be understood. Hence 'lessons' and decisions about daily living.

Ron in Houston said...

Regina

Wow. Simply amazing. The logical gymnastics boggle my mind.

rericson said...

I have yet to find any religion as "mind boggling" as the Roman Catholics.
The doctrine and practices are under a microscope with the FLDS, right now. Hence many folks are having "Wow!" moments...and lots of visceral reactions...

I'd like to see Catholicism stand up to the same scrutiny! And the whole concept of revelations is not unique to the FLDS, or Mormonism...
When's the last time you looked at the life stories of some of the saints? Or popes...
And the RC's have the gamut of practices..laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, transmogrification, assentions and assumptions, possesions and exorcisms, mortal and venial sins....more rules than one person can learn and follow in a lifetime..talismans for every occasion...secret societies and secret handshakes...
And until Vatican II, when "Revelation" hit all those bishops and arch bishops and cardinals, the RC's had more layers to the afterlife than the Mormon's ever concieved of...and more ways of getting from one place to another in the afterlife....but in one fell swoop they did away with 'limbo'...do you remember 'limbo'? Maybe you're a bit too young...but 'limbo' is where all those poor, unsaved, African babies went.....
And let's not even begin to look at the different clerical orders...The ones we are familiar with, the Josephites and the Franciscans, and the Sisters of Charity and so on...they're all pretty "normal", if there is anything 'normal' about joining an "order" for the rest of one's life....but then there are the less publicized ones...lots of them...and things like hair shirts and other penitential actions are not a thing of the dark ages....

Yet can you imagine the politics that would swirl if we started scrutinizing the doctrines and beliefs and rules of the RC's????

Ron in Houston said...

Regina

I'll be the first to admit that the mental gymnastics done by the Catholic faithful aren't any different than those done by the FLDS.

Actually, a lot of debunking of Catholics take place. I'm still waiting for your blog post decrying the publishing of Mother Theresa's private diaries.

If you've got time Google "Hitchens Mother Theresa" and have a good time reading.

My personal opinion is that the best steak always comes from sacred cows.

rericson said...

Ron...Talk about bizarre...I am in the middle of reading about a book just published by an ex-nun from India, and there is reference to Mother Teresa and I thought to myself, as soon as I finish this article, I'm going to read that...the article is called "The Secret Life of Mother Teresa"...

Great minds think alike?????
Now that's a scary thought!!!!

Ron in Houston said...

I don't know what is says about us but other than our views on the FLDS, we do tend to think alike.

rericson said...

I think if you try to a.seperate your feelings about specific actions from the rest of your thought processes, and b. start to ask questions and begin to understand the belief SYSTEM, you will come to marvel at what a wonderful group of people the FLDS really are.
You can continue to take exception to the very young marriages. Many people do. Even within the FLDS community, there are many people who do not agree with the practice, have not involved themselves in it, and believe that as humans, we all err and we all, utimately, answer to God concerning our actions and choices.

But it is equally important to understand the context of those young marriages, what the covenant of marriage is in the FLDS religion, and recognize the infrequency of that which you find so objectionable.

If you seperate those issues, and look at the people, their resilliance, the stength of their convictions, their true and fundamental belief in teaching and living through love...they are amazing....

Again, if you seperate out what you think you know about Warren Jeffs, and look at the man as he is seen and experienced by the people who follow him, you get a picture that is entirely different than this public image of a controlling, manipulating monster....
If any of his behaviors were controlling and manipulative, he has God to answer to. Not you, or me. He did good things in his community. He walked the walk of kindness and compassion and calm fortitude. That isn't a bad thing...and it isn't bad to believe in someone whose behaviors model what you have been taught your entire life is the kind of behavior that paves the way to heaven...

The FLDS are probably the first devoutly religious people I have ever met who are perfectly willing to leave me to whatever my own beliefs are. To not try to convert me. To not condemn me for not wanting to convert. And yet liking me, appreciating me as an individual, and befriending me without pre-conditions. Well, I suppose the one pre-condition is that I afford them the same right to their beliefs as they afford me mine. And I can certainly live with that.

Allen and I have spent an enormous amount of time talking and he has never, not once prostelitized. Never pushed his religious beliefs on me. He has always answered my qquestions openly and honestly, but never said I should see things the same way he does.
Rose has done the same...and others...
I suppose it is important to them that I am not a complete heathen, but I don't know. I have volunteered that I do believe in a "Higher Power", but I wasn't asked or grilled about it....

I think that if you let go of some of your preconcieved ideas, based on whatever, and just set about to learn and appreciate some of the people that will teach you, your view may not be all that different than mine....
And I don't wear a tin hat....

rericson said...

If you leave more comments, I will be back...I have to groom dogs...
And Josh is leaving today so I am a bit discombobulated...
Later.....

duaneh1 said...

"Rose--Sarah's law is NOT a choice. If you can not say no and have your choice respected then there is no choice"

Suzie Q, I can tell my wife that I'm going to take a mistress and she can either choose to accept it or if she doesen't, then I will leave her, that is still a choice.
Choices are still choices whether you approve/disapprove of the consequences.
An example of a non-choice i.e. forced: The 1st wife refuses to accept an additional wife, she is imprisoned until she complies and if she tries to leave the religion, she is hunted down and brought back by Church thugs.

If force was used and they didn't have choice, then Carolyn and Flora jessop, Elissa Wall and a whole slew of others would still be in the FLDS.

Pliggy said...

Ron said:
"In times past the FLDS used a sort of Catholic model where a council reached a consensus. For Warren all I've seen is his wife testifying that Rulon said he was the prophet."

Sorry Ron, you are mistaken, again. The One man choosing the next one man through revelation from God, and the people being able to realize that through revelation to themselves and not from any man or woman has been around from the beginning. The "council" was introduced AFTER, by the very same man who supposedly ended polygamy in the LDS church.

I didn't believe my best friend was a prophet by him or Naomi declaring it. All you've seen is what you desire to see, you don't even learn when I say it unless you try to. All Brooke sees is what she desires to see. All Blues sees is what he desires to see. All I see is what I desire to see.

I have no desire to see the dictations. I don't need them, in fact anyone who DOES need them has very little understanding as to the FLDS religion. Anyone who WANTS to see them, at some level agrees with how they were taken.

Me "Learning" from Tyrants (aka Texas) and their "helpers" (aka Malonis) tearing into a sacred building and breaking open the safe in a BULLCRAP search for "Sarah" about my best friend? That is ridiculous.

Ron always speaks about the "terribleness" of religion; that most wars in history were because of religion. Certainly that is often the case; but is it not also OBVIOUS that it is one group trying to FORCE another to give up their religion? THAT is the reason! Precisely what Ron, and Blues, and the hater crowd thinks the people of the FLDS should do.

Love of The Truth said...

President Rulon T. Jeffs pointed us to WSJ, and furthermore, although I feel like I'm casting pearls, the only way a person knows that the Prophet is the Prophet is through the testimony of the Holy Ghost. If someone didn't obtain that for themselves, does it mean that all the rest of us who did are wrong? Of course not!! I know who He is, you don't, why? There's a plethora of reasons, and I'm not going to start bashing brains because you don't understand, it's simple to me, you CAN'T understand.

Ron in Houston said...

Pliggy

Would you give the asinine hater card a rest? No one wants anyone to give up their religion. You just think the law should bend to your particular beliefs rather than the other way around.

I personally don't give a crap who you want to marry (or how many times) so long as the individual is of legal age. Heck, I don't care if you want to practice polygamist sheep bestiality.

Personally I support the persecution of anyone who knocks up 14 year old children. Catholic, Protestant, Mormon or atheist, if you knock up 14 year old children, the law should hunt you down like the dog you are.

Now while you're online send me some of your pig pictures since love of truth just cast this swine some pearls.

Ron in Houston said...

Love of Truth said:

There's a plethora of reasons, and I'm not going to start bashing brains because you don't understand, it's simple to me, you CAN'T understand.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that. Although, I do understand how folks feel that discernment and testing things by the Holy Spirit can confirm their faith.

Time for this swine to go get some slop....

Susan said...

I just can't understand how a family advocate can admire a man who ripped hundreds of familys appart and took sadistic joy in doing so. How can you admire a man who did such vile and hypocritical things under the guise of "god told me to do it." A man who expressed joy and satisfaction at the destruction of New Orleans and even had the gall to atribute it to his curse.

How can you follow a man who personally contridicted all his own teachings. Was he somehow exempt from the "will of god."?

How do you know that it was not a false spirit guiding and leading him. The Bible says that Satan appears disguised as an "angel of light."

I would think the flds would be more discerning and question a bit more instead of following blindly.

Rose said...

Susan, you can go to Brookes blog or the Tribunes. If you want ugly comments and a real argument.

It just some thing you don't understand... Things you could never understand. I don't follow blindly. Oh I see, and I hope to see more and more, better and better each day. The more open my eyes are, the more I know He is the true Prophet. Its just something you know- the Holy ghost tells you so.
To say he ripped families apart...You don't know half of what was going on. You are judging a man without even knowing him.

cheese said...

Ron in Houston said...
"Pliggy

Would you give the asinine hater card a rest? No one wants anyone to give up their religion. You just think the law should bend to your particular beliefs rather than the other way around."




Ron,
You're lying when you say that no one wants us to give up our religion. But I'll make you a deal:
You and Blues stop pushing the idea that "the law" is always "right", and acknowledge that the laws that were passed in the mid to late 1800's outlawing "polygamy" were "targeted" against the Mormon faiths "Law of Celestial and Plural Marriage" and we'll let up on pointing out the "asanine hater" card. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

cheese said...

and BTW Ron,

our "particular" beliefs were around BEFORE the law regardless of Blues "giddish hatred for us"!!

rericson said...

Susan, I can admire a man for the good I see in him. Seems pretty simple to me.
I also am not going to judge anyone without comprehensive information. Certainly not on dictations that are incomplete and anecdotal information, much of which comes from people with axes to grind. And actually, I'm not going to "judge" at all. But with more complete information, I may draw conclusions, and form opinions.

There are certainly decisions that each of us might have made differently if we were in the position Warren Jeffs was in. But we weren't.
He did, and continues, to guide the people of his community as best he can in their spiritual journey through life. Each person in his community has free agency to choose to follow some, all, or none of his guidance. That is their choice.
You get to choose for yourself, as do I, who or what or when we will follow another's guidance. So do the people of the FLDS community. And it isn't for me, or you, to tell anyone what they can or cannot do.

Perhaps I have tried to take a closer look at Warren Jeffs and his community than you have? Perhaps I consciously tried to shed any preconcieved notions I had and take a fresh look, and you haven't done that? Perhaps in so doing, I had the privelege of seeing a softer, gentler side of a man who has been shown only in one light in the press?

Pliggy said...

Sorry Ron, spending as much time as you do in an addiction to criticizing and slandering someone elses religion is in my book under "hate".

And these pearls are staying here.

Anonymous said...

Ron says he does not approve of 14 year old girls getting knocked up.

I have a question for Ron: Was it OK by you in 2000? How about 1990" 1980?

How about the day before the Law in Texas told all Texans to stop Knocking up the 14 year olds?

On August 31, 2005, it was "Legal"
On September 1, 2005, it became illegal. In a legal sense, is that not just a little bit arbitrary and capricious to you?

Second question Ron: As an Attorney, do you believe that a Law that was passed EXPRESSLY aimed at a specific person, group of people or their religion is Constitutional?

If you represented an FLDS man in Court, would you not raise that very issue on behalf of your client?

81D283

Anonymous said...

According to Church Documents, Warren was never Rulon's choice for "Prophet". He had designated William E. Timpson. Warren knew that, as well as Timpson.
Warren decided to make himself Prophet and those who knew the truth, basically called Warren out on the issue.
This is when over 21 men were excommunicated. You can't blame Rulon Jeffs, he had strokes and wasn't able to think for himself. The decision as to who would succeed Rulon was made well before Rulon's stroke.

TxBluesMan said...

Cheese said:
acknowledge that the laws that were passed in the mid to late 1800's outlawing "polygamy" were "targeted" against the Mormon faiths "Law of Celestial and Plural Marriage" and we'll let up on pointing out the "asanine hater" card.

Cheese,

I'm not going to lie to make you feel better.

Polygamy, long outlawed in ecclesiastical courts, was enacted into law in 1604 by the English Parliament. This followed into the Colonies, and then the United States. Virginia enacted their anti-polygamy law in 1779, which stated that polygamy was a capital offense, punishable by death.

Prior to the formation of Mormon faith, bigamy was illegal in all of the states.

The Morrell Act just made it illegal in the federal territories.

And actually, I don't believe that the anti-polygamy laws were really about the plural marriages. They were really about giving the federal government another tool to break a sect that had been repeatedly treasonous.

Leaders of the LDS (as predecessors of the FLDS) were charged with treason in 1838, 1844, 1857 and 1870. They took up arms against the United States in 1857. The only reason that Brigham Young was not tried after his indictment for treason was the Mormon capitulation.

The Federal Government used these laws to break the LDS because they refused to follow the laws and rebelled against the government - and it worked.

Do you have any reason to doubt that it will work again?

Pliggy said...

Impressive Blues, you have completely discombobulated manufactured bigotry into not obeying NEW law and thus treason. That is amazing.

I bet you sure are glad those "NEW" laws broke up those other bands of the treasonous, and put them redskins on reservations. Sure showed them this is the land of the free! (as long as you are not "differnt")

Anonymous said...

anonymous 81D283
Do you believe the catholic church is being targeted for child abuse?
Do you believe it is ever okay for a priest to molest a child?

When the catholic accusations first started against priests, MANY accused the accusers of being dissidents of the church. And if it happened why didn't these adults come foward as children when it happened? Why did they wait until they were adults?
Authorities for a long time didn't take the accusations seriously.

Ron in Houston said...

Anon @ 5:00 p.m.

It's been a crime for a long time for any older person to knock up a 14 year old. The law previously allowed a 14 year old to marry.

I always thought that law was asinine. Those laws were also designed to accommodate the oddball case where a young girl makes a mistake and ends up needing to get married.

The law was never intended as a blanket green light for any 14 year old to marry. That's why it was changed.

I understand what you're saying about the change in the law being targeted at Fundamentalist Mormons. However, there is a big difference between being a factor and being the target of a change in the law.

If the change in the law went to a totally blind up or down vote, it would have passed overwhelmingly. While you guys may not like it, the vast majority of Texans feel that 14 is too young to get married.

As to advising a client to challenge the changes in the law, it simply isn't worth the effort. Just because one redneck legislator got worked up over the "Mormon invasion" doesn't mean that the law targets fundamentalist Mormons.

Ron in Houston said...

Awe pliggy

No sympathy for your fellow swine huh?

While I agree that I criticize the FLDS, I disagree that I slander them.

The FLDS have a number of facts that are highly inconvenient for their PR campaign. However, wishing they weren't true doesn't make it so.

rericson said...

Ron, If you were addressing me with the moving toward changing the law reply, when I said that, I was talking about decriminalizing polygamy.....

Ron in Houston said...

Pliggy

There is an old saying:

"When you hate, all you see around you is hatred...."

Blues was giving a historical account of the laws against polygamy. The Mormons in the 1870's were viewed by the government in Washington as being treasonous. In fact, in response to an arriving federal governor with a dispatch of troops, Brigham Young did declare martial law and activated the Nauvoo Legion.

One man's treason is another's act of self defense. What Blues said, if you get past your hatred, is that the polygamy statutes were passed in order to get what were viewed as treasonous folks back into how Washington said they should behave.

Ron in Houston said...

cheese

Unlike Blues, I don't care that adult polygamy is a crime. It's certainly none of my business if you want to live with 3 females you call wives.

I actually appreciate the irony of it being perfectly legal for Hugh Hefner to be living with 3 female sex partners in his house so long as he doesn't call them wives.

It is even more ironic when the FLDS call them wives in order to honor the relationship while old Hef only does things solely for his pleasure.

Ron in Houston said...

While really a legal article, this article (when you arrive at the page click "download paper" on the left) is a good overview of the Reynolds case.

It talks about the history of the time and even about what sort of fellow George Reynolds was and the hardships imposed by his 18 month incarceration.

Interesting reading for a Sunday morning.

rericson said...

I think there are aspects of the anti-bigamy/polygamy laws that we ALL agree on. Including Fundamental Mormons.
A man decieving multiple wives; telling each she is the only one, is wrong. Legally marrying each is wrong.
I think, perhaps, it is that typeof bigamy and polygamy that the earliest laws were addressing.
When Momomism came alomg, the fact that there were already laws on the books against bigamy and polygamy just made it easier to go after a group of people, and to expand those laws to fit the current purpose of eradicating a religious group that defied the mores of mainstream Christianity.

Ron in Houston said...

Regina

I agree. Most bigamy trials are for the guy (well usually anyway) who takes advantage of multiple women by convincing them that they are the only wife.

rericson said...

Bottom line, in many ways, is that despite a foundation of separation of church and state, there is a subliminal, or unwritten assumption that "church" means Christian church with maybe a few Jews and atheists sprinkled in.
There is a plethora of scholarly writing about the christian-judeo roots of English Common Law, and Western law in general.
And amongst mainstream Christians, no matter what they 'say', there is a basic belief that Mormons are not "true" Christians. This was true in the 1800's and it is true today.
The people who fight tooth and nail to keep "God" in schools and courthouses, are the ones fighting tooth and nail to solidify and cast in concrete a national, legal definition of marriage as being "a union between one man and one woman".
The average person in America, today, doesn't REALLY want true separation of church and state. They are the first to decry the 'godlessness' of Communist regimes.
Fundamental hypocrisy is "the American way"!

RIchard Endwright said...

The irony of a phenomenon like Hugh Hefner has been raised many times by polygamy supporters on this blog and others. Yes it is an interesting reflection, but not really that profound. The underlying attitude with the observation is usually made ('it's perfectly OK for someone like Hef to do whatever he does, but unfairly illegal for us to do what we do even though we are so obviously moral' etc.. etc...) is quite incorrect. No it is not 'perfectly OK', he is viewed with disgust by everyone except himself, the bunnies who surround him and are being exalted by him, and men who either recognize or don't recognize their own jealousy. One could spend some time addressing why his behavior is not illegal, but it is not a very interesting question. As an aside, at least Hefner doesn't use religion to disquise his behaviors. Hugh Hefner is the Bill Medvecky of his world, and lots of people in that world dote on him, and admire him for being straight forward (as if that, in and of itself is an admirable trait.)

Ron in Houston said...

Gee Regina

If you've got the one "true" religion, then of course you think that's the way the government should work. You mean you didn't know that the US is a "christian" nation?

Ron in Houston said...

Richard

I agree that society views Hef with moral contempt. The irony is that Hef's lifestyle is perfectly legal while the FLDS lifestyle is not.

The real question is whether you can truly legislate morality. This attitude doesn't seem to work for a number of things.

rericson said...

Ron, Oh, I KNOW we are a "Christian" nation! It never escapes me.
I think that is what is so difficult for me with this whole mess. I have met people I really, really like. I may not agree with all of their religious beliefs. But to me, that is just fine. It doesn't bother me in the least.
The people I have met are decent people who work extraordinarily hard at being good, decent, moral, ethical people. They truly try to practice what they preach.
Do they have a few folks in their ranks that deviate? Sure! Funny thing is, because they do work so hard at "walking the walk" of true Christian behavior, they actually have far fewer people that deviate from the law than the rest of our society. Same is true in other defined, separated communities....

I don't think the issue is one of legislating morality. It is one of truly separating church and state. If we could accomplish that, much would fall into place.

Somehow, we need to go back and look at each of our laws and make an objective determination as to whether each one would hold up as necessary, aside from it's religious roots. Like Murder and it's permutations...that holds up...
Stealing and it's permutations holds up....
Blues Laws? They don't hold up....not selling alcoholic beverages on Sunday, for example, has nothing to do with anything except "Christian" beliefs...
Prostitution, as a criminal offense, doesn't hold up...maybe it needs regulation...but that's an entirely different discussion...the laws crimnalizing the behavior do not stand the test of "separation of church and state".
And the expanded permutations of the bigamy laws to embrace consentual instances do not meet that test, either.....nor does the state defining the gender of those who choose to enter into a legally binding relationship......

So, back to the beginning, considering how monumental it was to elect an African American as president, and the fact that not since Jack Kennedy, have we deviated from electing old white, Christian men to lead us, I'm not holding out any great hope that we're going to take on the task of real separation of church and state anytime soon...and that hurts so many of the people I care about.....

rericson said...

oops...I meant to include "Protestant, mainstream" in my description of the old, white Christian men, we elect....

Pliggy said...

While I completely agree with the absurdity of "Separation of Church and State" I agree with the exact opposite reasoning. If a "state" does not ALLOW "God", then that is prejudice. It is no different than not allowing "Evolution".

The problem is not with Christians being in school etc, the problem is forcing Christians OUT of school. That is no different than forcing Darwinists OUT, which was a problem eighty years ago.

The fact that the Federal government has any stake in the marriage game is completely going against our Constitution. Really. The government has too much power when that is the case. Whether it is Christians trying to legislate "one man one woman", or homo's trying to force the government to include them in the term "marriage" is such a dumb argument to me.

And it is in the public school system that everyone is being brainwashed (indoctrinated)

rericson said...

Pliggy,
You present another aspect of the dilemma...There are a gazillion permutations of "christian"...with as many variations of fundamental beliefs for each. And then you have all the beliefs that are equally valid that are not Christian....

As a possible solution, there could be adequate funding in the public education dollars for true parental choice between secular and parochial education....

I personally have no problem with the total elimination of religion from public education and leave religion or it's absence to the parents/family of the children. We have a far too plura a society to be all inclusive, therefore, all exclusive is far more fair....

Pliggy said...

"I personally have no problem with the total elimination of religion from public education and leave religion or it's absence to the parents/family of the children. We have a far too plura a society to be all inclusive, therefore, all exclusive is far more fair....

I have no problem with any school curriculum public or private, as long as the choice to go elsewhere is not under dispute.

BUT, "all exclusive" is a myth. A big fat lie actually. I believe even the so called "secular" are RELIGIOUS. If they can't allow the science of theology, they shouldn't consider themselves "liberal".

rericson said...

Pliggy,
I don't think there will ever be a perfect solution.
Our goal in providing FAPE, Free Appropriate Public Education, is to prepare the most children we can, with the best education possible, with the dollars and skills available, for conventionally defined success when exiting the public secondary system.
In rising to meet the standards we have set for ourselves of non-discrimination, we can, and should, provide equal access to parochial education resources for those who choose that.
Because we have an obligation to assure, to the best of our ability, the preparation of our children for success upon exiting, we have an obligation to create and regulate, standards of teaching, and baselines of learning, even in publically funded parochial or alternative settings. (Parochial settings being included as an ideal)

Pliggy said...

"Free Appropriate Public Education"

See, that is the fallacy, at least for me. I know there is no such thing as "free" education. And the greater point is "Appropriate" and "EXCLUDING God" is an oxymoron. Remember from my prospective success is not defined by career or money; it is character based, as you pointed out in a previous post. If you don't TEACH character, (which is religious no matter what "religion") then any school is pointless. The Public school system should not be a place where "fear to offend" should replace "tolerance". To offend no one is impossible, to tolerate most everyone is. Teach all the religions as "good", do not teach all, or certain religions as "bad".


"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."- Gandhi


Susan, did reading what you wanted to read with your salivating love for twisted tabloid information CHANGE your mind? Not that I want an answer.

rericson said...

I have removed a blog by "Susan"

I did so because the way she presented her ideas and opinions was in very angry, inflamatory language. Language that fuels angry responses and breaks down the ability to discuss. Polarizing language.

The gist of what she said is:

Even if FLDS members and their supporters care to ignore things, terrible actions have occured in the FLDS community. An example is a woman choosing to leave but having to leave her children behind, only to return to get her children and find they had been assigned to another mother and were not with their father.
This is the truth. And there is nothing mean or hateful about the truth.

rericson said...

Pliggy, There are liimits to what can be taught in a school day. Educators have to prioritize those elements that have the greatest impact on exit readiness. There is some time in each day for "electives" which things like "World Religions" etc. can be a part of.
Specifically teaching, and weaving into generalized teaching, of attributes and expectations like ethical living should be a part of every school districts complement. That does not require the inclusion of religion or the adoption or exclusion of any religion.
For those persons who do want a specific, or even general religious component woven into the fiber of the education experience for their children, those persons should elect an alternative education, be that home schooling or parochial placement..or a private, non-denominational, religious school.
No group education experience is ever going to be perfect for a group of people. Maybe for one or two who designed it, but EVERYONE else is going to have some things they would change..
The trick is to come as close as you can, for your children, and make up the differences at home...
Or have faith that they will be taught, above all else, to think, and will, as they age, come to the right conclusions, no matter the curriculum they were taught...

rericson said...

Creating a public education system that offers a wide range of alternatives for parents to choose from, including both secular and religious educations, comes far closer to a true separation of church and state, while accepting the responsibility to educate all of our children, than forcing anything religious on anyone. Or forcing someone who wants religion, in one definition or another, as part of their child's experience to not have that.

Ron in Houston said...

Pliggy

The problem when you start allowing God in the public schools is that there is no way to allow "God" without allowing some interpretation of who or what "God" supposedly is.

For a large number of folks, God says that you're nothing more than immoral trash. Doesn't matter that you live a moral life, help others, and are a hard working member of society. You believe in polygamy so (for them) God says you're immoral kindling for the next episode of "Cooking Sinners with the Almighty."

Classic problem of "slippery slopes."

Ron in Houston said...

Regina

I loathe religion being forced down my throat. Last time some Bible thumper gave me a "tract," I told them in no certain words that I didn't need this and frankly was insulted that the guy thought I needed "fixing."

rericson said...

Ron,
The Jehovah's Witnesses are big around here...they go out in bands of a dozen or more and cover entire neighborhoods...
For the last twenty or so years, they haven't set foot on my porch.
*look of abject innocence"
For the life of me, I don't know why!

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Regina, I think it might be interesting for you to try to do the same thing for the 'fundamentalist Christians' you despise so much as you have done for the FLDS. That is, instead of judging them first, spend some time understanding the basic presuppositions and foundational principles motivating what they do and why.

Two examples:

You admire the FLDS because they have never tried to 'convert' you. That is comfortable for you, but the reason they do not and others do has less to do with a basic nobility of spirit or lack thereof than with an underlying worldview. Those who try to 'change' your religious views believe you are in a building with a fire in the basement and that fire is moving up to your floor- they believe it is a kindness, a human thing, even an urgent requirement that they let you know the building is burning and point to what they believe to be the escape hatch. You may believe they are completely wrong, you may believe they are nuts, you may believe they are stupid- but a fairminded person recognizes that if you believe in a hell that people you know may be going to, it's not being an arrogant jerk to try to help those people escape it. You do not have to agree that the presupposition of hell as they understand it is correct to recognize why attempted conversion is not unreasonable under those circumstances.

Mormonism and all its offshoots has/have a very different view of hell and heaven(s) (and they vary amongst the LDS groups as well) and who goes and why and how, and that differing presuppostion results in a different approach to those who do not share the same beliefs.

2). "And amongst mainstream Christians, no matter what they 'say', there is a basic belief that Mormons are not "true" Christians. This was true in the 1800's and it is true today."

Well, DUH. Gee, where to start. First of all, I don't what the 'no matter what they say' point is. I do not personally know ANY Christians who believe Mormonism is a Christian religion, although I have seen a handful of them online. Usually, it turns out they are unaware of some pretty foundational differences between Mormon doctrine and Christian doctrine. And this is an important point, and I don't know why it's so hard to extend to 'mainstream' or 'fundamentalist' Christians the same open minded willingness to examine presuppositions and foundational beliefs and where they lead that you do to the FLDS.

For Christians, saying somebody is or is not a Christian is not a judgment call about whether or not they are nice, good, moral, decent, sweet or admirable people. Atheists are often quite outstanding human beings, as are members of Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, of various branches of Islam- and the LDS.
The reason Christians do not consider Mormons Christian are many, and they are all about theology and doctrine- the plurality of gods, the personhood of Jesus Christ being altogether different in LDS teachings than in Christian, the denial of the trinity, the idea that man will become a god, and more- I don't think it's that important to go into all of them here, and I don't know how much the FLDS vary from LDS teachings on these issues-
But if you believe that it is pagan to believe that humans can become deities creating their own worlds to be worshipped by the beings they people it with, if you believe it is necessary to believe in the doctrine of the trinity, the virgin birth, to be a Christian (as the Christian church has taught and practiced for two thousand years), well, then, it is neither strange nor mean and ugly or hypocritical to believe that a religion that differs on those foundational issues is not a Christian religion. That's not, again, about 'niceness,' that's about doctrinal definitions.

The people who fight tooth and nail to keep "God" in schools and courthouses, are the ones fighting tooth and nail to solidify and cast in concrete a national, legal definition of marriage as being "a union between one man and one woman".
The average person in America, today, doesn't REALLY want true separation of church and state. They are the first to decry the 'godlessness' of Communist regimes.
Fundamental hypocrisy is "the American way"!


I don't think the namecalling is in keeping with the rules you've stated you'd like to see for your blog, nor do I think 'hypocrisy' is an accurate word to use- I think the problem is you don't understand where the people you disagree with on these issues are coming from or why, and you don't want to.

With understanding, so I've heard, comes a less angry approach. I see much judgment of conservative Christians from you, and I think an attempt at understanding would be more fair and reasonable.

rericson said...

H.M.
Well, where to begin?
You've laid out about a gazillion things that you seem to believe about me, or that I have done or not done, the majority of which are incorrect.
A.I haven't called anyone names. No hypocrisy there. Calling actions hypocritical is not name calling. It is voicing an opinion about the nature of particular actions.
B. I don't "hate" fundamental or evangelical Christians. I do strongly disagree with some of their beliefs and practices. I particularly dislike the belief in prostelitizing.(or however it is spelled)
C. Fact is, one of my very closest friends is an "Evangelical Christian", or so she defines herself. In order to like and respect one another, we completely avoid discussions of religion.
D. You assume because I choose not to advocate for fundamental Christians, I do not know the basic theology behind their thinking. You are wrong. I am quite well versed in Fundamentalism in the mainstream Christian community. I choose to not want it a part of my life.
E. You assume I do not know the fundamental theology of LDS and other Mormon groups. Again, you are only partially correct. I probably have a better working knowledge than the average person outside of Mormonism about the doctrines and beliefs.
f. I dislike any group who move beyond stating their beliefs to taking overt action to infringe on the rights of others to practice their beliefs. That, of course is tempered by the belief that individuals, as well as the state, have rights and obligations to protect and assure the physical well being of others and their property.
G. contrary to your belief, the more I have come to learn about conservative Christian beliefs, the angrier I have gotten at their overt actions. I make no judgment about their beliefs save I know I do not accept them. On the other hand, I make very strong judgements about some of their behaviors.
H. I find it interesting that you are so very judgmental and make such enormous asumptions about me. Particularly without asking. Seems like a lot of jumping to conclusions.
I. The average, run of the mill, fundamental, conservative, Christian organization or sect isn't coming under the kind of fire that the FLDS are. If they were, perhaps I would take up their cause, too. Unless, of course, I didn't feel like it.
J. I strongly believe we each get to choose what, if any, 'causes' we go to bat for. And I strongly believe no one gets to tell anyone else what 'cause' to choose.
K. I feel equally strongly that we each get to choose which, if any, behaviors or groups, or anything else, that we want to speak out against. I speak out against, at every opportunity, conservative Christians who actively and overtly get in the way of others right to not be a conservative Christian, or adopt their beliefs!

rericson said...

The minute someone thinks it's okay to go door to door, interupting people's everyday lives, to prostelitize, I have a problem with it.
The minute someone jumps in front of another to prevent them from going into a medical clinic of their choice, I have a problem with it.
The minute someone takes a bull horn to prostelitize or preach, and it is within earshot of those who do not choose to participate with the bullhorn bearer, I have a problem with it...
The minute my tax dollars are used in a public arena to support any religion without supporting every religion, and the lack of any religion, I have a problem with it.
The minute anyone attempts to teach a minor child about any or no religion without that child's parent's express permission, I have a problem with it.

Ron in Houston said...

HM said:

You may believe they are completely wrong, you may believe they are nuts, you may believe they are stupid- but a fairminded person recognizes that if you believe in a hell that people you know may be going to, it's not being an arrogant jerk to try to help those people escape it.

I don't know. There is a certain arrogance to think that you know exactly what God's plan is for the world. It's always bothered me that a lot of folks think that the 4 billion or so non-Christians are automatically going to be toasted like marshmallows on a fire.

Then again, I'm one of those folks who believes that instead of trying to save the world each of us should work out our own salvation with "fear and trembling."

Pliggy said...

"For those persons who do want a specific, or even general religious component woven into the fiber of the education experience for their children, those persons should elect an alternative education, be that home schooling or parochial placement.

HMMMMM.....

"The minute my tax dollars are used in a public arena to support any religion without supporting every religion, and the lack of any religion, I have a problem with it."

I think that MY tax dollars going to a school system that EXCLUDES religion (which is impossible) is something to "have a problem with" Why don't atheists have to find their own schooling?

Of course proselytizing can be annoying and even insulting, but most of the time it is not intended to be so. It is no different than door to door cookie sales, and quite often when I take a tract from someone and chit chat for a minute, I am not offended by that, if I am busy I tell them so. Being offended is a personal choice. I choose to be offended at other things, like those who want to take away my personal choice.

Pliggy said...

It is quite impossible to teach a class on the founding of America without including God in it. Those who want exclude a "Higher power" are the ones who don't understand the intentions of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

In fact a study of ALL history points to religion. And the fact that schools actively try to "avoid" religion, they in essence CONDEMN religion. They have to in order to avoid religion. You can no more avoid religion, or God, than you can history.

“O powerful Goodness! Bountiful Father! Merciful Guide! Increase in me that wisdom that discovers my truest interest Strengthen my resolutions to perform what that wisdom dictates. Accept my kind offices to thy other children as the only return in my power for thy continual favors to me” – Ben Franklins Prayer

rericson said...

Pliggy, Including the effect religion has had on history is not the same as endorsing any aspect of religion, one way or the other.
It is impossible to teach history without including religion.
You are confusing issues.

I also find it difficult to understand how one can be a strong proponent of separating church and state and then wanting to include any endorsement of "God" in public education.
You want it completely separate when it comes to "marriage", even going so far as to say the state should deal with civil unions and leave "marriage" to religious entities...yet you say it is a denial of your right to practice your religion when it is taken out of regular, secular education?

There seemingly is a break down of logic...

rericson said...

If I am a parent, and an atheist, and I choose to raise my children as atheists, I do not want them to be taught in a public school designed for the general public, that there is a "god". I have no problem with them being taught that some people believe there is a "God".
I also do not want them to be told that they have to pledge allegiance to the flag, that it represents a "nation under God". Further, I do not want them singled out from their peers as one of the few who do not say these words. I want the words changed so my child has the same experience as every other child....

Guess my children were lucky I was just an agnostic and not an atheist!!!!!!

Pliggy said...

LOL, yes they were "lucky"

"If I am a parent, and an atheist, and I choose to raise my children as atheists, I do not want them to be taught in a public school designed for the general public, that there is a "god".

So if I am a parent, and a Muslim, and I choose to raise my children as Muslims, and I send them to a public school designed for the general public, is it not the exact same violation of "rights" to EXCLUDE Allah?


That is exactly why I say you cannot EXCLUDE God from "public" School. The separation of church and state is the separation of either one of them ruling over the other. If a school truly is "public" then a religious person should be able to bring their Bible or Koran there. If not, it is prejudice.

I am not saying that schools should ENDORSE a religion, but they cannot EXCLUDE "God". To TRY is futile, and is the very reason the schools are in bad shape. "Fear to offend"

"Further, I do not want them singled out from their peers as one of the few who do not say these words. I want the words changed so my child has the same experience as every other child....

In essence you are saying that NO ONE should say these words, even if they want to, just so YOU and YOUR child's "beliefs" are respected. Right? Is that not forcing your beliefs on THEM?

Ron in Houston said...

Pliggy said:

Those who want exclude a "Higher power" are the ones who don't understand the intentions of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Oh really?

Franklin:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...

Jefferson:

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.


Madison:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.


If you really insist on God being taught in public schools then how about the God of GodHatesPolygamy.com?

rericson said...

No Pliggy, it is not forcing my beliefs on anyone. It is eliminating any public endorsement of any belief system. Individuals can believe anything they want. Also, having a bible or koran or any other religious item inone's possesion has nothing to do with what is taught.
There is no reason a school cannot make a reasonable accomodation for students that want/need to carry religious items with them...otr make accomodations for religiously required prayer time, as is the case for male Muslim youngstrs...
Making accomodations is not endorsement...requiring a child to say the words "under God" is an implicit endorsement of the existence of "God". Two very different concepts.
If you are looking for that endorsement, go to an alternative school where that is a known and accepted part of their offerings....

Anonymous said...

Any Religious debate will stand anyone's hair up on your arms. Regardless what religion you are.
I once heard, if you want to keep your friends, don't debate politics, or religion.

rericson said...

In a plural society the breadth of ours, there will never be an agred upon "god/God", never mind that there will always be those who have no "god/God".....
And absent that kind of agreement, it is better to leave "G/god" to parents....
and/or have alternative choices in publically supported education..

rericson said...

Anon...I've heard that one, too....*smile*
I guess I'm a sucker for debate....but I'm tired and ready for a book instead of a computer screen...probably a good thing!

Anonymous said...

For once, I agree with anon.

:)) GB

rericson said...

Darn, GB, I thought it was you!!!
So I for once, agree with Anon, too...or canb at least take a hint....hehehehehe

Pliggy said...

Ron said:

"If you really insist on God being taught in public schools then how about the God of GodHatesPolygamy.com?"

LOL, you mean the God of Christianity? How about the religiosity that Government IS God?

I agree with every single one of those quotes. But I also think it is ridiculous to try to AVOID "God" in SCHOOL, of all places.

Regina, I completely agree with not REQUIRING anyone to say the pledge of allegiance to God and Country. I don't think that is done anymore anyway, the only time I remember doing it was a few times way back in Kindergarten.

I have nothing against Darwinism being taught in school, Evolution is a very interesting Science. I just think that EXCLUDING the fact that "Origins of Species" is still a Theory, rather than a known fact, is in fact ENDORSING a RELIGIOUS belief.

Pliggy said...

And if you didn't want to discuss a religion, you are in the wrong place.

LOL

Anonymous said...

Nephew,

If Texas violated the Constitutional and due process rights of a bunch of Eskimo's, the TBMs of the world would be calling me a filthy Eskimo lover.

You know that I dearly love all the people of the FLDS that I have come to know, and I have no qualms whatsoever with ANY of their teachings and practices, but to me this is a fight about the Civil Rights, the Constitutional Rights, and the Due Process Rights of a group of U.S. citizen's that were trampled into the Texas dust and are now being applauded by bigots and LE jock sniffers that won't see the truth until their doors are kicked in and then they'll wonder what happened to the good old U.S.of A.

Let's face it, if the FLDS had just not moved to Texas and left all them ripe little girls to the good old boys, they wouldn't be so upset at you.

:)) GB

TxBluesMan said...

Pliggy,

Read what Ron said. My comments about treason are not an indictment of your faith, but a historical fact. The Federal Government believed that the Mormons were treasonous, and they used what laws they could to bring them back into the line that they wanted them to follow. Joseph Smith was charged with treason twice. Brigham Young and 64 others were indicted for treason during the "Utah War" in 1857-58 (they were pardoned on the Mormon capitulation to the U.S. Army). Eight were arrested for treason in 1870. The Feds just used the polygamy statute against the Mormons in the same manner as they now use the RICO statute against the Mafia. They couldn't attack it directly, so they attacked polygamy, denied polygamists the vote, and forfeited church property to the U.S. in order to break the Mormon Church.

There are numerous historical studies that point out the same thing, including the one that Ron referenced.

It does not surprise me that you immediately reverted to a racist comment, however.


Reginia,

Ron, Oh, I KNOW we are a "Christian" nation!

The fundamentalists would like you to believe this, but that was not the position of the Founding Fathers... For an example see the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 had a clause that stated:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

This treaty was signed by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate - and was only the third unanimous vote of the Senate.

God is not mentioned at all in the Constitution (not once). In the Declaration of Independence, the terminology used is the same terminology used by Deists, not Christians. For example, Jefferson used the terms "Laws of Nature" and "Natures God" - which were a clearly Deist terms at the time.

Ron in Houston said...

Well, at least "Grandpa Bill" admits it's all about "ripe little girls."

rericson said...

Blues, No wonder you and Pliggy clash so often. You are both equally literal....and it is so frustrating!!!!
Ron and I were talking about how we are a "Christian" nation in all but name...forget the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or any of our other foundational documents...
We're talking about how we actually operate...not what is on paper....
Who have our presidents been????
Who are the majority of senators, even today???
Who are the majority of the CEOs and CFOs of the biggest of the big industries and financial institutions?

Lucille said...

that think the ex Nazi that lives in the Vatican is infallible.

Oh, jeez... How anyone who even pretends to be knowledgeable can make the leap from "apathetic, inactive member of the Hitlerjugend" (the historical fact) to full-blown "Nazi" (which is either due to feeble-minded hysteria or deliberate propaganda) is beyond me.

Dang, I wish there were a decent alternative word for the concept of "hysteria" that isn't misogynist in origin. I hate typing it every time.

TxBluesMan said...

Dang, I wish there were a decent alternative word for the concept of "hysteria" that isn't misogynist in origin. I hate typing it every time.

Try any variation of agitated, delirious, frantic, or panic...

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Regina, clearly I have hit a hot button and after this response I will drop it.

I don't think I was hostile or judgmental. I think there's an interesting inconsistency here, that's all.

I also think most things you call hypocrisy are more innocent than that, and are also merely inconsistency. I don't have a long list of things I've made up mind about concerning you. I have observed an inconsistency that is interesting to me. And yes, contrary to your assertion, characterizing an entire group of people as hypocrites is what you did. "hypocrosy, thy name is... insert group of choice here" is characterizing an entire group and I think it is an inaccurate and unfair generalization, one that could be avoided by examining the underlying assumptions and beliefs behind the actions you dislike.

And I wasn't asking you to *like* proselytizing, but to apply the same standards to understanding it that you do to the FLDS, consider the underlying worldview.

I don't know if you are familiar with Penn of Penn and Teller (a very funny and irreverent social commentary duo). Penn is an atheist. This is how he sees it:
"I don't respect people who don't proselytize. If you believe that there's a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, and you think, 'Well, it's not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward'...How much do you have to hate somebody not to proselytize?"
There's a video where he talks about it here
Incidentally, even if you don't like that one, y'all might enjoy his other stuff if you haven't heard of him before. Penn and Teller are irreverent, amusing, and clever skewers of all kinds of sacred cows.

I am not going to argue about whether or not the foundational belief may be wrong, or the action irritating, but people do it because they want something good for you and not something bad.

Ron in Houston said...

Well, let's see, since this thread started, I've offended some FLDS and now apparently a Catholic.

Maybe I should talk about John Calvin and Michael Severtus just to even out the offense.

I tell you a great medium rare cut from the sacred cow tastes the best.

Ron in Houston said...

Lucille

For 3 days a month in my life hysteria is a very appropriate word....

rericson said...

H.M., Again, your particular spin on what is hypocritical is interesting. I think it's extraordinarily hypocritical to want abject separation of church and state on the one hand, and then want government interference in defing things like "marriage", or "when does life begin", all from a religious perspective. Since these are things that entire groups of people have taken unified positions on, yes, I think the entire group is hypocritical about these things. That is not name calling. It is giving a name to a behavior.
It is one thing to say to someone, "you are a hypocrite.", it is quite another to say, "I think some of your beliefs of hypocritical.".

And again, please don't make the assumption that do not understand the genesis of things like prostelitizing. I don't like it.

As for Penn and Teller, they have never been amongst my fovorite comedians, however they are sometimes mildly amusing. I find them a bit tame.
I am more the Bill Mahr , Lewis Black fan club.....

Pliggy said...

Face it blues, your bigotry is one of religion, and yet you call me racist for pointing out the very same type of bigotry aimed at a race that you defend. You seem to be blinded to the fact that you hold a double standard. One for your race, and one for my religion. If my statement is racist, your statements are bigoted.

I know a bit about Mormon history, you think that treason was the "cause" of the difficulty between the Mormons and the secular government, but I know the truth, and you are exactly backwards. Joseph Smith was charged with treason not because he had done anything treasonous, the first time he was only a preacher, and held no government title. He was charged because his enemies hated his religion. They even used that trumped up charge to hold him in prison so they could murder him.

The Utah war was called "Buchanan's blunder" for a reason. Wikipedia actually has it fairly accurate
The Mormons had been driven out of their homes several times from Ohio to Illinois, and yet the apostates were still the only people believed by the non-Mormon. The twisted lies of apostates had given them an excuse to deny the rights of innocent people to practice their religion based on their own prejudice. Prejudice was considered "proof".

It is not news, it is exactly what has happened time and time again. It is exactly how they could convict an innocent man who performed a religious ceremony between willing participants RAPE.

The charges of treason were false, and never proven. But of course "charging" and conviction is the same thing to most of you, IF you already align yourself with the anti-Mormon crowd. Bigotry is what I call it.

Pliggy said...

And by the way, I said I agreed with those quotes of Ben Tom and James, but I only agree in the context of the United States Government, not the seperate government of religion.

And by the way, Deists worshiped God.

Ron in Houston said...

Pliggy

I wouldn't say, as a general rule, that deists "worship" God. They believe that there is a power behind creation (the phrase often used is the "watchmaker.") However, deists tend to reject holy books, miracles, and other super natural occurrences in favor of using reason to find a path to God.

It was a pretty broad movement back in its time with numerous variations. However, belief in a God does not automatically translate into "worship."

Pliggy said...

To worship God is to pray. In a loose definition "worship" means "love"

Susan said...

I have removed a blog by "Susan"

I did so because the way she presented her ideas and opinions was in very angry, inflamatory language. Language that fuels angry responses and breaks down the ability to discuss. Polarizing language.

The gist of what she said is:

Even if FLDS members and their supporters care to ignore things, terrible actions have occured in the FLDS community. An example is a woman choosing to leave but having to leave her children behind, only to return to get her children and find they had been assigned to another mother and were not with their father.
This is the truth. And there is nothing mean or hateful about the truth.

-------
Regina that is NOT what I said.

I personally know a woman who when she defied the order to marry her young daughter to an old man was "punished" by being sent to a "house of hiding" euphenism for flds prision, her younger children were placed with other women. She has since escaped from the "house of hiding" and is still trying to get custody of her children. They are NOT with her husband but placed against her will with other families.

Ignore the truth and erase my post if you will but it happened and continues to happen.

When the trials happen and all that is hidden is revealed, remember Susan told you the truth.

Pliggy said...

And Susan is full of bovine feces, so much so that it is leaking out her ears.

RIchard Endwright said...

Regina,
You deleted Susan's comment but not this one?

"And Susan is full of bovine feces, so much so that it is leaking out her ears." Al Holm

Must be a true sign of Solomonic sagacity that only the pure of heart can see.

About Me

My photo
First I am a mother, and grandmother....that is probably the single most important aspect of my life. Then I am a family advocate for a large, national advocacy organization. I work primarily in "systems advocay", helping to identify needs and change policies in children's behavioral health. And I love my dogs, my garden, my pond and fish, and trashy murder mysteries and the occasional shot of good scotch.... Fell free to post a note in whatever the most recent entry is...I love meeting new people!

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed