Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[william.scherk]

What allows these atrocities (by the state of Texas and the so called "CPS" agencies) to be perpetrated is the circulation of stories like the pure inventions repeated by William. There is no basis in fact in any of it. Simply someone with an ax to grind making up slander. If you believe that the Mormon church engaged in selective breeding for an "obedience gene" then you ought to believe that the moon landing was a hoax or that the US government blew up the WTC.

It's not clear what are the 'pure inventions' you take issue with.

It is clear that Jeffs maintains the family planning in his realm of obedient subjects. If you take issue with the metaphor of selective breeding and the other notions introduced by FLDS apostate Isaac Wyler in the Arizona Times story, I don't know why. Wyler was excommunicated last year -- he is an insider. He notes some facts about the Jeffs sect. Jeffs is the broodmaster, so to speak. He moves the people from place to place. He arranges the marriages and plans the communities. He is ultimately in control of the arrangements that result in all the begettings and begattings. I took a certain sardonic humour from Wyler's crack about 'selecting for obedience,' because in essence it is true: He is a people farmer for god. He breeds the 'sweet' females to the tractable males, and discards the disobedient. Inside the wisecrack is reality.

I spent time as a child as a ward of the state, both in an orphanage and various foster homes. Then my father managed to get us placed with relatives who happened to be Mormons.

[ . . . ]

My grandmother was the child of a man with three wives and thirty-six children. Blame the success of the Mormon missionaries overseas coupled with the desires of many hardy souls to immigrate to the United States. These people are not given to obedience.

I am happy that you had happy memories of the Mormons in your life. These aren't the people in question. The folks ruled by Jeffs have not been Mormons for a long time. As for the bits about 'where they get the women,' this is not the case in the FLDS. The growth in numbers does not come from new adherents and the excess males are expelled on one pretext or another.

It seems like you don't accept the testimony of folks like Wyler and others who have lived in the sect.

[Mikee]

William,

"It's not clear what are the 'pure inventions' you take issue with."

The "brainwashing", "breeding for docility", "expelling unwanted males". I'm surprised that you accept all of these claims uncritically. My first thought is no one can prove that actual force is being used against any of these "FLDS" members so it becomes necessary to degrade them to the status of children or mentally deficient so as to justify whatever force is necessary to eliminate them. It is obvious that the goal of the state of Texas is to obliterate this group whether or not the majority is guilty of anything or not. There is no group of any size that does not have at least one or two members that engage in lying, political backstabbing and sometimes outright illegal and immoral acts. The proper thing to do is identify these individuals and deal with them.

The early effort by the federal government to eliminate polygamy in the LDS church was preceded by lurid articles in eastern newspapers and magazines and books resulting in demands that "something be done" to stop what was going on. Very few of these stories had any basis in fact. The federal government agents accomplished rounding up hundreds of Mormon men, some of whom weren't even married, and imprisoned them sometimes for months without trial by using paid informants (sometimes disgruntled ex-church members) to identify the polygamists. This left most of the farm work necessary for the survival of the families to the women and children. Men who weren't rounded up went on the run and in some cases were never reunited with their families, as was the case with my great-grandfather. None of this was done for the good of the Mormons but purely to satisfy the "sensibilities" of non-Mormons 2000 miles away and for political purposes.

Personally I don't care what sort of groups people chose to associate themselves with as long as they are peaceful. I don't see anything immoral about practicing polygamy or any kind of marital or non-marital arrangements with or without children. I believe every culture, every family, engages in "brainwashing" their children, meaning, teaching them what their parents believe, and at some point the children reach an age where they make up their own minds. That's just the way it is. The alternative, "The State", removing children and teaching them some sort of "Public Culture" i.e.: "accepted TRUTH", is unacceptable to me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The alternative, "The State", removing children and teaching them some sort of "Public Culture" i.e.: "accepted TRUTH", is unacceptable to me.

Mike,

In general, I agree with your position of live and let live. However, I do not see your statement above as the only alternative. My objection is not teaching one way or the other way, but limiting the intellectual exposure of children. I get concerned when a group limits exposure to ideas, at least those in generally available communications media.

I saw up close in Brazil what education did to tinpot dictators. I see the Internet toppling one dictatorship after another in a manner much more effective than any army. None of this has been directed by a central authority. (On the contrary, the authorities go crazy trying to shut down free or easy access to information.) Exposure is enough.

Exposure of children to mankind's intellectual wealth is the rights issue I believe is at stake. What they do with that wealth is, as is right, up to them. I do not condone organized and premeditated denial of such exposure.

Michael

[ginny]

Absolutely, Michael. Keeping children from getting an education is indeed abuse. I was (unfortunately) raised by a mother who was raised in prenazi and nazi Germany. Those good folks didn't put much emphais on learning, quite the opposite. A good body was the standard. A good mind was to be ridiculed. My mother could never read or write in either German or English. I learned first hand how that affects a person. There was , in effect, no truth. There was only whatever she felt and believed. Mother hated my reading and inevitably ripped my precious book to shreds because they were "bad." (Just like the FDLS leaders preach that all outside knowledge is bad.) So if a person has no education, how are opinions to be formed. It's whatever you fell like, deuces wild..

With Mumsie, it could get funny at times. When we moved to the US, we lived in Charlestown, Mass. I started learning American History. Something on TV one day prompted me to call out to my father (an American) "Dad, how did Paul Revere get from Charlestown to Boston?" I couldn't remember which way he'd ridden by horse and which way he'd gone by boat. Without giving Dad a chance to answer, Mother yelled, "You really don't know anything. He used the subway, like everyone else!" Nothing I said could dissuade her, even though she hadn't a clue who Paul Revere was. She simply KNEW the answer.

So yes, I think these kids were abused. The first thing any dictator does is cut off any source of information but his own.

[Selene]

Mormon missionaries are the only people wanting to convert me (plus census takers) who knock on my door I don't drive off with a whip.

--Brant

Ahh, a man after my own heart! About 6-7 years ago, a knock on the door of our house in Queens County New York. It was the house I grew up in from 1951 till I started teaching at Queens College.

It was an outsourced census taker who began by attempting to have me take the long form census.

I, courteously, explained to her that she was only permitted to make "a count" of the occupants of this house, in order to apportion Congressional Districts.

She was not happy.

So she went to my neighbors house who were immigrants from Taiwan. One of their children is a brilliant piano player. I have known him since he was born. Hearing him play Chopin as the sun set spectacularly on a spring evening is part of what made my community a "little small town" in NY City.

I elected to follow the census taker down the block towards the park, introducing her to the members of our community, as I was explaining to my neighbors that the only constitutional question she could ask is, basically, how many people live at this address.

Needless to say by about the eighth house, her manager drove up and got in my face, which was a really poor choice for him to make.

So yes whips are a necessary tool.

I can remember a wizened, frail West Virginia woman who let my friend and I sleep in her barn one night. Over the campfire, she said, "Boys, avoid strong drink cause[sic] it could make you shoot at a revenuer ....",she cackled, "... and miss!".

My kind of girl.

Adam

[Selene]

Absolutely, Michael. Keeping children from getting an education is indeed abuse. I was (unfortunately) raised by a mother who was raised in prenazi and nazi Germany. Those good folks didn't put much emphais on learning, quite the opposite. A good body was the standard. A good mind was to be ridiculed. My mother could never read or write in either German or English. I learned first hand how that affects a person. There was , in effect, no truth. There was only whatever she felt and believed. Mother hated my reading and inevitably ripped my precious book to shreds because they were "bad." (Just like the FDLS leaders preach that all outside knowledge is bad.) So if a person has no education, how are opinions to be formed. It's whatever you fell like, deuces wild..

With Mumsie, it could get funny at times. When we moved to the US, we lived in Charlestown, Mass. I started learning American History. Something on TV one day prompted me to call out to my father (an American) "Dad, how did Paul Revere get from Charlestown to Boston?" I couldn't remember which way he'd ridden by horse and which way he'd gone by boat. Without giving Dad a chance to answer, Mother yelled, "You really don't know anything. He used the subway, like everyone else!" Nothing I said could dissuade her, even though she hadn't a clue who Paul Revere was. She simply KNEW the answer.

So yes, I think these kids were abused. The first thing any dictator does is cut off any source of information but his own.

Ginny:

Every time I hear these narratives/testimonies I realize how lucky my upbringing was.

That type of consistent negative reinforcement does real damage.

My problem is not that "any particular" that we can demonstrate objectively would be defined as "abuse" of a child, it is giving real power to the state to selectively enforce that power. Additionally, incrementally, we broaden the definition "range" of what constitutes "abuse", until anything but a "perfect" home will not "fit" into the "paradigm mythology" that childrearing is an exact science.

Ceding that type of power to the stat is fatal, in my opinion. Unfortunately, morally, I have to deal with that yes children will slip through freedoms cracks.

The horns of a dilemma.

Adam

[william.scherk]

William,

"It's not clear what are the 'pure inventions' you take issue with."

The "brainwashing", "breeding for docility", "expelling unwanted males". I'm surprised that you accept all of these claims uncritically.

I didn't use the word "brainwashing." I don't like the term. It doesn't tell us much about the mechanics of maintaining a closed system of thought.

It's not brainwashing to instruct your children in your values and impose a discipline. It's not brainwashing to instruct your children that Warren Jeffs is god's prophet on earth and to discipline those who would doubt it. It's not brainwashing to instruct your children that the outside world is evil. It's not brainwashing to instruct the girl children in the sacrament of celestial marriage, and to impose it.

"Breeding for docility" wasn't used by me or Wyler, rather 'breeding for obedience.' And the context is the power of Warren Jeffs to tell his people with whom they would breed. It looks like you don't accept the metaphor that Jeffs has a hand in the actual breeding lines of the families. I don't understand this. This is the power that has maddened other polygamist sect leaders before Jeffs.

The metaphor of 'selection' is apt because of the effect of culling from the program those who are not conforming. The metaphor is sharper when you see the actual genealogy of the intersecting polygamous sects. I thought the point is sharpened by the presence of fumarese deficiency in the FLDS.

As for "expelling unwanted males" being somehow a pure invention, I wonder if you deny that young males are excommunicated/dumped from the FLDS. Or if you deny that Jeffs has the power to dissolve marriages and to compel his menfolk to leave the flock.

As I noted in a response to Ellen above, I cut my teeth in online discussions during the rise and fall of the recovered memory/satanic ritual abuse hysteria in the 90s. I have a fairly well-developed BS detector.

My first thought is no one can prove that actual force is being used against any of these "FLDS" members so it becomes necessary to degrade them to the status of children or mentally deficient so as to justify whatever force is necessary to eliminate them.

Proving that actual 'force' was used doesn't matter if the issue is underage marriage. The brides are children. The argument against the overweening state and a wholesale child-snatching needn't dismiss the crimes that have been proved against this sect.

Mike, it sounds like you have ruled out as false all charges of underage marriages. I don't understand this.

It is obvious that the goal of the state of Texas is to obliterate this group whether or not the majority is guilty of anything or not.

It's arguable that the goal is obliteration. Rationally, the best any state can do, be it BC, Utah, Arizona or Texas is enforce law.

There is no group of any size that does not have at least one or two members that engage in lying, political backstabbing and sometimes outright illegal and immoral acts. The proper thing to do is identify these individuals and deal with them.

Agreed. I hope the revulsion you feel for the raid is separate from the revulsion you feel for the practices of the FLDS. One or two members who commit illegal and immoral acts may be the men in power.

The early effort by the federal government to eliminate polygamy in the LDS church was preceded by lurid articles in eastern newspapers and magazines and books resulting in demands that "something be done" to stop what was going on. Very few of these stories had any basis in fact.

This may be true. But how does this pertain to credible charges against Jeffs' sect?

The federal government agents accomplished rounding up hundreds of Mormon men, some of whom weren't even married, and imprisoned them sometimes for months without trial by using paid informants (sometimes disgruntled ex-church members) to identify the polygamists. This left most of the farm work necessary for the survival of the families to the women and children. Men who weren't rounded up went on the run and in some cases were never reunited with their families, as was the case with my great-grandfather. None of this was done for the good of the Mormons but purely to satisfy the "sensibilities" of non-Mormons 2000 miles away and for political purposes.

Personally I don't care what sort of groups people chose to associate themselves with as long as they are peaceful. I don't see anything immoral about practicing polygamy or any kind of marital or non-marital arrangements with or without children.

Marital arrangements conjoining underage girls with chosen brethren? I don't think you would go that far.

I believe every culture, every family, engages in "brainwashing" their children, meaning, teaching them what their parents believe, and at some point the children reach an age where they make up their own minds. That's just the way it is. The alternative, "The State", removing children and teaching them some sort of "Public Culture" i.e.: "accepted TRUTH", is unacceptable to me.

Are these real alternatives? Is the only choice to leave the arrangements in situ on the ranch, or massive state intervention? Does this advocate a laissez-faire carte blanche for parents -- and zero state interest in the rights of children?

Mike, I think it is possible to argue vigourously against state intrusion while not whitewashing the ills and evils of the Jeffs operations.

[Brant Gaede]

William, uh, then what is brainwashng?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

BTW, William, generally very good post!

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "As I understand it, the way this cult defines womanhood is with the onset of menstruation, which to them is God's signal that the body is ready for procreation. I don't think the issue of pedophilia in the sense of sex with pre-menstrual girls is at stake.On the contrary, I imagine this cult would harshly condemn that practice as morally reprehensible in the strongest terms possible"

Michael, many girls menstruate by the age of ten or eleven. Do you think they are old enough to have sex and be mothers? But whatever the case, what is crucial to this issue is that young girls, whether ten or fifteen -- or even if they were grown women -- are forced into having sex through these so-called marriages; that's why the state has the right and the obligation to intervene.

"The USA was founded by religious sects trying to get away from those who made laws against their beliefs. I can't help but see a parallel here."

I see no parallel. It's not their beliefs they should be tried for, it's for the actions they take against children in their charge.

"The sexual problems of this cult are polygamy and underage marriage. It is not a cult of orgies, rampant child abuse or anything like what is normally portrayed. Extramarital, premarital and homosexual sex and masturbation are grounds for excommunication within that cult. Underage girls are only forced into sex if the man marries them, and then it is considered as part of the marriage vows. "

I won't argue with you about the formal definition of pedophilia, except to say that in common usage it does refer to sex with chilodren and not merely with pre-puberty chiuldren. But to say that underage girls are only forced into sex if the man marries them does not begin to justify the practice; the fact remains that they are forced.

"I see the main problem, hands down, as being cult mind-control. The effects—underage marriage, family discipline by corporal punishment, power jockeying by demonizing this or that person, trading sex for power, etc.—are simply effects. And all the scare headlines about pedophilia, etc., do nothing but draw attention away from the real solution.If the state exists to protect rights, then it has to get to the core problem.. . . I don't see any other way out except for intervention by authorities into a cult when gross misalignment with our laws and rights is at stake. I hope I do not shock too much by the following suggestion. China had infamous reeducation camps. I think the mechanism is a good one, albeit it has gotten a bad name because the Chinese government used it for indoctrination and not deprogramming. I see something like this being used as a reasonable measure (at least this is my suggestion). I would not like the idea of being confined for 2 years or anything like that, but something like a month-long separation from family once a year for, say, five years, with obligatory attendance of classes showing other religious beliefs and concepts of heaven and hell, the moral and legal foundations of our country, group dynamics and mind control, etc., would go far to weakening the power of the people in control of the cults."

Wow, Michael, you do shock. "Reeducation camps?" You rightly said that people came to this country to escape persecution for their religious beliefs -- but now you seem to be suggesting incarceration of these particular cultists precisely for their religious beliefs -- plus demanding that they renounce their beliefs. Even if the idea were legitimate, who would do the reeducating? Which appointees of the state? Catholics? Jews? Muslims? Who would draw up the curriculum? And what if for some internees the reeducation didn't take? Would they be further punished? This idea, besides being wrong in itself, is the slipperiest of slippery slopes. It's based on the implicit sanction of the view that the state has the right to decide which ideas taught to children constitute "mind control" and which do not. Well then, what about children educated in Catholicism, and taught that they may eat the body and drink the blood of their god. Should they be sent to reeducation camps? And Muslim children who are taught that women are inferior to men. What camps for them? And Objectivist children who are taught that there is no Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy, and no God? A camp for them run by religious statists? And, of course, the next logical step would be the imposition of censorship -- that is, the state prohibition of the dissemination of those ideas the state deems would lead to the formation of cults (which would mean those ideas which might lead to the formation of groups of people who objected to the prevailing ideas of the culture.) .

If we value our lives and our freedom, we must keep the state out of the realm of ideas

"Incidentally, when evaluating the TV performance of highly-placed sect acolytes who are scared out of their wits with all of the sudden attention and not used to public speaking, it is easy to imagine that the entire body of people is that way. But that would be a very limited and incomplete source. I would be more interested in seeing these people within their familiar environments, not in front of a camara crew, before labeling them robotic. I suspect that they have moments of laughter and enjoyment in their daily lives along with the cult lockstep. . . . When I look at the physical evidence, I don't see diseased-ridden people or maimed victims without limbs or with visible scars and so forth. I certainly don't see anything like the pictures of victims from WWII concentration camps. On the contrary, I see healthy individuals who live into old age—both men and women."

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking. It is in that sense brain-washed people become robots, mouthing the words and ideas they have been taught to mouth. The deadliness of a cult it that, by controlling their beliefs, it makes its victims into executioners, it make them willing and able to commit, in the name of whatever god the cult worships, the kind of crimes that do result in maimed bodies and in concentration camps and in twisted souls.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

If we value our lives and our freedom, we must keep the state out of the realm of ideas

(snip)

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking. It is in that sense brain-washed people become robots, mouthing the words and ideas they have been taught to mouth. The deadliness of a cult it that, by controlling their beliefs, it makes its victims into executioners, it make them willing and able to commit, in the name of whatever god the cult worships, the kind of crimes that do result in maimed bodies and in concentration camps and in twisted souls.

Barbara

Well put.

Alfonso

Edited April 30, 2008 by Alfonso

[Ellen Stuttle]

(snip)

If we value our lives and our freedom, we must keep the state out of the realm of ideas

(snip)

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking. It is in that sense brain-washed people become robots, mouthing the words and ideas they have been taught to mouth. The deadliness of a cult it that, by controlling their beliefs, it makes its victims into executioners, it make them willing and able to commit, in the name of whatever god the cult worships, the kind of crimes that do result in maimed bodies and in concentration camps and in twisted souls.

Barbara

Well put.

Alfonso

Hm. I'd say it's rather inconsistently put: first, the state has to be kept out of interfering with what cults teach (which was the context of the first quote) and then how deadly are the interferences of cults with thought, which sentiment would seem to justify interference in what cults teach. ??

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

If we value our lives and our freedom, we must keep the state out of the realm of ideas

(snip)

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking. It is in that sense brain-washed people become robots, mouthing the words and ideas they have been taught to mouth. The deadliness of a cult it that, by controlling their beliefs, it makes its victims into executioners, it make them willing and able to commit, in the name of whatever god the cult worships, the kind of crimes that do result in maimed bodies and in concentration camps and in twisted souls.

Barbara

Well put.

Alfonso

Hm. I'd say it's rather inconsistently put: first, the state has to be kept out of interfering with what cults teach (which was the context of the first quote) and then how deadly are the interferences of cults with thought, which sentiment would seem to justify interference in what cults teach. ??

Ellen

___

I differ. The state has to be kept out of the intellectual business. Definitely.

Are cults deadly - yes, but does this justify the government to use force to prescribe that they not teach something which is wrong? On what basis?

I far prefer to have the cult be legally able to spew its (dangerous) nonsense (and having us free to rebut the cult) as part of the price we pay in a free society for not having the GOVERNMENT DECIDE what one is free to say and teach.

Alfonso

[Ellen Stuttle]

I differ. The state has to be kept out of the intellectual business. Definitely.

I certainly wasn't disagreeing with that, only registering that I think Barbara's second statement as worded leaves the implication hanging that the state should interfere to break up a cult.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

I differ. The state has to be kept out of the intellectual business. Definitely.

I certainly wasn't disagreeing with that, only registering that I think Barbara's second statement as worded leaves the implication hanging that the state should interfere to break up a cult.

Ellen

___

Where this all gets sticky is . . . the circumstances when the state can legitimately interfer. Applying NIOF, it would seem that the state can interfere to stop (and punish) violence against people, including cult members. This would, in my judgment, include 10-year old child brides - whether physical force was applied, or intimidation, . . .

Alfonso

[Ellen Stuttle]

Where this all gets sticky is . . . the circumstances when the state can legitimately interfer. Applying NIOF, it would seem that the state can interfere to stop (and punish) violence against people, including cult members. This would, in my judgment, include 10-year old child brides - whether physical force was applied, or intimidation, . . .

Alfonso

In such cases, though, the interference would pertain simply to the particular actions, not to the cult-nature of the group. I.e., cult-busting, as was done in the FLDS case, wouldn't be allowed.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Where this all gets sticky is . . . the circumstances when the state can legitimately interfer. Applying NIOF, it would seem that the state can interfere to stop (and punish) violence against people, including cult members. This would, in my judgment, include 10-year old child brides - whether physical force was applied, or intimidation, . . .

Alfonso

In such cases, though, the interference would pertain simply to the particular actions, not to the cult-nature of the group. I.e., cult-busting, as was done in the FLDS case, wouldn't be allowed.

Ellen

___

I agree about interference being with particular actions and not to "cult-nature." That's easy to work out on punishing those who are engaging in the criminal actions. Now, what would be reckless endangerment on the part of the parents of a 10-year old girl in such an environment? That is tougher to reach a crisp answer on, at least for me.

Thoughts?

Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I am afraid that I have either been unclear or you have misunderstood me.

On the reeducation idea, my point is to expose young minds to other ideas, not force those ideas on them. The only reason I think the state should use force is because force is already being used by the cult to keep access to other ideas out.

You asked about Catholic, Objectivist, etc. I was not discussing a system of ideas or a culture, but offering a suggestion for dealing with a cult. As I understand it, Catholic, Objectivist, etc., do not use force to keep other ideas away from children. Cults do. That is the fundamental difference and I think it is a mistake to dismiss it in an analysis.

In my world, you counter ideas with ideas and force with force.

If ideas are being imposed by force, you use force to remove the imposition and, if need be, use force to ensure exposure to other ideas (at least for a time).

I did not see you address this distinction nor how to deprogram a cult member. I want to make it clear that I do not endorse enforced indoctrination and I think your characterization of my argument as such showed how poorly I must have expressed myself. On the contrary, my suggestion was for an enforced neutralization of force-based indoctrination. From where I see it, there is no ideal solution that will 100% meet any moral principles or political rules. There has been too much damage done and rebuilding is always messy. We are not dealing with standard human beings in this case. We are dealing with damaged people.

I think the basic value has to be preserve as much intelligent life as is possible in that context, not follow this rule or that rule just because it is a rule.

Here is a question. What do you suggest should be done with these psychologically maimed kids? Taking them from their mothers and throwing them into the hell-hole of Texas child care services (like has been done) is simply jumping from the pan into the fire. And what do you suggest doing with men who were born and raised in that culture who married young wives thinking they were being virtuous? I am talking about those who have otherwise lived productive lives of peace. Throw them in jail alongside murderers, thieves and rapists?

Are you suggesting that this is a solution for preserving any kind of rational value? If so, I fail to see what that value is.

But this is what the state is doing and intends to do more of. I don't see it as a solution at all. I see it as just more mess on top of mess.

The only solution I see is exposing the cult members to outside ideas and letting time work its magic. For those who resist accepting the law and continue to deprive children of access of information and force them into underage marriages, after such exposure they can then reasonably be considered accountable to the law because they have been exposed to it and reasonable efforts were made to make sure they understood it.

Leaving them alone is not a reasonable effort at exposing them to other ideas where they have been deprived of that by force over years. After you train an animal by force, his continued obedience cannot be considered volition. He needs other training to break the bond. This holds true for elephants and human beings.

I am against using harsh punishment against the ignorant. I prefer education, then accountability. I am not against harsh punishment of the volitionally guilty. For them, I endorse providing education if they seek it, but that is not essential and should not impact their punishment.

Your comments seem to imply that you endorse harshly punishing both the ignorant and volitionally guilty in equal measure, removing any and all cult children involved from their parents (by force), regardless of situation, and tossing education aside as not bearing on the issue.

I know that can't be right, but that is how it sounds so far from what I have read.

Here is where we agree (and I have not written anything to suggest the contrary):

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking. It is in that sense brain-washed people become robots, mouthing the words and ideas they have been taught to mouth. The deadliness of a cult it that, by controlling their beliefs, it makes its victims into executioners, it make them willing and able to commit, in the name of whatever god the cult worships, the kind of crimes that do result in maimed bodies and in concentration camps and in twisted souls.

So what do you suggest we do with these people? Try to salvage what can be salvaged, let them continue to be executioners in the name of freedom, or dump them somewhere and forget about them in the name of protecting the children?

I don't see any other alternatives.

My vote is for salvaging what can be salvaged. It will always be that and I don't see myself changing that view without some really compelling reason.

Michael

[Selene]

Adam:

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking. It is in that sense brain-washed people become robots, mouthing the words and ideas they have been taught to mouth. The deadliness of a cult it that, by controlling their beliefs, it makes its victims into executioners, it make them willing and able to commit, in the name of whatever god the cult worships, the kind of crimes that do result in maimed bodies and in concentration camps and in twisted souls.

So what do you suggest we do with these people? Try to salvage what can be salvaged, let them continue to be executioners in the name of freedom, or dump them somewhere and forget about them in the name of protecting the children?

Out of curiosity, has any member of the forum had any personal relationships or friendships with anyone who has "escaped" or left a cult?

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

A) But whatever the case, what is crucial to this issue is that young girls, whether ten or fifteen -- or even if they were grown women -- are forced into having sex through these so-called marriages; that's why the state has the right and the obligation to intervene.

B ) If we value our lives and our freedom, we must keep the state out of the realm of ideas

Except if B's "ideas" include justification of A.

To generalize, I think it's pretty simple, or should be.

A) We define a list of basic human rights.

B ) The state stays away unless something in A is violated.

For example, the preaching of the inferiority of women is a violation of A. Undeage sex/marriage and so on.... No Religious freedom can ever supercede anything in A. Free speech, like shouting 'fire' in a theatre, cannot violate anything in A without penalty. Reeducation? It need only involve depregramming where not in alignment with A.

Doesn't seem that complicated at all to me. We just need to make a list for A. The biggest problem is actually developing the courage as a state to say "screw you" to religious idiots who violate basic human rights.

Bob

Edited April 30, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

(snip)

If we value our lives and our freedom, we must keep the state out of the realm of ideas

(snip)

Michael, the deadliness of a cult is not that it physically maims its victims or infects them with diseases, not that it deprives them of any moments of joy, not that it causes its victims to be indifferent to their children. It's that a cult stops its victims from independent thinking. It is in that sense brain-washed people become robots, mouthing the words and ideas they have been taught to mouth. The deadliness of a cult it that, by controlling their beliefs, it makes its victims into executioners, it make them willing and able to commit, in the name of whatever god the cult worships, the kind of crimes that do result in maimed bodies and in concentration camps and in twisted souls.

Barbara

Well put.

Alfonso

The state is thoroughly suffused with ideas just as people are and just as people are suffused with their sexuality and personalities.

If the state of Texas did wrong then the age of sexual consent in Texas is wrong.

Qua sect, the most irrational thing is it's too small, causing inbreeding. Generally speaking it's not much more nuts than all the other irrationality that surrounds us. Consider the gross abuse of children by public education which at least wastes 12 years of their lives and leaves undevoped, immature, subservient and damaged minds in its wake.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The choice I see for the children—in reality—is to leave them in the cult and watch the girls get married way too soon and many of the boys become exommunicated and turn into bums. Or turn them over the child care and watch them turn into professional prostitutes and bandits. It's a hell of a choice.

There has to be another way. I stand by leaving the children with their families, but enforcing access to information and other ideas, and this includes educating the adults on the law, then enforcing it. I suggest this because I think it is viable with the authorities if presented by a politician in Texas and I think it would go far in undermining (or at least neutralizing) the cult.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

The choice I see for the children—in reality—is to leave them in the cult and watch the girls get married way too soon and many of the boys become exommunicated and turn into bums. Or turn them over the child care and watch them turn into professional prostitutes and bandits. It's a hell of a choice.

There has to be another way. I stand by leaving the children with their families, but enforcing access to information and other ideas, and this includes educating the adults on the law, then enforcing it. I suggest this because I think it is viable with the authorities if presented by a politician in Texas and I think it would go far in undermining (or at least neutralizing) the cult.

Michael

This violates basic American legal jurisprudence which focuses on individual, not collective crimes. Reeducation camps is what happened in South Vietnam when the communists took over.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This violates basic American legal jurisprudence which focuses on individual, not collective crimes. Reeducation camps is what happened in South Vietnam when the communists took over.

Brant,

And removing children from mothers for alleged collective abuse doesn't violate the same basic American legal jurisprudence? Why is that an acceptable alternative?

btw - I am not suggesting Communist-style reeducation camps. I am trying to find a form of keeping the children with their mothers and neutralize the cult at the same time.

Any suggestions?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

This violates basic American legal jurisprudence which focuses on individual, not collective crimes. Reeducation camps is what happened in South Vietnam when the communists took over.

Brant,

And removing children from mothers for alleged collective abuse doesn't violate the same basic American legal jurisprudence? Why is that an acceptable alternative?

btw - I am not suggesting Communist-style reeducation camps. I am trying to find a form of keeping the children with their mothers and neutralize the cult at the same time.

Any suggestions?

Michael

Why is it your business to "neutralize the cult"? Or a state interest? Is the age of sexual consent appropriate in Texas? Is it 16, 17 or 18? What should it be? The authorities get one phone call and they go on a mass fishing expedition. The dominant culture says childhood will be prolonged with something called adolescence put into enforceable statutes. Is this cult a benefiary of welfare? If so, we have the state ironically subsidizing contemned behavior--whatever that really was/is.

--Brant