Polygamist convicted of abusing 16-year-old 'spiritual wife'

[canetoad]

Source: WA Today (Western Australia)

The first polygamist sect member to face criminal trial following the raid at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in West Texas last year has been convicted of sexual assault of a child.

Jurors on Thursday took a little more than two hours to convict Raymond Jessop, 38, of sexually assaulting a teen with whom he had a so-called "spiritual marriage".

Jessop allegedly has nine wives. He faces a bigamy charge, but that case is to be tried later.

The girl in the assault case, now 21, was previously in a "spiritual marriage" with Jessop's brother before being "reassigned" to Jessop when she was 15, according to documents seized at the ranch. She became pregnant at age 16.

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/world/polygamist-convicted-of-abusing-16yearold-spiritual-wife-20091106-i1gq.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. America is a brutal uncivilized country. it's no wonder we kill civilians all over the world.

We accept prison rape as a good thing.

I think we are,as a society, just as fucked up as the people we put in jail.

That's my opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I don't agree

with the latter, but I share your disgust with the acceptance of prison rape as part and parcel of 'punishment' and a 'good thing' in any way. Shouldn't be allowed, tolerated, or even really joked about, because it's a sign we don't run our prisons in any sort of humane way. (Which would include education, and work training so we can cut down on that recidivism rate)


From a non-celebratory perspective, the poster you are responding to is technically, most likely, correct. Child rapists tend to have a harder time than most in prison. Some form of honor among thieves, I guess.

[winyanstaz]

8. I dispise a child rapist and think they should never ever be released..

But I also think prison rape is just as bad as any other kind of rape and should NOT be tolorated in any way, shape or form.
I think that the rapists use the excuse that they are raping a child molester as an excuse for their own actions

[sabrina 1]

4. I agree with your opinion ~

Our prison system is a disgrace, it violates all human rights laws on a regular basis and it reflects the violent society we live in. Rather than protesting rape in prisons, it's sad to see people so frequently on left blogs, encourage it. No other industrialized country is as badly in need of prison reform as the US.

You are right about how easy it is for US citizens to get behind the killing and torture of civilians in foreign countries. If we don't stop it ourselves, sooner or later someone else will.

[Wizard777]

10. Everybody has their kinks.

Some people probably think it's not kinky to fantasize about people being raped in jail if they do it while pretending to be God. :puke:

[marshall]

11. I'll see your opinion about America, and raise it to an opinion about the entire world

We're ALL screwed up, not just America. Men and women are brutal savage cruel beings, capable of unspeakable horrors.

[marshall]

101. It's not just an American thing

This goes on everywhere--we just like to imagine we are above it.

[pnwmom]

5. Eleven more trials to go. I wonder how many children and women

have been under the control of these 12 men? This man alone had nine wives.

But suppose they had, on the average, only 4 wives each, and each of those wives had, on the average, only 4 children. That would mean 12 men controlling 192 of the children.

Thought about it that way, the raid on the ranch doesn't seem so outrageous after all. Half of the children there have fathers charged with some type of abuse.

[harmonicon]

9. "wives" isn't even the word for it

These girls and women are held as slaves. Notice how they can be "reassigned". That doesn't sound like marriage to me.

[pnwmom]

29. You're right of course. People who can be "reassigned" are slaves. n/t

[imdjh]

38. Then that would be true of any culture which has arranged marriage.

[harmonicon]

41. not in the least

These women, once "married" to one man can be reassigned by the church to be married to another. In an arranged marriage, it is arranged for both parties, and is still a marriage - that is, the people are expected to have a marital relationship, not one of master and slave. Check out "Under the Banner of Heaven" to see what these fundamentalists are about.

[imdjh]

45. I'm aware of the scenario, and see it only as a difference of degree.

[sudopod]

69. So do you think this is ok

Or are you against religion in general?

I'm a freshly minted heathen, for the record.

[imdjh]

79. Define OK. Do I approve of what the Amish do to children? No. Do I accept that the constitution..

... protects it? Yes.

And yes, I am now against religion in general. I used to try to make exceptions and allowances on merit or lack of harm, but it appears that it's all or nothing, as you can easily observe in those DUers who defend Islam.

[pnwmom]

88. In most cultures with arranged marriages, both members of the couple can decline.

But you're right for some cultures. Among the Taliban, for example, marriage of a girl there probably does amount to slavery. Also in any culture where a girl is exchanged for a payment, and is expected to work it off in marriage.

[Hubert Flottz]

6. "Family Values" strikes again!

Say Amen Somebody!

[Xenotime]

24. Exactly! What will those fundies think of next..?

[keroro gunsou]

68. . . . .

amen somebody.

[No Elephants]

7. About damned time (no pun intended).

[Hepburn]

12. Texas polygamist sect member found guilty of sexual assault

Source: CNN Justice Breaking News

(CNN) -- A polygamist sect member arrested following last year's raid of a west Texas ranch was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting an underage girl with whom he had entered into a "spiritual" marriage, the state's attorney general said.

Raymond Jessop was found guilty of assaulting a girl under the age of 17, and is expected to be sentenced Monday, said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the attorney general.

Jessop, a member of the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, faces up to 20 years in prison.

The girl was among more than 400 children seized from the ranch in April 2008 by state child welfare workers. The children were returned after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state had no right to remove them and lacked evidence to show that they were in danger of abuse.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/texas.polygamist.convicted/

---

Good. The pictures I saw of his "wedding" to one of the under-aged girls was disgusting. It looked more like it should have been the picture of a dad with his daughter dressed for her first communion and not for her wedding.

JMHO

[Hepburn]

13. Some Disgusting Evidence from the Trial:

We are talking, IMO, a disgusting POS:

One of the most damning pieces of evidence presented in court was a written record of Mr. Jeffs’s instructions in August 2005 not to take the girl to a hospital even though she had been struggling in labor for three days at a clinic on the ranch.

“I knew the girl, being 16 years old, if she went to the hospital, they could put Raymond Jessop in jeopardy of prosecution as the government is looking for any reason to come against us there,” Mr. Jeffs was quoted as saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/us/06polygamy.html

[Jim__]

17. Is Mr Jeff being prosecuted?

It sounds like his instructions endangered the girl's life.

[Hepburn]

18. Not sure....but that is a good question. n/t

[scarletlib]

97. He, Warren Jeffs, is already in prison as an accomplice to the forced marriage

and rape of a 14 yr old girl at their one time Utah settlement. Her name was Elissa Wall & she just recently wrote a book about her life in the sect. She escaped & her willingness to go to court has helped to bring this practice of underage child brides & reassignments into the public light.

[imdjh]

19. It's disgusting that they wouldn't take her to the hospital...

... but the underlying problem is that the state is out to get these people and using the state's discriminatory marriage laws to do it. It would be perfectly legal for this man to have been married to that girl, had she been his only wife.

[Wizard777]

28. That's typical of persecuted groups. Slaves in the underground RR weren't taken to hospitals either

[enlightenment]

47. Not really.

If she was sixteen when she had a baby, she was probably fifteen when she was 'married' off to this man. In Texas, the legal age of marriage without consent of parent or guardian is eighteen - under the age of sixteen, it requires a court order from the state.

So, yes, he might have been able to 'legally' marry her, but not without a lot of questions asked first.

But all of that is hardly the point, unless you're thinking that religious freedom includes blithely breaking the law in a wide variety of ways, which is what was going on at that facility.

[amandabeech]

59. Letting that girl continue with a painful 3-day labor is unbelievably cruel,

and to do it to cover up for a creep like this is just sick, sick, sick.

I hope that girl leaves the church and establishes as much of a normal life as she can for herself and her child(ren).

[Odin2005]

14. Good. May he rot in a jail cell!

[Hepburn]

16. That works for me....

...when I read about how he allowed a 16 year old child to go through 3 days of labor without medical aid ~~ to save his sorry ass ~~ I hope to hell the judge takes that into consideration on the sentencing phase.

[imdjh]

20. It would have been legal for him to be married to her, had she been his only wife.

[imdjh]

15. As much as I despise Mormons right now, there isn't enough info in the article to decide the case.

It simply says "under the age of 17" and leaves to our imagination how old she might have been. Had she been 16 or perhaps even 15, then this would appear to be a case of selective prosecution because the state doesn't recognize the marriage, whereas had he married her in a courthouse or another state, then no crime would have been committed. That's not acceptable, regardless of our personal feelings on Mormons or age differences. If it's legal for a 50 year old to marry a 15 year old in Vermont, then it should be legal in Texas.

[Jim__]

21. Mr Jeff's remarks cited in post #1 make it clear that the sect knew the state would not sanction ..

... the marriage.

It depends on Texas state law as far as marriage and statutory rape. But, if the marriage should have been recognized by the state, then the defense attorney surely would have raised that point. There is no indication in either article that the defense made that argument.

[imdjh]

22. That's the point. The conviction is an abuse of the law for political purposes.

We can reasonably assume that this girl was married with the consent of her parents. At her age, in Texas, it would be legal for her to marry a 38 year old man with the consent of her parents. But because Texas doesn't recognize the Mormon sacrament of marriage, then this marriage was not only illegal, but the man has been convicted of a sex crime. Any way you slice it, that's not right.

[pnwmom]

31. No state in the country recognizes a plural marriage. So your argument about

consistency holds even less water.

[Wizard777]

34. That doesn't make it right.

If every state in the nation supported and provided for the extermination of Jews. Are you going to jump on board that genocide train? Everybody is doing it so there can't be anything wrong with exterminating Jews. At least that's what Germany thought. Believe it or not there are just some things that not even the majority can do in a democracy. If the FLDS were smart they would charge everyone involved in the raids with Genocide in federal court. They are a protected group under US Genocide laws. Those involved did take the children from the group and give them to another group. That's an open and shut case of genocide.

[imdjh]

36. You have a strange definition of genocide.

[Wizard777]

49. Mine is the legal definition of Genocide.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001091----000-.html">US Code: Title 1, Part 1, Chapter 50 A, 1091. Genocide

[imdjh]

50. So by your definition, locking up the entire Westboro Baptist Church would be a genocide?

[Wizard777]

52. If it is intended to destroy the group in whole or in part. Then yes it is.

[LanternWaste]

51. Minus the relevant analysis of...

"Mine is the legal definition of Genocide..."

...minus the very relevant analysis of "intent" and "motive" by the state of TX; and also lacking the relevant and deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s *physical* survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services-- all of which have been and are being provided (something the leaders of the compound did not themselves provide to members on many cited occasions)





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/cppcg/cppcg.html

[Wizard777]

54. They only need to show intent to destroy in whole or in part.

Are you trying to say Texas does not intend to destroy this group for practicing the Polygamy called for in their religion? If only to prevent the polygamy from occurring.

[LanternWaste]

56. Intent and motive are legally different terms.

Intent and motive are legally separate and different terms. Both need to be proven, not merely illustrated.

I'm not trying to say anything other than unless and until that happens (as well as other rungs on the ladder), calling it Genocide is an opinion rather than a fact. You may call it what you wish, regardless of the relevant parts and parcels you dismiss, omit or ignore.

[Wizard777]

63. The law only states intent.

Both intent and motive cannot be concretely proven. They can only be represented or illustrated. The prevailing school of thought on intent is that a person intends to do exactly what they have done. Maybe you didn't intend to make that silly assertion? I'm not quite sure who's sails that would take the wind out of. Maybe both of us.

[LanternWaste]

64. proven within the confine of the court-- yes.

Proven within the confines and the context of the relevant courts-- absolutely .

Regardless, you may hold onto your subjective opinion that the state engaged in genocide, simply realize that it is merely a subjective opinion you have labeled as such, omitting relevant information (all cited in above link s provided) from the actual context of the definition as set forth (and debated) by the U.N.

[Wizard777]

66. The UN determines the meaning in International Law. I'm citing US Code.

Which is now on par with International Law. It used to be that there was a 5 year statute of limitations on Genocide in US Code. That has recently been removed. There are no statute of limitations on Genocide in US Code now. Just like in international law. There is no omission of any relevant information. If would have proceeded against individuals they would have an argument against Genocide. But they didn't. They acted against the group as a whole forcibly removing their children and giving them to another group. Undoubtedly Genocide.

[boppers]

85. Bringing down the Mob: Genocide?

Criminal groups are not protected classes, regardless of whether or not they're claiming religious protection for their crimes.

In this case, there was a ring of pedophiles and bigamists, claiming religious protection of their pedophilia and bigamy. The state intervened, and removed suspected perpetrators, and victims. The state did *not* try to destroy the group, they went after those in the group involved in crime, and removed those needing protection.

[pnwmom]

89. The children were removed from the home only until child abuse investigations

were completed. This has nothing to do with genocide, and everything to do with child protection. The FLDS thought they were above the laws that apply to everyone else, and they weren't.

[imdjh]

35. So that means that justice was done here?

[maglatinavi]

40. imdjh

Are you nuts???:yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :hide: :hide: :hide:

[imdjh]

46. I prefer to think of myself as objective.

[Raksha]

94. I prefer to think of you as a Mormon with an agenda.

You're the only one here defending this creep.

[sudopod]

70. To be fair, the consent the girl and her parents was extracted under duress

The conversation might not have gone exactly like this, but it does serve as a rough estimate.

Pedo: Can I marry your daughter?

Father (because women get no say, so make me a sammich!): I'd rather you didn't.

Pedo: My close relation is the Prophet and Voice of God. If you say no he'll reassign your wife, you'll be cast out of the church alone and penniless, and you'll go to Hell to burn forever.

Parents: Well, ok.

A similar argument can be made with respect to the girl in question:

Pedo: Can I marry you?

Girl: I'd rather you didn't.

Pedo: My close relation is the Prophet and Voice of God. If you say no you'll never see your family again, you'll be cast out of the church alone and penniless, and you'll go to Hell to burn forever.

Girl: Well, ok.

Any way you slice it, that's not right.

[mbperrin]

25. It is unlawful to have sex with anyone under the age of 17 in Texas, unless

they are married. The defense offered to stipulate that they weren't married during the trial.

Perhaps you're unaware that states have sovereignty to decide their own laws. But if one gets to boss others, why shouldn't Vermont have to follow Texas' lead?

FLDS aren't Mormons, anyway. They're a hate group.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=24

[Wizard777]

27. Texas didn't have a problem in the world with 50 year old men having sex with 14 y/o girls.

When it was just their Uncle Pervy doing it. But the second the FLDS came to town and this was part of their religion. Suddenly they had to change the law to prevent or punish these people for practicing their religion. The legislative record of the debates concerning the change in law proves that.

[pnwmom]

32. Their religion sanctified preying on children. The state had a responsibility

to act. And in the process, they realized their laws needed to be updated. The age of 14 was set hundreds of years ago.

[Wizard777]

33. Not by the biblical standards of any religion. Except maybe Baha'i.

They require their followers to obey the law of the land. I once asked a member of the Baha'i faith what if they were in a country that outlawed the Baha'i faith? He said, then we are not Baha'i.......until we cross the boarder. All Major religions place adulthood at puberty. Not a numerical age. Now the state knows better than God Himself? I'm sorry but man was not created by Texas nor the USA.

[pnwmom]

86. That's not true. The Catholic Church, for example, discourages full Confirmation

as an adult member of the Church until the age of 16 or 17, which is well past puberty. While they haven't updated their official allowed marriage age in the U.S., they have in many other countries of the world (some requiring a minimum age of 20). And I know no U.S. parish that would allow marriage at the age of puberty.

And it's not relevant either. None of the major Churches in the US, while they have had their own problems with abuse of children, has made it into the equivalent of a Sacrament.

Not that any of these girls in polygamous slavery were ever legally married. Marriage was just a name and a framework for preying on girls.

[smaneck]

100. Baha'i beliefs

Baha'is don't go that far. We will not deny our religion
because it is illegal, however we will disband our religious
organizations where they have been banned such as in Iran. The
Baha'i marriage age is fifteen but I personally know of only
one Baha'i who was married that young and she was living in
Iran at the time, where the marriage age for girls is 9!

[imdjh]

37. The age of 14 in western culture stems from Mary being 14 at the time she got pregnant.

AT least for the last 12 centuries, 14 has actually been considered a bit young for noblewomen, but fell within the range of social acceptability. I think that 18 became the norm both because women were physically stronger and more capable for child bearing, as well as more noble having been adults for 4 to 6 years but preserving their virginity.

[pnwmom]

87. It hasn't been socially acceptable in most areas of the U.S. for decades, at least.

And not among Catholics either. The minimum marriage age for Catholics varies by country -- and officially you're right, it's still 14 here -- but in some countries it's as high as twenty. But few Catholic priests here would ever allow a 14 year old to get married, and NONE would suggest that a couple should subvert state marriage laws with a higher minimum.

[boppers]

90. Vatican State age of consent is 12

If there's a prior relationship of dependence (like a teacher/student) it's 15.

I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of Catholic belief, untempered by secularism, the Vatican being their religious state, and all.

[pnwmom]

91. The Vatican State age of consent is irrelevant to the vast majority of Catholics

around the world. The Church in each country has set its own minimum age requirement. And, as I said, no mainline Church in this country, Catholic or otherwise, encourages its members to break the law with underage marriages or bigamous marriages of any age.

[Retrograde]

92. At least in NYS, you need a valid state marriage license to get married in a Catholic church

The Church can officiate, but it's that piece of paper from the state that makes it legal. At least that was the case when my sister got married - I had a purely civil ceremony myself. It's that whole "render to Caeser" thing: heed the prevailing laws.

[Retrograde]

93. Um, how many female Vatican City residents are there anyway?

Children of the Swiss Guards, maybe, but most of the Vatican's citizens aren't into reproducing. At least there not supposed to be.

[boppers]

95. Female? Huh? I thought we were talking about age of sexual consent.

Do you *really* want to go down this road?


edit: My bad, the thread was about marriage, so while a 40 year old priest sleeping with a 12 year old boy is technically legal, marrying said boy would be prohibited.

[mbperrin]

44. The FLDS is a hate group. They are not a religion. They lied when they

bought their land about what they would do with it. They lie about polygamy. They lie to get welfare they're not entitled to. They lie to kick young boys out because they don't need the competition for the young girls.

The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks them right along with the Aryan Brotherhood, the Klan, and others. Or maybe those are just persecuted religions, too?

[Wizard777]

48. Actually they are more of a religion than the, ahem, "mainstream" Mormon Church.

These people have not found fault with their prophets and the doctrine of the prophets. That's a funny thing about prophets. They can't be wrong and still be prophets. In fact it's those very mistakes and fallacies that establish them as false prophets and all their doctrine becomes false doctrine. The "mainstream" Mormon Church established there prophets as false prophets when they rejected their doctrine of polygamy. They have rejected being a Godly Church to become a worldly church. The FLDS still believe their prophets and practice their doctrine. So the true Mormon religion is now the FLDS. This is also an attack upon this sect by the Mainstream Church. Because Texas changed their law at the behest of Utah.

[mbperrin]

53. Oh, I see now. You're still entangled in beliefs like some old guy in a white robe

created the entire universe in 6 days, but can't make sure children get health care, or couldn't design his creations so that they didn't need health care, or punished them for falling into a trap he set.

If there was such a person, based on his recorded behavior by his own followers, he either is: psychotic, cruel, or irrational.

Occam's Razor would suggest no everlasting creator needed, an everlasting universe would be sufficient.

So in other words, the FLDS are a hate group based on a correct understanding of their "prophet", right? And all the lying, cheating, defrauding are "good" behavior based on group norms?

Explain to me again why I should allow myself to be harmed by these haters? I don't recognize the existence of a God, their prophet's legitimacy, or the idea of an afterlife. I live in the world I see, and so do they. Why do they get to break the law based on some irrational belief in invisible demons?

[Wizard777]

57. Obviously the Torah is not your book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTWRbt4b0Cc">The Old Testament By A Jew.

You can't go by the Torah if your not a Jew. God kicks them in the teeth every chance he gets. I think it had something to do with a stolen Apple. But he's pretty cool to the other religions. If I had your beliefs about God I would be an atheist too. Yes even as atheist you have beliefs about God. Even it's only that he doesn't exist. It's still a belief about God.

You use of Occam's Razor only creates Occam's Wound. Who created that everlasting universe?

As far as being an atheist is concerned. You are a minority in the world. It's not really a matter of why should you respect an allow religious beliefs. It's still a matter of if religious people should allow your non beliefs to exists.

[mbperrin]

62. Ah, the old power grows from the end of a gun.

So why complain when power is used? It was used to convict a member of a hate group of child abuse.

You should be happy.

Your need for a creator only pushes back the question of who created that everlasting god. It's simpler to stop one step shorter. No wound, simpler solution.

You must agree that all the lying and cheating and so forth is okay, since you did not address it.

Get some age on you and come back when you're through with college, especially a bit of liberal arts.

Until then, good day. Dogma is a poor substitute for reason.

[Wizard777]

65. Only if you wish to reduce it to pure physics.

But I prefer the intellectual path. I'm 77 years old. You're the one that need to take on some years to expand your very narrow view. I'll bet you didn't even know that Albert Einstein's got the inspiration for his Physical theories from the Torah. That idiot thinks the proper way to spell God is E=MC2. LMAO Some people think religion and science conflicting with each other. Then you have people like me that know they absolutely prove each other.

Btw, I haven't seen any hate from the FLDS. But that's all that comes from you. You're ate up with it.

[sudopod]

76. Oh, Albert...

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

[Wizard777]

80. I share some of Einsteins beliefs about God. Except I have found the simplest way to put it.

God not meddling in the daily affairs if humans can be reduced to simplest terms in the word Freewill.

[mbperrin]

78. Well, as my daddy says, no fool like an old fool.

Will you accept the evidence of hate from Jeffs' own mouth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSKHLbxkkec

Better reread your info on Einstein.

[Wizard777]

81. Jeff's believes pure blood doctrine. That's a load of crap as far I'm concerned.

But he's entitled to his beliefs just any other American. As for Einstein my understandings of him and religion as fine. He's one of my many hero's. There are a lot of jews that don't believe in an after life. In that respect his thinking was not unusual or even unique.

[sudopod]

74. I'm not one to do this usually

But let's take this apart piece by piece, shall we?

You can't go by the Torah if your not a Jew...Yes even as atheist you have beliefs about God. Even it's only that he doesn't exist. It's still a belief about God.

So?

You use of Occam's Razor only creates Occam's Wound. Who created that everlasting universe?

I don't know who did, or if anyone did. Maybe it happened through natural processes. It's OK to say "I don't know, the jury's still out on that" and wait for the evidence to trickle in.

It used to be that people used God or gods to explain everything, from why cows mooed to why the sun came up every day. As our knowledge has grown, though, people need God less and less for the purpose of explaining why things are the way they are. He becomes a "God of the gaps" in our understanding. If you're going to have faith, at least have it for real, because if you pin it on the notion that God did everything we don't yet understand, He's going to have an increasing amount of free time as science moves ever onward. We have a pretty good grip on things went from today all the way back to about 10^-32 seconds after the beginning. That's a pretty small space for a Someone to try and make a living.


As far as being an atheist is concerned. You are a minority in the world. It's not really a matter of why should you respect an allow religious beliefs. It's still a matter of if religious people should allow your non beliefs to exists.

Kind of like gay people in California and Maine? Majority rules and all that, just as you say.

[boppers]

98. Wow, you don't know much about LDS, then.

Articles of faith, dude. Number 12.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Even if polygamy was taught as acceptable, and desirable (as it was), before it was made illegal in the US, the first modern prophet (Joseph Smith) of the LDS church made it pretty clear that defying the law was outside of the faith... if the FLDS wants to chuck Joseph Smith out the window as a prophet, well, there's not much "mormon" left in them, then, is there?

[Cal Carpenter]

26. Not if he's already got (allegedly) 8 oither wives though, right?

nt

[pnwmom]

30. The jury that DID decide the case had access to the facts that we don't.

But the crime he was charged with IS illegal in Texas, and that is the state where the ranch is. Just because some other state allows children to marry or allows an older man to sexually prey on a girl doesn't mean they all should. In fact, none of them should.

[KamaAina]

60. This sect is no more Mormon than David Koresh & Co. were Seventh-day Adventists.

The FLDS broke away from the mainstream LDS Church over this very issue.

[LanternWaste]

23. And I recall that just after the raid on the YfZ compound...

And I recall that just after the raid on the YfZ compound, a few of our own, dear, gentle DUers were alleging that TX Child Protective Services were engaging in "genocide", held to that statement and justified it with all they could bring to bear.

About the only time I've allowed myself to get frustrated with DUers, posts, and threads.

[Lars39]

39. Might want to dust off your ignore button...

He's back in this thread. :eyes:

[Hepburn]

42. Yes, I saw a goodly amount of IGNORE on this thread.

Apparently some of us have the same opinion.

[LanternWaste]

43. I kinda noticed...

I kinda noticed. Not that I have anyone on ignore, mind you-- if I did, I'd miss the entertainment value that bias-based justifications and faux-righteous indignation brings.

This time my patience is somewhat more balanced when I listen to Moe, Larry and Curly pretend to argue a case. I'm just along for the ride... :P

[Wizard777]

55. I was one of them. I still hold that belief.

Were you passing out the talking points or handing out the bluberry kool aid? :eyes:

[LanternWaste]

58. Actually.... self delete

I cannot in good conscious allow myself to engage in petulant back and forth insults which bring absolutely nothing to the table.

Not my thing, too happy with life for the pettiness-- have at it, though.

[Wizard777]

61. Now there's something we can agree on.

:-)

[sudopod]

77. Ok, it's genocide according to your reading of the law.

It certainly isn't equivalent to the murder of tens of millions of people, which is what you're wanting people to infer.

[Wizard777]

82. No it's not. Actually this is the first time in this long running debate I haven't called it

"front door Genocide" ot "A(6)Genocide." But it's genocide none the less. Actually that's how it begins even in Nazi Germany. The Holocaust didn't begin with Hitler tossing people out the back door of life. It began with Hitler trying to control who comes in it's front door. Sterilizations and selective breeding. Eugenics became the Nuremberg Laws. You obviously wouldn't have had a problem any of Germany's uses of Genocide. Because it was a matter of law. Just like Texas the Nazi's were only enforcing the law. The Nuremberg Laws. Nothing wrong with enforcing laws, Right?

[sudopod]

83. "You obviously wouldn't have had a problem any of Germany's uses of Genocide."

Obviously

*eye roll*

So it's A-OK for powerful old men to use religion to coerce women in to slavery using the threat of hellfire and expulsion from the community? In what world does that total level of control over that child leave her with the ability to consent to something like marriage? And to think that maybe that this could be construed as wrong or illegal makes me Hitler? Really?

God, you are either a terrible bastard or a troll.

[sudopod]

84. Where the devil did the mods put the banhammer?

I hear ya. This is ridiculous.

[mamaleah]

67. Gee, shouldn't Polanski supporters be cool with this guy?

Oh wait no. This guy isn't a film maker.

[JonQ]

72. We'll have to wait to see if the victim in this case is likewise a prostitute

Mr. Vidal what do you have to say on the subject?

[mamaleah]

75. Yeah where are the big get togethers of Hollywood types to support this man?

nt

[JonQ]

71. I think it would be premature and unfair to blame his religion for this

there could be any number of reasons for this behavior.

Also the yearning for zion church is a fascinating and vibrant church with it's own unique history and culture that we should all try to understand.

I think if we worked harder to understand this group rather than villify them we could remedy what we perceive to be injustices and work towards greater cooperation.

But right now it would be unfair to associate his actions with this wonderful religion that in no way endorses this behavior.

[ZombieHorde]

73. His religion does endorse this behavior. I suspect you are confusing LDS with FLDS. nt

[boppers]

96. I'm thinking a sarcasm tag was missed.

These guys (and gals) are to Mormons what Jim Jones was to Methodists.

[wordpix]

99. "massive homes and a towering temple" - where does this sect get the $$ for this?

snip Historically based around the Arizona-Utah state line, the FLDS bought a ranch in Texas, six years ago, and began building massive homes and a towering temple. snip

:shrug: Are they dealing drugs or what? :shrug: