So, I'm almost torn on this verdict. As disgusting as Jeffs is, fuckin 12-year-olds, it seems like he has a legitimate case of this being a religious scenario. It's a fucked up religious belief, one that the rest of the civilized world has moved well past, but it's religion nonetheless, unabashedly so. And it's not like he invented the religion 2 years ago. It's been around for a while. Hell, they are practically reciting scripture and chanting during some of the stuff.

And, at the same time, you've got young women being arguably victimized. I'm certainly not down w/ pedophilia, and this seems to fit that bill. And yet, 2-300 years ago, marrying a 12-y.o. wasn't uncommon.

I know what tdub's opinion, by and large, will be, but is any one else slightly uncomfortable with where this leads? I mean, it seems to be a fairly huge slap in the face of the 1st Amendment, even if it is disgusting behaviour. Maybe there's stuff I haven't seen, but I've felt this whole deal was politically motivated from the getgo, too.

8/4/2011 10:47:50 PM

Ok, I'll bite, what is the scripture they're are citing.

Also inb4 Disco Stu expands this to all of Christendom.

8/4/2011 10:54:49 PM

I don't know if it was scripture or what. I heard some tapes that sicko made of some of his escapades, and he was chanting shit that certainly seemed to be of a religious nature. And then, after he *finished*, there was a chant of "Amen" from several seemingly female observers. I mean, as sick as it was, it was hard to conclude that there wasn't an element of ritual in it.

I guess I wonder where people here would draw the line. As much as I want to say that this is past said line, I even have a hard time saying that, not that I condone pedophilia. I mean, I even have a problem w/ the gov't stepping in and taking kids away from parents who prefer prayer to modern medicine. And that one seems far more "acceptable" than this.

8/4/2011 10:58:50 PM

This is not pedophilia. Its "child" sexual assault.

[Edited on August 4, 2011 at 11:13 PM. Reason : government defines child differently than this religion. ]

8/4/2011 11:12:55 PM

Quote :

"I mean, as sick as it was, it was hard to conclude that there wasn't an element of ritual in it."

The pagans have ritual, whatever he was doing is not in anyway true to the gospel.

8/4/2011 11:13:04 PM

^ oh, I don't doubt it. But remember, the yardstick isn't "does it conform to Christianity." It would be "is it a bona fide religious act."

^^ ok. so, should the government's definition override this religion's definition? How would you reconcile that with the 1st Amendment? And, in the case that a reasonable law conflicts with a bona fide religion, how do we proceed? Do we just invalidate it in the case where a practitioner breaks it in religious practice?

8/4/2011 11:16:14 PM

Define bona fide religion please. All religions are equally valueless in my eyes, but I'm sure you can differentiate between one that is "bona fide" and one that is a cult. From what I've seen it comes down to number of practitioners.

There are, and frankly should be, plenty of instances when protecting citizens overrides the right to practice one's religion. Ritual torture or human sacrifice are glaringly obvious examples of this, but extending it to things like disallowing non-consensual sex isn't much of a jump. The first amendment offers protection from persecution, but not absolute immunity from prosecution. It's no different than the old yelling fire in a crowded theater vs. allowing a Nazi rally. Both are shitty, only one is and should be illegal.

Personally I think that you can probably draw the line pretty easily at physically harming minors or non-consensual violence between adults. If an adult wants to allow his priest/shaman/god-emperor to flog him for his sins that's fine. Allowing that same priest to do the same to a person under the age of majority is not ok, even if the parent's give permission.

Aside from that I think you have to allow pretty broad latitude, which should extend to things like Rastafarian's smoking pot, Voodoo priests sacrificing goats, Native American's taking peyote, and Catholics serving wine to people under the age of 21.

8/4/2011 11:30:32 PM

Quote :

"Personally I think that you can probably draw the line pretty easily at physically harming minors or non-consensual violence between adults. If an adult wants to allow his priest/shaman/god-emperor to flog him for his sins that's fine. Allowing that same priest to do the same to a person under the age of majority is not ok, even if the parent's give permission. Aside from that I think you have to allow pretty broad latitude, which should extend to things like Rastafarian's smoking pot, Voodoo priests sacrificing goats, Native American's taking peyote, and Catholics serving wine to people under the age of 21. "

8/4/2011 11:35:11 PM

Quote :

"And yet, 2-300 years ago, marrying a 12-y.o. wasn't uncommon."

why does this matter?

8/4/2011 11:47:34 PM

Quote :

"All religions are equally valueless in my eyes, but I'm sure you can differentiate between one that is "bona fide" and one that is a cult."

I don't know, even a cult could be considered "bona fide". And, let's not put a value or lack thereof on any particular religion, as the 1st Amendment does not say that only "religions with value" ar protected.

Quote :

"Ritual torture or human sacrifice are glaringly obvious examples of this, but extending it to things like disallowing non-consensual sex isn't much of a jump."

Unfortunately, I disagree. I could certainly see not allowing ritual torture / sacrifice, unless the one undergoing the torture or sacrifice is also a member of the religion and consents. The problem in this case is that it, on the surface, seems to be non-consensual sex, as you point out. But, the notion of consent is a governmental-defined one, which then puts us back at the beginning.

Quote :

"The first amendment offers protection from persecution, but not absolute immunity from prosecution."

And what would the difference be? If Congress passed a law making it illegal to read or own the Koran, would that mean people could be prosecuted? You'll of course say that that is different, so I'll again ask, how do we tell the difference? Where is the line? Isn't prosecution a form of persecution?

Quote :

"Allowing that same priest to do the same to a person under the age of majority"

And how does the age of majority pass the religious test?

Quote :

"why does this matter?"

why doesn't it matter? It shows that the illicit activity is only so because of a change in sensibilities. It shows that what these people are doing has a basis in tradition an wasn't just made up 2 years ago for convenience. Murder has pretty much always been illegal.

[Edited on August 4, 2011 at 11:49 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2011 11:48:11 PM

Quote :

"Murder has pretty much always been illegal."

what would sacrifices fall under?

and for a dude that is so against gay people, there sure were a bunch of flamers in power 2-3,000 years ago

8/4/2011 11:53:48 PM

no where have I ever said I am "against gay people." I'm sorry that you picked up, but it is typical of liberals to say that someone against something for a group of people by definition hates that group of people. Some of my good friends are gay And, even if I did hate the gays, your point would still be, well, stupid. The existence of gay people would not be a reason to say that it's bad to disagree with their whatever-you-want-to-call-it. It's a good red-herring, though.

But, murder implies a level of non-consent not inherent in a consensual sacrifice. Then again, I don't know how many sacrifices were consensual in the first place, lol.

8/4/2011 11:59:33 PM

I see your argument, burro. Once menarche has occurred they are theoretically women and based on centuries of religious tradition fit to be married. However, from a well defined legal sense, backed up by centuries of British and American law they are not legally adults and so cannot consent. As we have matured as a culture we have decided that while parents have legal control over children they do not have absolute legal authority over them. They can't abuse them, starve them, sell them into bondage, let some guy fuck them, etc.

Fortunately (I think anyway) we are not a theocracy with laws based on bronze age mysticism and a culture with an average life expectancy of 40 years. We are instead a nation of laws based on a tradition of rationality and enlightenment. As we learn more about the human brain our laws evolve.

On the topic of sacrifice... in theory consensual sacrifice could occur. However, I think a prosecutor would likely argue that what is essentially suicide is not the willing act of a healthy mind and therefore not something that could be done consensually. A jury might well agree, and frankly I think the burden would be on the sacrificer to prove that yeah, this guy was completely ok with me killing him.

8/5/2011 12:09:46 AM

Quote :

"Some of my good friends are gay "

your bigotry must be closeted around them or they wouldn't be your friends anymore

come out, come out, wherever you are~♥

8/5/2011 12:10:25 AM

I didn't realize calling something religious made it legal. Good to know.

8/5/2011 2:01:02 AM

Quote :

"Allowing that same priest to do the same to a person under the age of majority is not ok, even if the parent's give permission."

Which raises the question, what is the age of majority? Post Bar-Mitzvah a 14 year old boy is considered an adult by Jewish tradition.

8/5/2011 2:05:00 AM

Legally it varies by state. Realistically age is a shitty way of determining a person's ability to make an informed decision. On average I'd say people start being capable of realizing the implications of a decision beyond the immediate short term around age 14-16. Not sure what science e there is on this subject, but that's my totally unscientific wild ass guess.

8/5/2011 3:08:42 AM

Quote :

"why doesn't it matter? It shows that the illicit activity is only so because of a change in sensibilities. It shows that what these people are doing has a basis in tradition an wasn't just made up 2 years ago for convenience. Murder has pretty much always been illegal."

What about slavery? Just a change in sensibilities, right?

Quote :

"It's a fucked up religious belief, one that the rest of the civilized world has moved well past, but it's religion nonetheless, unabashedly so. And it's not like he invented the religion 2 years ago. It's been around for a while. Hell, they are practically reciting scripture and chanting during some of the stuff."

You know what's disgusting to me? You're implying that some prick is above the law and free to abuse girls as long as some other pricks also have a long history of abusing girls.

8/5/2011 8:44:41 AM

Your soul can belong to God/Jesus/whatever deity you believe in, but your ass belongs to the legal system.

8/5/2011 9:22:39 AM

I love being called out on post 2. Hilarious.

Quote :

"I know what tdub's opinion, by and large, will be, but is any one else slightly uncomfortable with where this leads? I mean, it seems to be a fairly huge slap in the face of the 1st Amendment, even if it is disgusting behaviour. Maybe there's stuff I haven't seen, but I've felt this whole deal was politically motivated from the getgo, too."

I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you think maybe his actions were ok because "RELIGION".

LeonIsPro, that is the contribution religion gives to us. Non-rational thought justified by unproven mysticism.

And get over your persecution complex. Last time I checked this country was overwhelmingly Christian.

Also this:

Quote :

" It was another exciting day in the Warren Jeffs trial yesterday as prosecutors played tapes of Jeffs telling young women how to please him sexually—as the polygamist leader shouted objections over the recordings. First they played a clip of Jeffs teaching two of his new “spirit wives,” one of whom was then 14 years old, to be “honorable vessels, property of your husband’s kingdoms” and to “draw close” to him—the church’s euphemism for sex, according to the AP. Jeffs objected a half-dozen times to that one, saying it was protected under religious privacy rights. But things got really heated when prosecutors played a second tape in which Jeffs instructs 12 “young ladies” in the art of drawing close. “You have to know how to excite sexually and be excited. You have to be able to assist each other,” Jeffs is heard saying. He also instructs them on shaving their pubic hair. Jeffs stood up and shouted objections over the recording. “I am but a mortal man seeking peace!” he cried. Eventually, judge, jury, and prosecutors put on headphones to block out his protests. Prosecutors say they will play a third recording, reportedly of Jeffs having sex with a 12-year-old, before resting their case."

[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

8/5/2011 9:32:50 AM

Quote :

"arguably victimized"

Behold the self-inflicted moral confusion caused by our hesitancy to criticize certain types of worldviews.

[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ]

8/5/2011 9:59:43 AM

Heh aaronburro is "almost torn" over child sexual abuse

8/5/2011 10:00:48 AM

knocking up a 12 year old is sick in and of itself. Knocking up 15 of them and holing them up in single-wide trailers, putting them on welfare and food stamps only to take the money from them and force them into impoverished sexual slavery, and then kicking out the male offspring so that the female population stays artificially inflated - that's a crime against humanity.

8/5/2011 10:36:40 AM

Not if it's religiously inspired, though. Then it's a troubling conflict of aaronburro's beliefs.

8/5/2011 10:49:37 AM

goddamn aaronburro you fucking weirdo.

8/5/2011 11:48:14 AM

TBH guise there was an element of ritual in it.

8/5/2011 12:34:43 PM

Quote :

"Heh aaronburro is "almost torn" over child sexual abuse"

8/5/2011 12:35:03 PM

Okay I'm gonna make a huge mistake here and actually address some of these points.

Quote :

"should the government's definition override this religion's definition?"

Yes.

Quote :

"How would you reconcile that with the 1st Amendment?"

The 1st Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while practicing religion; it also doesn't allow you to rape children while exercising your freedom of speech. The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while bearing arms. The 3rd Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while not letting the army live in your house. The 4th Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while not being searched illegally. Do I really need to go on?

Quote :

"And, in the case that a reasonable law conflicts with a bona fide religion, how do we proceed? Do we just invalidate it in the case where a practitioner breaks it in religious practice?"

Of course we don't invalidate it. Don't be fucking stupid. Furthermore, what in the hell business is it of the government's to decide what is and is not a "bona fide religion"?

8/5/2011 12:42:20 PM

What's the point of law if it can be superceded by religion?

8/5/2011 1:24:24 PM

8/5/2011 2:29:32 PM

It's on thing to be a legally consenting adult, free to believe in whatever religion and participate in religious rituals.

Its another to be a child and have no rights or say and be FORCED into "religiously justified" abuse.

This is a infraction on the childrens 1st amendment rights.

There is no case for this man here.

If it's even slightly debatable that this is ok by biblical standards or religious rights, then this is just further proof that morality is not dictated or taught by religion. I know this is WRONG and I'm athiest!

On a side note:

Native Americans are not allowed to use Peyote during their sacred ceremonies as this was outlawed as an illegal drug by the Gov't and many lawsuites have been filed saying that the banning of Peyote infringes upon the 1st Amendmant Rights. This has been shot down time and time again by the Courts.

Are you justifying this man raping 12 year olds is ok since his Bible says it is and his religious rights should be somewhat protected?? While other benign rituals have been shot down??

[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ?]

8/5/2011 2:52:38 PM

These kids are not forced and no physical harm is done. They are actually "lucky" to be chosen for sex with the prophet and are continually asked how they feel and if they are ok during the process (heard it on the video). This is only a matter of social construct and this culture bumping heads with the governments idea of pretending teenagers are kids for the sake of further educating them to build a more educated, first world society. Its a sticky wicket though.

8/5/2011 4:15:16 PM

^I'm hoping you are joking. Do you think these "kids" would have chosen to be in this community and participate in these rituals if they hadn't been raised in it and brainwashed from a very young age?? Do you think they would tell the truth when asked during these rituals and physical encounters if they are "ok" when they have been told that they are "lucky" to be there. No. Of Course not. They have been primed and conditioned to accept it. Even if they don't like it they would never say anything to the contrary. Cult Psychology 101.

You cannot suggest that a 12 year old has the maturity to decide what is in their best interest and what is good for their well being and health.



[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2011 4:20:50 PM

If boning twelve-year-olds was okay in the Dark Ages, who are we to say otherwise? You are now committing temporal imperialism.

8/5/2011 4:26:19 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/warren-jeffs-prosecution-_n_916968.html

Quote :

"On the recording, Jeffs was heard saying, "you have to know how to excite sexually and be excited. You have to be able to assist each other." At another point, quoting God, he says, "Each one who touches me and assists each other will have my holy gift." "

8/5/2011 4:50:35 PM

Quote :

""On the recording, Jeffs was heard saying, "you have to know how to excite sexually and be excited. You have to be able to assist each other." At another point, quoting God, he says, "Each one who touches me and assists each other will have my holy gift.""

That's it, I'm really fed up with this. Where is this in scripture? Just because this sinful man claims it is from the Bible does not make it so. There is nothing in all of scripture that says this. So don't you go and say that he is quoting God, just so that you can attempt to spin a negative light. If your going to make such a claim you better give me something more than the term "quoting God." I guarantee whatever scripture he will claim this "references" says something almost completely different.

8/5/2011 5:27:37 PM

I had no idea that atheists were so keen to embrace closed mindedness.

8/5/2011 5:29:49 PM

Jeffs probably quoted something from Joseph Smith, but here for your reading pleasure is Moses:

Quote :

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Who are we to judge this man's 3000 year old divine revelations?

8/5/2011 5:49:39 PM

Quote :

"^I'm hoping you are joking. Do you think these "kids" would have chosen to be in this community and participate in these rituals if they hadn't been raised in it and brainwashed from a very young age?? Do you think they would tell the truth when asked during these rituals and physical encounters if they are "ok" when they have been told that they are "lucky" to be there. No. Of Course not. They have been primed and conditioned to accept it. Even if they don't like it they would never say anything to the contrary. Cult Psychology 101. You cannot suggest that a 12 year old has the maturity to decide what is in their best interest and what is good for their well being and health. "

Everyone is brainwashed one way or the other. So you are basically saying "would they have chosen to participate in the rituals if they were brainwashed from a young age that it was wrong to have sex before the age of 18?" or somehow a 16 year old having sex with a 12 year old is not harmful but a 40 year old having sex with the same 12 year old is PHYSICALLY HARMFUL.

You cannot suggest that an 18 year old has the maturity to decide what is in their best interest and what is good for their well being and health.

Where do you draw the line? or does the bigger cult always win simply because it has a larger following?

8/5/2011 5:51:41 PM

^The difference between a 40 year old having sex with a 12 year old is that the ADULT is in a position of power and is taking advantage of a younger, weaker person. It’s not necessarily that it's physically harmful (which by the way it can be, should she become pregnant. At 12 there are HUGE risks since she is not fully and completely developed physically). A 12 year old is not fully and completely developed both physically and mentally and thus should not be courted by a mature adult.

A 12 year old, fooling around with a 16 year old is completely different. As long as it is consensual of course. In that case, there is not one person in a position of power over the other. They are on more of an even playing field if you will.

I'm not saying everything is black and white here. There are cases where a 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old and suddenly it's considered rape even when it was consensual sex. In those cases I do not agree that this is rape. When the maturity level is essensially equal then this should be taken into consideration.

There is a huge gap in physical and mental maturity between a 12 year old and a 40 year old.

to add: This "large cult" you are refering to does teach that it is not ok to have sex before marriage. Pretty much the same as don't have sex before you are 18 lol

[Edited on August 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2011 6:10:29 PM

Quote :

"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

I see you too, excel at the construing of scripture to fit your meaning. As opposed to the logical meaning of 'to be your wives, when they are grown, or to be your handmaids" you force the "marry the female children immediately idea, upon something which does not have that meaning.

8/5/2011 6:19:15 PM

You did not help your cause there.

8/5/2011 6:26:52 PM

I'm sorry if you find the ways of the children of Israel in the OT offensive, but that does not really concern me.

8/5/2011 6:28:31 PM

Good to know.

8/5/2011 6:30:32 PM

Quote :

"I see you too, excel at the construing of scripture to fit your meaning. As opposed to the logical meaning of 'to be your wives, when they are grown, or to be your handmaids" you force the "marry the female children immediately idea, upon something which does not have that meaning."

-Kill the male children. You couldn't use them as extra hands? That would be logical.
-Kill non virgin women. You couldn't use them as handmaids? That would be logical.
-Keep the virgin girls for yourself. Hmm... guess the fact that they are female and virgin is a mere coincidence.

You are lying to yourself and you know it.

8/5/2011 7:37:46 PM

Since when is it cool to use women as handmaids?

8/5/2011 9:33:27 PM

way cooler than killing them and/or using them as sex slaves

(cooler or less disgusting, depending on how you see it)

8/5/2011 9:39:53 PM

Quote :

"I didn't realize calling something religious made it legal. Good to know."

eh, not so much. this isn't a case of a guy coming in after the fact and saying "hey, it was religion, k?" They've got years of stupidity lined up in this thing where they have legitimately claimed it as a belief.

Quote :

"What about slavery? Just a change in sensibilities, right?"

Well, given that we have an explicit amendment concerning it, I'd say it's not the same.

Quote :

"You know what's disgusting to me? You're implying that some prick is above the law and free to abuse girls as long as some other pricks also have a long history of abusing girls."

I don't know that that is how I would phrase it, but I can see how you might see it as such.

Quote :

"I'm uncomfortable with the fact that you think maybe his actions were ok because "RELIGION"."

I wouldn't say "OK". I'd say, unfortunately, "protected".

Quote :

"The 1st Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while practicing religion; it also doesn't allow you to rape children while exercising your freedom of speech. The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while bearing arms. The 3rd Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while not letting the army live in your house. The 4th Amendment doesn't allow you to rape children while not being searched illegally. Do I really need to go on?"

Only one problem with this: in the latter 3, sex is completely unrelated to the specific right/privilege being granted. At issue is specifically whether this is rape, as well, or if it is a religious ritual.

Quote :

"Its another to be a child and have no rights or say and be FORCED into "religiously justified" abuse. "

And at what age are we saying the person is a "child"? kind of up for debate, don't you think?

Quote :

"Native Americans are not allowed to use Peyote during their sacred ceremonies as this was outlawed as an illegal drug by the Gov't and many lawsuites have been filed saying that the banning of Peyote infringes upon the 1st Amendmant Rights. This has been shot down time and time again by the Courts. Are you justifying this man raping 12 year olds is ok since his Bible says it is and his religious rights should be somewhat protected?? While other benign rituals have been shot down?? "

Actually, I would look at these as identical circumstances as far as the application of the 1st Amendment is concerned.

Quote :

"The difference between a 40 year old having sex with a 12 year old is that the ADULT is in a position of power and is taking advantage of a younger, weaker person."

Are you suggesting that this same dynamic doesn't exist for a 16-year-old? Because you are sorely mistaken.



One other thing that now bothers me is what they will bring up in the sentencing phase. Apparently they are going to use more accusations of wrong-doing, without actually having proven them. And they are going to use the fact that he "broke up families" to show that he should be punished more harshly. I mean, shit, that last thing, alone, is a blatant violation of 1st Amendment rights, but even then, why the fuck would it matter? He broke up "marriages", what in the FUCK does that have to do in the realm of child sexual assault? Not a god damned thing.

8/6/2011 1:03:00 AM

Quote :

"I wouldn't say "OK". I'd say, unfortunately, "protected"."

Not any better. That you'd think our laws would protect such heinous actions in the name of religion is sickening. That religion even gets such a status is sickening.

8/6/2011 8:24:02 AM

Who would have thought that disco_stu and I would be taking a socially conservative side on this issue compared to that of aaronburro lol. Craziness. I would never have thought this was possible.

We are the largest supporters of Civil Liberties and very Socially Liberal and even we find this as crossing every moral and legal line.

What I don't understand is by aaronburro logic:

Abortion = WRONG (and should not be a protected right)
Raping of underage children in the name of religion = A Protected Right

I guess you can't make sense out of an irrational person.




[Edited on August 6, 2011 at 8:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2011 8:34:55 AM