Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Samuel Wednesday, June 04, 2008 - 12:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope this is not the end of the investigation.  Children were abused in the FLDS and someone deserves to pay for it! http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cost-of-polygamist-case-tops-7-million/20080604093909990002 (reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Thursday, June 05, 2008, 12:29 (Agree/Disagree?) The county said they will still investigate the cult and see if they can find any evidence of child abuse. The state really flubbed up on this one, I think Texas is just one of those states that seem to mess up all the time because of lack of proper communication and management by government execs.  (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, June 04, 2008, 19:22 (Agree/Disagree?) CPS has been interrogating these children for two months without an outcry to show for. CPS has been raping and sodomizing these children ("medical exams" "looking" for signs of sexual assault, performing the same in the process). CPS has put these children through industrial bone scanners. STILL no evidence of abuse. Read the accounts of the first night (April third) of the raid, how CPS and LE forced mothers to bring their daughters one by one from their beds ALL NIGHT LONG to be grilled and felt up by CPS workers. When the mothers didn't bring the girls fast enough to their liking, CPS called the mothers "uncooperative." What does CPS need to do to come up with some sorely needed evidence? I frankly cannot stomach CPS and the Texas government after seeing this utter violation of human rights. If it were any other group (e.g. muslims, inner city blacks) that had their children seized in wholesale fashion, a civil war would have started. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, June 04, 2008, 20:28 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right that if any other group had their children seized in wholesale fashion, a civil war would have started.  However, that would be the wrong way to go about it.  The government is only doing it's job to protect the children from abuse.  This is not a group that was led by a kind, good natured soul who would never harm a bug, this is a group that was led by Warren Jeffs, a federal criminal.  And it had to do with things that he had been guilty of himself.  Therefore, there was definitely cause for the government to act. Yes, Jolifam, medical exams happen.  Learn to deal with it.  Medical exams are supposed to be done by trained doctors and professionals who know what they're doing.  It's not rape any more than the prostate exam I got last year was fondling.  Now, if things were not done properly and someone suffered or was put in pain because of it, then FLDS has grounds for a lawsuit against the doctor or the agency that pays them, do they not?  If these exams have been done properly, then there is a benefit to the child as that child is now recieving medical care.  In my case, I found out I didn't have prostate cancer. By the way, unless you've been camping out at the police station watching them work, you don't know what kind of evidence they have against FLDS, so it would be better in my opinion to say that the results of the industrial bone scanner tests are pending. And just so you know, it is normal for police to do raids in the middle of the night, that way they have the element of surprise, and it is less likely that people inside the residence would be able to "prepare" or cover things up before the raid.  In addition, for all I know, the police could have called the mothers uncooperative for any reason, so it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the mothers failing to get their daughters to the police in time.(reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, June 05, 2008, 05:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, you didn't find it odd that the "prostrate exam" took place at a nighclub, and that although he was dressed as a doctor everyone else there seemed to be dressed up too. There was the construction worker, american indian, and policeman.... Oh well at least you found out you don't have cancer. As Borat said "you mean the man who sucked my cock was gay?" You never can tell with these homos nowadays. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, June 05, 2008, 12:58 (Agree/Disagree?) The Doctor was a woman.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, June 04, 2008, 21:33 (Agree/Disagree?) My friend, nothing you can say will get me to agree that ANY government, Federal, state or local, has a right to wholesale intrusion on 50 families lives, including hauling off children. The Texas government has already been deemed wrong in its removal of children by higher courts. Furthermore, the wholesale medical/psychological examinations and conditional requirements of returning children should be thrown out for the same reason: These were individual households, in which searches and seizures took place without a warrant, and there is no individualized evidence or abuse report to warrant any kind of investigation. CPS and Judge Walther are infringing rights and abusing their powers under color of law. The fact that this has been done only proves that the Constitution can and is being completely disregarded in "special" circumstances in this country. This should get any one's blood boiling. It does mine.(reply to this comment)

from 3jinosos Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 12:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Bottom-Line is: The kids are abused, and they are being sent back to the abusive environment. Yet another case of society failing to protect the innocent. (reply to this comment)

from abused kid Friday, May 30, 2008 - 22:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you that the State of Texas and the US of A give a rat's ass about child welfare.  But I agree for opposite reasons: because they are sending them back. (reply to this comment)

from abused kid Friday, May 30, 2008 - 22:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you that the State of Texas and the US of A give a rat's ass about child welfare.  But I agree for opposite reasons: because they are sending them back. (reply to this comment)

from down time Friday, May 30, 2008 - 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Higher courts involvment shows that knee jerk reactions rarely pay off.  The only question now is: will the FLDS sue the State of Texas? Most likely. hl('http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat'); ; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat Court: Sect children should be returned to parents By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press SAN ANTONIO - In a crushing blow to the state's massive seizure of children from a polygamist sect's ranch, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that child welfare officials overstepped their authority and the children should go back to their parents. The high court affirmed a decision by an appellate court last week, saying Child Protective Services failed to show an immediate danger to the more than 400 children swept up from the Yearning For Zion Ranch nearly two months ago. "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted," the justices said in their ruling issued in Austin. The high court let stand the appellate court's order that Texas District Judge Barbara Walther return the children from foster care to their parents. It's not clear how soon that may happen, but the appellate court ordered her to do it within a reasonable time period. (reply to this comment)

From Another screw-up Friday, May 30, 2008, 22:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Law enforcement and/or lawyers who don't care enough.  Whoever posted the above comment is not a lawyer, or they would not have selected the following in their quote: "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted". All that means is the lawyers on one side did not sufficiently document things. "On the record before us" is used when jurists suspect reality encompasses something other than what the presented evidence does.  When justice might say differently, if law were in agreement with justice.(reply to this comment)

From Jailbird Friday, May 30, 2008, 20:45 (Agree/Disagree?) The authorities are coming out of this situation looking like the idiots that the normally are. Raids based on phony calls, insufficient evidence, painting with a wide brush rather than doing the work required to build a solid case. I also suspect that some form of sexism / inverse sexism is at work here. The judge who ordered te children removed is a woman.  The court of appeals was all male.  The supreme court had one dissenting opinion, the only female on the court. This group has a pretty nasty record of picking up and moving to different states etc. .., so sadly, because CPS didn't do their work right, and the first judge made a horrifically unsound and un-supportable decision to remove all children with little or no evidence which would hold water in court, for those cases of legitimate abuse, the abuser will more than likely be able to skip the state with the minors etc. ...  A little more circumspect behavior by CPS and the judge in question may have been effective in protecting some kids and bringing some abusers to justice.  They've failed, like usual. While I'm not happy with the prospect of this instance being messed up, civil liberties exist for a reason, one would imagine law enforcement and the bench would be able to build cases without violating laws and liberties they're meant to protect. What a mess.(reply to this comment)

from Samuel Tuesday, May 27, 2008 - 07:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Seen these pictures yet, Jolifam? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0527081flds1.html "The so-called prophet lived in a home on the YFZ Ranch, from which hundreds of children were removed last month by Child Protective Services investigators."     (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, May 27, 2008, 22:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually it's known that Jeffs was on the lam in several states, and even dressed differently around the time of the second photo. I'm currently investigating whether the photos are fake. As I posted on a message board: Still you look at the pixels up close and it's pretty apparent to me at least that it hand crafted, most likely through a painstaking paint by select process in Photoshop. What they basically did was lift the girls body and rotate a bit, then the parts that couldn't rotate, they painted freestyle. Very straightforward. Could've easily been faked. Again if you examin the jpeg, Jeff's face looks superimposed over hers (http://www.infaspere.com/jeffskiss.jpg). And if you zoom in their lips don't meet. Frankly, Jeffs face looks like it was handrawn. Also the girl's ear looks fake. Basically, the problem is with the jagged way Jeffs head is superimposed on the girls face (the glow on the forhead, the splices around the nose and lips. The two faces don't blend as they should like in this image: http://www.infaspere.com/otherkiss.jpg So it's fake. Also: I think those photos were fake. Why? Isn't it true that FLDS don't celebrate holidays? Not even birthdays, so why would they celebrate their anniversaries. That's why I think those "anniverary cards" are fake, unless someone can proves me wrong, and show they do celebrate anniversaries. Moreover, the pictures with Jeffs standing side by side with the two females looks innocent enough. The demeanor changes dramatically when they're kissing. I think the kissing shots were photoshopped together. I think we'll find this out eventually, just like the fake consummations in the temple bed, and just like the fake hoax call. ...Not that I don't agree Jeffs is a pervert, but the state of Texas is taking license with his bad reputation to cast guilt on a lot of innocent families, whose children are languashing in foster care. This is their justification for that. CPS doesn't know how to admit guilt.(reply to this comment)

from scarface Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) hey will someone please come too the chat room! (reply to this comment)

from Jailbird Friday, May 23, 2008 - 10:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Yesterday a court of appeals ruled that CPS had acted improperly in taking the children from their mothers. I suspected that this was going to happen.  Civil liberties exist for a reason and the original call was more than likely a hoax. On one hand, I very much disagree with the isolationism of the cult, and the potential for abuse was/is definitely there.  Their leader Warren Jeffs is serving time for facilitating child abuse.  So that should tell one something about the group. On the other hand, I very much distrust political organizations, which CPS and local law enforcement are.  They certainly over-stepped their boundaries in this case and violated a number of due process laws.  It's difficult if not impossible to penetrate these organizations from the outside and building a good case takes time, which they didn't invest, just went in guns blazing. The media is pretty much out to lunch like usual. The sad thing is that more than likely the potential for abuse is still there and owing to isolationism etc. ...  But it's nice to know we still have some civil liberties in this country.   (reply to this comment)

From indeed Sunday, May 25, 2008, 13:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Re: Silent, secretive sect unleashes public relations campaign Yes, taking these babies away from their mothers IS adding cruelty to the suffering of the VICTIMS. And we need to keep in mind that these women ARE victims of pathological males. Have a look at this: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/15469 … h-the-FLDS What We're Not Talking About, Part I: Other Issues With the FLDS by Sara Robinson Orcinus FLDS founding patriarch Rulon Jeffs with his last two wives -- sisters Edna and Mary Fischer -- on their wedding day. He received the pair as a 90th birthday present. ____________________ So far, the wall-to-wall news coverage of the state of Texas's raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints compound in Eldorado, TX has been focused on just a couple of narratives. The first, of course, is the state's dogged and thorough -- and long overdue -- attempt to prove that the church's young women have been systemically sexually abused by the men of the group; and that this abuse is not just rare, but rather an inherent and accepted feature of the group's social order. The other is the cultural curiosity of the sect's women in general. We see them, looking like they just walked out of the 1890s in their bizarre high hairdos, pastel prairie dresses, and sturdy shoes, and wonder how such a group of fossils (let alone tens of thousands of them) could still exist in modern America. It makes for great TV; but I often look at these women (most of whom have never watched TV in their lives), and feel like they're lambs being dragged out in front of media wolves they've never learned to recognize or fear. In a world when all of us seem to be in permanent rehearsal for our own 15 minutes of fame, these women are so unprepared for all this that they're downright fascinating. These are the two current storylines the media is focused on -- at least, so far. In time, though, if the reporters and investigators stick around, they might find other things to talk about. A careful reading of Daphne Bramham's excellent The Secret Lives of Saints reveals that there are plenty of other questions we should be asking about the FLDS -- and months worth of stories we're not hearing about right now, but which need to be discussed and generally understood if the country is going to deal with the group appropriately and effectively. And the country will be dealing with it -- probably for quite some time to come. Throughout its 60-year history, the FLDS has dealt with prosecution (or persecution) by seeding itself into new states, laying down roots for new communities that it can migrate to. (Eldorado itself started out as one of these.) New compounds are coming together now in Idaho and South Dakota; and there are rumors of others being staked out in Colorado and Nevada as well. Hildale/Colorado City may have been effectively taken over by the state of Utah, and Eldorado is in crisis; but with somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 adherents, this is a group that's not going to pass from the American scene any time soon. One of the things we need to understand is just how the FLDS managed to stay so far under the radar for so long -- and what twisted consequences were allowed to follow from that lack of oversight. Bramham shows that they did a stunningly effective job of building their own self-sufficient infrastructure of community institutions -- hospitals, police forces, courts, financial trusts, schools, and employers -- that allowed the church to function without interacting with the outside world any more than necessary. Most of the group's institutions were designed to mimic and supplant outside authority well enough to keep the group (and especially its treatment of women and children) hidden from the prying eyes of outsiders. And, for 60 years, those who were responsible for providing higher-level oversight for all these institutions have almost always been somehow induced to look the other way. In the existing FLDS communities in Utah and Arizona, state authorities have already begun investigations on many of these fronts -- not least because they are the stuff on which further legal battles, and the future of the sect, may turn. However, keeping the FLDS at bay in the years ahead will require county, state, and professional authorities everywhere in North America to stop averting their eyes, stay on their toes, and show a strong willingness to challenge these attempts to build this kind of sheltering infrastructure. And there are other, less obvious reasons we need to be keeping an eye on them, too. Here's the first half of my motley list -- a few assorted areas of interest I'd be poking at more deeply, along with questions I'd be asking, were I a New York Times front-pager, a TV talking head, or a public official in any county or state where the FLDS has set up camp. The list is long, so I'll discuss a few today, and then follow up with the rest by Wednesday. For-Prophet Health Care FLDS communities put a priority on providing as much health care inside the community as possible, so they're not dependent on outside medical professionals. (To this end, pregnant mothers have often been sent to Hildale or Bountiful in their last months, so they can be attended by the FLDS midwives there.) Hildale/Colorado City has its own hospital -- built partly with public funds -- that has employed only doctors and nurses who have pledged their first loyalty to the Prophet. As a result, the group's women and children get much of their primary care from people who feel no accountability to established medical standards of practice, state record-keeping requirements, or any of the existing mandated reporter laws. (Most people in these communities have no idea these laws even exist.) The spotty record-keeping that results is why the state of Texas has made the wise decision to do DNA testing on all the kids: it cannot be taken for granted that their birth certificates are accurate (or, in some places, exist at all). The FLDs has also co-opted mental health services into another form of wife abuse. In Hildale/Colorado City, FLDS doctors have proven quite willing to declare unhappy women crazy. Daphne Bramham found that up to a third of FLDS women are on anti-depressants; and that women who are express acute dissatisfaction with the life have often been committed to mental hospitals in Arizona by the community's doctors. According to Bramham, the fear of being labeled insane and shut away in an institution is one of the most potent threats the community has used to keep women in their place. Of course, this misuse of mental health care has turned into one non-obvious but critically important cultural land mine for the Texas authorities who are trying to figure out how to deal with their FLDS wards. Along with everything else, they're trying to work with women who've learned to see mental health evaluations as tantamount to an incarceration threat -- are thus predisposed to regard gentile doctors or social workers as a mortal enemy. It's not making things easier. Based on this long history, counties and states that find themselves hosting FLDS compounds need to be keeping a close eye on how these communities manage health care. Who provides it? Are they keeping good records? Are they following the law? Do they adhere to accepted standards of care? Are they holding the line as our first line of defense against child abuse -- or are they helping the community hide its abusive secrets? If the state officials in charge of supervising hospitals and doctors had stepped up and asked these questions decades ago, thousands of women and children might have been spared generations of abuse. Cops and Courts: No Law But God's Law Much of the power of the prophets has been drawn from the fact that they historically controlled both the cops and the courts that served the Hildale/Colorado City area. Though these were officially chartered law enforcement agencies and nominally public courts, they weren't concerned with civil law. Instead, their task was to enforce the law according to the FLDS and its Prophet. The people in these communities had no effective recourse to the laws the rest of us live under. They could be arrested, fined, jailed, and have their property seized by nominally "official" cops and courts, acting under full authority of civil government, for violating church laws. Like African-Americans in the slavery era, women who tried to run were captured by these police and returned to their husbands for punishment -- or taken to the hospital for the dreaded mental health evaluation. The police force's main job is to be the muscle that enforces the Prophet's control of the entire community. When the Prophet decides that a man no longer deserves his home, these are the cops who enforce the eviction. Appealing to the FLDS judges has been useless: due process as we understand it doesn't even enter into the conversation. There is progress on this front. The state of Utah began to move against the Hildale police force in 2005, revoking the certification of its polygamous chief. Sam Roundy admitted that he'd investigated over 25 sexual abuse cases in the past decade -- including one that involved the rape of an eight-year-old -- and never reported it to child protection authorities. (He pleaded ignorance of all mandated reporter laws.) However, Roundy was replaced with another polygamous officer who immediately sent Warren Jeffs a letter pledging his loyalty, and I found no word that he's left office since. Later that year, the Utah Supreme Court also disbarred the local polygamous judge, which paved the way for reform of the local courts. But the Saints are now in many places besides Utah; and officials in these other states shouldn't be surprised if they try to hijack cops and courts and replicate this system wherever they go. In Utah, decades of failure to attend to this effectively deprived tens of thousands of people of their civil rights. It can't be allowed to happen again. Death Among the FLDS These communities also bury their own dead (and at least one has its own crematorium), which opens the way to record-keeping anomalies with death certificates -- and ensures that no questions will ever be asked, and no autopsies will ever be performed. Given the genetic instability and volatile control issues within this group, it may not be wise for them to have the means to dispose of dead bodies without official oversight. We need to be asking questions about who's in their cemeteries and crematoria, how they got there, and what kinds of records are being kept. The Fatal Flaw: Inbreeding Takes Its Toll One of the most striking things about the FLDS is that certain surnames -- Jeffs, Blackmore, Fischer, Jessop, Barlow, Steed -- occur over and over again. In a community of over 40,000 people -- many of whom share fathers, grandfathers, or uncles -- the degree of blood relationship between any two people is likely to be very close indeed. In fact, over half the people in Hildale/Colorado City are blood relatives. So it's not surprising that, starting in 1980, the tragic results of three generations of tight inbreeding began to appear. That was the year the first Colorado City child was diagnosed with fumarase deficiency -- a genetic disease so rare that only a handful of cases had ever been diagnosed worldwide. The disease causes severe mental retardation, seizures, hydroencephaly, growth failure, and physical deformities. Two of the FLDS's old-line families, the Barlows and the Jessops, both carry the recessive gene -- which is now present in several thousand FLDS members who trace their descent to those two founding fathers. By the 1990, Bramham writes, the twin FLDS cities had the highest concentration of children with fumarase deficiency in the world. There are also signs of widespread hereditary eye problems among the current crop of children, along with evidence that that the community has a higher-than-average infant mortality rate. Arizona coroners recently -- and finally -- got involved in investigating these. But there's plenty more here for public health officials to look at; and it's becoming clear that the custom of close intermarriage needs to end on genetic grounds alone. ............... From: http://quantumpeace.blogspot.com/ Here in the states, over in God Fearin' Texas in the USofA , we are hearing reports about some 400 odd children who are currently languishing in the custody of the Law through having been judicially separated from their mothers. The children were the progeny of an offshoot of the Mormon religion —FLDS; apparently their fathers believed in (among other things) multiple wives, and marrying younger girls to older men. The story is that a teenage girl called out for help, saying she was forced to wed an older man against her will, and have two children by him by the age of 15. The compound was raided, fathers were carted off to jail, and the mothers and children were staying in custody for awhile. I can heartily agree with breaking this sort of thing up; early (and forced) marriage is certainly not respecting a child's right to both come of age and have a choice in one's life-partner. However, it was recently decided to separate the mothers and children—for their own good, of course. Some of the clearly devastated mothers broke long-standing traditions of years of social isolation to come onto TV to talk about being torn away from their kids. From what I understand of the situation, many of the mothers were born into that system, and were also abused by it. Does it make sense to punish these women by taking away their children? Isn't this a little like blaming the victim? It makes no sense whatsoever to separate a mother and child, if both are victims of trauma. These people, who have been raised to believe that outsiders are a threat to their way of life, will certainly not feel any better about this society, especially since it's fundamental fears have now been newly-founded, as it were. I fear we may find that there is more trouble created as a reaction to this poorly planned intervention—when you separate a loving mother from a loved child, you just create more damage to the psyches of both, and this can in no way be considered a positive effect. If society truly has a better way, surely we can properly educate these now doubly traumatized families. If you must heal the children, you must not steal the children; rather we must find a way to heal these bonds by nurturing both mother and child together. We must certainly educate their men about genetics, at the very least! We must educate them to respect a woman's choice, and a woman's value. It is only in this way that the cycle of abuse and violence is broken. It is an ancient Chinese wisdom passed down from healer to healer— in order to heal the son, you must treat the mother. To cure the daughter, you must heal the father. You don't treat a mother by ripping her away from her child, any more than you treat a child by ripping it away from it's mother. Pornographic perpetrators of violence do these things. Enlightened societies do not. An enlightened society will treat mother and child, father and daughter. An enlightened society will stand close enough to monitor both relationships; if there is a fear of harm, they will be present to guide and lead by example into a better life. If succor is needed for the child, it is needed for the parents as well, and the parent child bond should be sacred. If a 'so called' society insists on irrevocably altering this fundamental relationship, it will do so to it's peril; there is a natural backlash that occurs as the displaced children come of age, and it is these psychically fractured and emotionally traumatized children who are easily swayed into acts of violence and mayhem, and are easy prey for cannon fodder for the corporate wars of state. Nazis, fascists and other totalitarians always attack this fundamental familial bond, for that is the bedrock of the corporate, as opposed to the natural state. The child's natural bond is to family, and the family's to the child. The fascist graft can only succeed when this core value is subverted. When you rip a family apart, you commit psychic rape and torture. When you go to war, it's manifestly physical rape and torture. The looks of the traumatized are glamorously portrayed, like Princess Di, or Brittany Spears, or kept to lower corners of the paper, another statistic of Iraqi orphaned, or splashed across the headlines, like the FLDS. The traumatized can be made to switch this subverted allegiance to the state or other authority, but it still doesn't make it ethical, or even Right. (That's why we Left, for the jokester activists among ya.). An enlightened society would not compound the error that the issue addressed in the first place; If these people needed help, then so be it, it is societies' long stated duty to help them, but these women needed rescue, they did not need to lose their children, and have their social virginity (like their physical virginity) sacrificed to fear one more time. History will judge the success of a society based upon how it treated it's citizens, it's children, and it's resources. (Surely we will be judged as fools for a long time to come, if current events are any indication. Surely there is still time to alter our fundamental condition of folly). Jesus, who is held up as a mark of behavior in Texas, said "suffer the little children to come unto me." I think that meant we should look out for the kids. "What you do to the least of them, you do to me also". I think that means look out for the parents, or the poor and traumatized. I'm pretty sure that "I give you dominion over all the earth" doesn't mean 'I made you the final arbiter and overlord in this life and the next'. Dominion is derived from 'Lord's property' , so we're rather caretakers, aren't we? So, we could very well ask 'how well do you keep your valleys that shelter you? How well do you keep the people who are around you?' We are all linked together on this little tiny ship of Life, our Titanic, as it were. We still have time to slow down our ship of state, or step back from the precipice, and make sure we act in keeping with these fundamental commandments—which all major religions of both the East and West claim sacred . We must keep these commandments at the peril of our Souls, or so we are told. Perhaps we need more than lip service? Over in Palestine and Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, life is a little more stark— there's bombs and madness to contend with. They lose their children every day in ways I can't even begin to comprehend. Surely we can approach these conflicts with the same intent. Heal the children, heal the mothers, heal the fathers. Heal by grouping together, and upholding the family unit, not by separating it and causing more chaos with separation, with guns and warfare. The aboriginals of Australia reputedly tell a tale of Time, which stretches back in their oral tradition for a span of 30,000 years or so. They say one day a rift opened in the sky, and these 'interdimensional beings' came pouring through, and this is where our troubles started, and this is the cause of our wars. It's an interesting story, and bears some thought. What if it were true? What if beings that we couldn't really quite see were masquerading here on earth? What if they could only influence hearts and minds? What better way to conquer than to create situations to get the native inhabitants of the world to look at each other, as if each were the enemy? What better way to ineradicably alter an environment than by the wholesale and misbegotten production of war? There is a war on, it just may not be the one we think we are in. When will this madness stop? When will we stop it? Is it really so hard, to take care of the children? Surely we can all agree to this. Surely we can find a better way. There's still a little time, and still a little place, a time to Stop, and think about it. Take the mother from the child? No, that leads to war. That's so old hat. Don't you know, in a more enlightened society, they take care of the women and children first. Not just your child, not just my child, but all the children, now, all the mothers now, and all the world in time. This is our dominion, this is our care, and this is our keeping. We can lay down our weapons, and join our arms In quantum peace (reply to this comment)

From ichthus Sunday, May 25, 2008, 19:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Im sorry, but what's a "pathological male?" Retarded.(reply to this comment)

from Samuel Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 20:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Someone decided to take decisive action, rather than just posting a poorly written article on a low traffic website.  You may have been right.  However, notice that this judgment from an appeals court was recieved by going through the legal process.  Not by calling the judge a cunt, or ranting about how terrible the government/ Texas CPS is. If it is true that the members of this group are not guilty of abusing children, then I do look forward to seeing them back with their families as soon as possible.  That doesn't mean it's going to happen tomorrow.  With so many members going through the court system, each one entitled to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, the right to question witnesses, the right to due process, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a speedy trial, all that good stuff, this could take a while. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24777095   (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 22, 2008, 22:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you. They are entitled to individualized due process. Dumb cocky judge Walthers corraled them through a kangeroo court that left the world stunned, after which tots were torn from their mothers for no reason other than that the court hath ruled thus, agreeing with the CPS feminazis that have nothing better to do but bear out their baronness on young mothers who have lived to the fullness of motherhood, enjoying all that life, love, children, peace, community, safety can provide far away from the disease-ridden, crime-ridden, immorality-ridden American cities. I know no-one reads this site, but I write to vent my anger, as a sort of catharsis. I've also been posting non-stop to other major boards on this hot topic such as gosanagelo.com and sltrib.com. It's a very controversial topic. But from day one I saw the semblance of Waco, and that infuriated me. I've been a huge Ron Paul fan, and Ron Paul turned me on to the Constitution. I saw this raid and hauling off of 450 kids and subsequent separation from their mothers without individualized evidence of abuse to justify the separation, as a huge affront to the concept of liberty as embedded in the Bill of Rights. I'm glad I'm not alone in that opinion. And I'm overjoyed that the Appelate court agrees with me. I just hope the state doesn't get their way in an appeal to the Supreme court. This tragedy has gone on too long.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, May 23, 2008, 06:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Yo, what's up with all these thumbs downs?  If you have a problem with Jolifam and I having this discussion on his article, then why don't you say something useful for a change?(reply to this comment)

From shikaka Friday, May 23, 2008, 09:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Thumbs down because "....your words are a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes". (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, May 25, 2008, 05:24 (Agree/Disagree?) What?  You reject my challenge to say something useful for a change?!(reply to this comment)

from elisha717 Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 09:53 (Agree/Disagree?) If I were you I wouldn't be bashing the public school system with-out having your own child to back you up on it! You say you left the group but every single one of your views reflects The Family's belief on these different subjects. You sound like one of the kids who left but still carries a mini cultish view in your own philosophy, what you are saying is exzactly the type of BS I was saying 12yrs ago (and definitly before I had my own boy - who by the way is a straight A student -and I have a few girlfriends who have wonderfully bright and well-behaved kids attending public schools). You say that the government doesn't care about children, you are WAY OUT OF LINE! The welfare of children is a very serious issue out here. Do you know how many government grants there are for college kids to get? My professors (everyone of them [except one who I called a lemon] is very concerned about every single one of their students, there are counselors on every college campus [free of charge] where any student can walk in and they are there to help the student get the necessary help needed for them [on an individual basis] to succeed. Do you know how many programs there are? I don't think you have done enough research to give an acurate opinion on this subject. I hope you are not relying on the information you were raised with [which takes a lot of time to undue--you don't even realise how much your thought pattern is groomed by the very people you have tried to leave--it will take years to be able to see things from a more realistic point of view] (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 15:59 (Agree/Disagree?) A good government does not seize well-behaved, well-cared-for children from loving mothers and put them in crappy foster homes for a year while forcing the mothers to prove their innocence. If you aren't familiar with murdurous ways of the CPS, then you are just one of the sheep out there that think the government is nothing but benevolent and good-willed, when nothing could be further from the truth.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:00 (Agree/Disagree?) What facts are you basing this on?? I hear ya when you are saying that foster care is not really a solution, (you are right about Census data shows that fewer than 3% earn college degrees, compared with 28% population). The truth about CPS is that they are way over-loaded, they do not have enough foster-care homes to give these children, yet who wants to take the chance and not respond when children are at a potential risk? (Wiggins, Ovetta. "Moves to to Recruit 1,000 Foster Parents by 2010." Washington Post. January 31, 2008.) The government is very actively pursuing paths that will offer solutions to the magnitude of this crisis we are facing with abused children. There have been a couple incidents in the last two years that has jolted the government into acting with more speed and strictness when it envolves the lives of children (I can find the data if you want). This still DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT that children are potentially in danger in these compound situations, and the government has to take any allegations seriously.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, May 07, 2008, 18:19 (Agree/Disagree?) The government also needs to act responsibly. And that means when they don't have evidence that the children's parents are an imminent danger, they need to return the kids. Keeping children, particularly young children, from parents for extended periods causes psychological problems for the kids. The Texas government is acting out of spite against this polygamist community rather than out of concern for the kids. If the kids were in danger than they should prove it, and prove it specifically with respect to each parent identified, but so far not one parent has had a chance to answer to the accusations of abuse. I never thought I'd see such a railroading of a minority group in this country. But I guess I have now.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Wednesday, May 07, 2008, 18:34 (Agree/Disagree?) What do you mean out of spite? Spite about what? The goverment is basing a lot of what they are doing from past experiences, believe me, it's not a walk in the park for the government. It's not like they want to be spending their time and MONEY on this. It's not like it is easy coming up with all these foster homes to place the children in. (Especially when they are already short stafted and trying to come up with ways to create more foster homes for the kids they already have,--let alone having to deal with all these other new kids). Believe me, there is no oil there!!Lol! They are not making money on this.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 10, 2008, 18:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually there's word that there may in fact be oil there. But that aside, the CPS is actually 1800 some abused child clients short, so it actually is in there interest to rack up some numbers in order to justify the need for more funding requests. Also they get hefty sums for each child adopted. These are cute white kids that are very easy to adopt out. So if you think there's no incentive to snatch these kids, you are badly mistaken, and/or you don't know how government operates.(reply to this comment)

from film on this subject Friday, May 02, 2008 - 09:09 (Agree/Disagree?) true life story called 'Original Sin' a mother escapes a fundamentalist/ polygamist cult with her children but returns to rescue her eldest daughter. Shows how the woman and children are abused. Touches on the issues. showing now in the UK on True movies channel (reply to this comment)

From oops.... Friday, May 02, 2008, 09:42 (Agree/Disagree?) i mean 'The Ultimate Sin' http://www.truemovies.tv/tvguide/film.aspx?mID=521 (reply to this comment)

From oops.... Friday, May 02, 2008, 09:42 (Agree/Disagree?) i mean 'The Ultimate Sin' http://www.truemovies.tv/tvguide/film.aspx?mID=521 (reply to this comment)

from film on this subject Friday, May 02, 2008 - 09:09 (Agree/Disagree?) true life story called 'Original Sin' a mother escapes a fundamentalist/ polygamist cult with her children but returns to rescue her eldest daughter. Shows how the woman and children are abused. Touches on the issues. showing now in the UK on True movies channel (reply to this comment)

from Falcon Friday, May 02, 2008 - 02:38 (Agree/Disagree?) The Rescue of Children from the FLDS Compound in Texas: Why the Arguments Claiming Due Process Violations and Religious Freedom Infringement Have No Merit By MARCI HAMILTON FindLaw Thursday, May. 01, 2008 Recently, Texas authorities entered the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch, which is one of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) compounds, with a warrant based on calls from a person who alleged that she was an underage girl being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, including rape, at the Ranch. Once the authorities entered, though, they discovered pregnant underage girls, girls with more than one child, papers indicating that rampant polygamy was occurring at YFZ, and even a document involving cyanide poisoning. The authorities then intelligently made the decision that they had to remove all of the children from a situation that posed obvious and serious danger to them. Lawyers for the FLDS members – who reside not only at YFZ but also at compounds located in Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, and Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada -- have been arguing in the press that the entry and removal of the children constituted a "massive" violation of due process. Others have argued that the authorities' actions represent the unfair targeting of one religion. Each of these arguments is singularly misguided. The Due Process Argument: Whether or Not the Caller Was Legitimate, the Important Point is the Lack of Any Government Misconduct and the Serious Evidence of Crimes to Children There are now allegations that the calls to the authorities spurring the raid were placed by a woman who was not within the YFZ compound. Even if proven, however, this claim would not affect the validity of the authorities' actions. Absent clear evidence that the state fabricated the call or misled the judge who granted the initial search warrant, neither of which seems remotely plausible, the entry cannot be faulted on constitutional grounds. Once the authorities were inside, the evidence of criminal behavior was so plainly apparent that further investigation was more than warranted. No self-respecting child protective agency could have departed from that compound without taking all of the children away as well. The authorities revealed this week that 31 out of the 53 underage YFZ girls have been pregnant and/or are pregnant now. Imminent risk of harm, the legal standard that bound the authorities, was apparent, and indeed, a decision to leave the children in that setting would have opened up the state to liability. The key point here is that children were being abused, and were very likely to be abused in the future, and, worse, this was occurring in an atmosphere where the adults seemed incapable of apprehending the depth of the criminal behavior they were committing. It is just as though the state had entered a drug den on the basis of reports about one child's abuse, and discovered a bevy of children in a position likely to lead to neglect and mistreatment. In such a hypothetical, surely no one would contest the appropriateness of removing children from that setting. The religious cloak here does not forestall the proper operation of the child protective authorities. Despite the large number of children who were taken, what happened in Eldorado is really no different than any other situation where the state investigates alleged abuse, substantiates a risk of harm, and takes action to protect all those children who might be subject to such harm. Arguments that children should not be separated from their mothers simply have no purchase in a circumstance where it is apparent that the mothers are incapable or unwilling to protect their children from sexual or other abuse. Before criticizing the Texas authorities who have witnessed the operation of the FLDS firsthand, one must stop to think with a clear head about what was going on in this compound. This is a conspiracy of adults to commit systematic child sex abuse, where the men and the women force their girls to be "married" to much older men in order to have their many children, and where they groom their boys to be the next generation of abusers, and then abandon some of their own boys in order to keep the numbers favorable for the abusing men. A Sect In Deep Denial of Its Crimes Cannot Be Trusted with Its Children What is most striking here is that not a single adult from the ranch or the sect has been willing to admit to the obvious cycle of severe child sexual abuse. One of the most chilling statements I have ever witnessed – and I have focused specifically upon the arena of organizational child abuse, including within the Catholic Church – was that of the mother who would not answer a reporter's question whether girls were married off to much older men, but rather asserted that whatever happened there happened out of "love." There is widespread knowledge about the practices of the FLDS, which has been practicing polygamy and child sex abuse for over a century. This organization traces its roots back to the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, who mandated polygamy in the mid-Nineteenth Century. (Importantly, the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints, or Mormon Church, publicly renounced the practice at the end of the Nineteenth Century and again at the start of the Twentieth. Thus, it would be a grave error to confuse FLDS with LDS or Mormonism.) The recent Utah trial of the FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs documented the practice of elders arranging and encouraging the sexual abuse of underage girls. (Jeffs, as readers may recall, was ultimately apprehended for his brazen Mann Act violations, consisting of transporting girls across state and international boundaries to be delivered to FLDS men, after the FBI finally placed him on its Ten Most Wanted List.) So did the earlier trial of Tom Green in Utah. Moreover, numerous well-documented publications have detailed terrifying and illegal behaviors including Carolyn Jessops' Escape, her account of escaping the sect; Andrea Emmitt Moore's account of ten fundamentalist polygamist sects, God's Brothel; and Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven – among others. I wrote about the FLDS in my book God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, and have been writing columns on the FLDS such as this one for years. And if the already disseminated knowledge about the FLDS is not enough, we have reports this week alleging an FLDS baby graveyard with 200 graves between the Arizona and Utah compounds. Advocates are telling us that these graves are the result of brutal abuse of young children to obtain their obedience, and likely medical neglect and the genetic deformities that result from generations of inbreeding. Yet, many have argued there was a violation of due process as though the authorities are required to be intentionally ignorant about the communities within their jurisdiction. FLDS lawyers have been floating to the press and public the bizarre notion that authorities were required to enter the compound with a mental blank slate, as though they knew absolutely nothing about the FLDS. It is a position that defies common sense. While authorities need probable cause for a particular raid, they do not have to act stupid once they are inside a criminal organization, whether it is a religious group, the mob, or a drug cartel. Indeed, it is law enforcement's obligation to be informed about likely criminal conduct in their jurisdiction. That includes orchestrated child abuse. Why Texas Authorities Deserve Credit for Good Judgment—and the ACLU for Bad You have to give the Texas authorities credit for putting the interests of the children first. In contrast, Utah and the FBI have focused on one man at a time, an approach that appears to have done next to nothing to stop the entrenched cycle of abuse within the system. In contrast, the authorities in Arizona, Utah, and South Dakota, where other FLDS compounds are situated, have made it very clear that they would never follow the Texas authorities' lead of taking all of the children away from obvious danger. Indeed, the Utah Attorney General was actually peeved that Texas would make such a bold move, because it had the capacity to undermine his increasingly friendly relations with the FLDS in Utah, while the Arizona Attorney General sent out a general press release essentially telling the citizens of Arizona not to expect any dramatic rescue of children obviously at high risk of abuse, because Arizona law just does not permit it. The latter has yet to explain precisely why he believes children at imminent risk of harm cannot be brought to safety in that state (and if he believes that is the law, surely he should call for a change in it!). In South Dakota, the authorities say they are awaiting some triggering event that will permit them to check on the girls and women. It really is remarkable – American law enforcement routinely infiltrates criminal organizations where the issues are drugs and money, but when the issue is widespread child abuse, they "have to" sit on their hands until somehow, some way one of those on the inside of a cult invites them inside. If any court finds that the rescue of the FLDS children -- in light of the evidence gathered on the basis of a good faith warrant during the raid and the evidence now piling up -- is a due process violation, then it will be a giant step backward for the civil rights of children everywhere. Let's hope we won't see that erroneous ruling ever made. Predictably, the ACLU has chosen to take the side in opposition to the children, publicly wringing its hands over the process as it applies to the adults. It is one of the most underexamined phenomena in the American civil rights movement that the organization that has considered itself such a champion of individual rights has had such a consistently insensitive attitude toward the bodily suffering of children. We are in the midst of a civil rights movement for children, yet the ACLU is woefully lagging behind. Free Exercise: An Even Weaker Argument than Due Process, For Belief Is No Defense to Crime The even weaker argument circulating, once again encouraged by the FLDS lawyers, is that the rescue somehow violated the FLDS's right to the freedom of religion. There are two underlying theories, neither of which has much traction – for good reason, because both should be quickly dismissed as totally unconvincing. First, the FLDS argue that they have been "targeted" in violation of the First Amendment. The argument takes a First Amendment concept and grossly misapplies it. While it is true that the government cannot choose a particular religion to be treated differently from other religious (or similarly-situated secular) organizations, the government is not prohibited from stopping criminal conduct even if the only ones engaging in the behavior are religious or if the conduct is restricted to the property of a religious organization. In short, a government may not discriminate against a group, but the Constitution does not force authorities to willfully close their eyes to criminal conduct. This raid was about child abuse, and as I explain above, it is not really any different than authorities entering a drug den or a private home where there are credible accounts of abuse. The child protective services universe is sufficiently stable by now that whoever is sexually abusing a child can be made to stop. It is the best interest of the child that determines government action. That is obviously what is happening in this case, and the attempts to misleadingly shift the focus to the religious identity of the perpetrators is not justified by either law or basic decency. There is simply no religious defense to criminal behavior. That this behavior was so heinous makes using the cover of religion for it all the more appalling. Second, the FLDS argue that the government simply cannot interfere with a religious enclave and that they should have autonomy from the government's interference. This latter theory has been touted by more mainstream religious organizations in recent years, especially those battling clergy abuse, but courts have not had much patience with the notion that autonomy includes within it a right to be free to abuse children. I would hope that the mainstream religious organizations that have been pushing "church autonomy" are having second thoughts as they watch this particular group embrace their vision to justify systemic and systematic child sexual abuse. Finally, there are those who would argue that the age of sex and marriage is merely "cultural," and, therefore, the government has no business interfering with this sort of religious group. That is one of those arguments that is hopelessly behind the times, as it treats children as property rather than persons. It was not long ago that they were, in essence, nothing but property. The Texas authorities give one hope that they are moving surely and steadily into the category of persons -- persons who have civil rights that protect their bodily integrity against adults who would use their position of power to take what these children cannot freely give. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20080501.html (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 02:04 (Agree/Disagree?) In any good court of law, this entire argument should thrown out. Why? Because it contains no description of evidence pertaining to the ranch in question let alone any particular families. It rambles about stories of exmembers and makes many unsupported assertions. Frankly, it's the week-minded who actually swallow this whole piece of nonsense. This whole argument is intended for females who tend to believe things based on their emotions rather than their brains. I could poke holes all day in this argument, but suffice it to discuss the matter of "Due Process." The writer mistakenly believes that the Due Process controversy has to do with the legitmacy of the initial call. In fact, what we are so outraged about is that Due Process was not followed during the 2 day court hearing wherein Judge Walthers decided to keep the children in state custody. Due process has to do with affording INDIVIDUALS a chance to answer to allegations, in this case allegations of child abuse. The fact of the matter is, none of the parents were given a chance to defend themselves in court. Instead there was a summary hearing wherein some cursory testimony was given, and thereafter judgement was levied against ALL the parents. This violates DUE PROCESS which is an individual right.(reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, May 05, 2008, 09:59 (Agree/Disagree?) The due process right under the Constitution states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...". Which deprivation do you consider to have occured in this case? Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it offers no right due process in family proceedings. The Supreme Court has, of course, repeatedly held that it does (i.e. Meyer v Nebraska; Pierce v Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary). If the Courts were bent on taking away parental rights, they could have taken a strict interpretation of the due process clause and not held that parents have that right. You are still considering this case as if it were criminal proceedings. It is not. The Constitution offers greater protection to criminal proceedings than other proceedings (see e.g. 6th Amendment to the Constitution; Cruz v Commonwealth). Different processes are considered due depending on the subject matter of the procedings. In child protection cases the court must take into account the State's role as parens patriae (Stanley v Kramer). While the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is used in criminal proceedings to assess the evidence, child protection proceedings require "clear and convincing evidence" (Santosky v Kramer). I would be interesting in hearing an authority for your submission that the due process right, in child protection procedings, has to do with being tried as an individual. If the child is at risk within their own home and that much is obvious and clear to the court, it only seems logical that the court would not allow parental access to the child, until the source of the risk can be identified. To put another way, if it is obvious to the court that a child is in danger or is being abused by its parents, the court should take steps to elliminate that risk to the child, by restricting parental access until such a time as the court can determine which parent represents the risk. These seem to be preliminary proceedings, in which case, the parents will still have a chance to be heard, represented by counsel, and assessed as individuals as to their parental fitness. If it is in fact final proceedings and the parents have indeed been denied their right to be heard, I should think they have a good grounds for appeal.(reply to this comment)

From Madame L Friday, May 30, 2008, 22:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I predict you will be a good lawyer.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 16:12 (Agree/Disagree?) "Which deprivation do you consider to have occured in this case? " Liberty, i.e. parental rights. "I would be interesting in hearing an authority for your submission that the due process right, in child protection procedings, has to do with being tried as an individual." Read the Amended Mandamus (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275333,00.html). The Family code always refers to "Child"--not children, not All the children in the community, but in the singular "child." This implies, as the ACLU has affirmed, that each child needs an individual hearing. None of these children got individual hearings. That's what makes my blood boil. "These seem to be preliminary proceedings..." No it's not it's final. The fourteen day hearing was where it was determined that there was enough proof that all the 100+ parents were child-abusers and thus reliquished their parental rights. "Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said the 60-day hearings that begin May 19 are to review service plans developed for each child, check medical care and hear how the children are faring in foster care. “This is not going to be a redo of whether abuse or neglect occurred,” Crimmins said. Walther determined at a two-day April hearing that the 464 children removed from the YFZ Ranch were at risk of abuse because of their parents' support for polygamy and underage marriage. " http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9155046(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, May 06, 2008, 00:13 (Agree/Disagree?) "Liberty" refers to freedom from imprisonment, not freedom to do whatever one would like. Originally, parental rights would have fallen under property, but children are no longer the property of their parents and the courts have taken a broad interpretation of this. The Supreme Court has, however, stated that any parental rights may be limited by the State's role as parens patriae. This means that parental rights may be restricted by State intervention to protect a child from abuse or neglect. I agree that the risk to the individual child must be considered. My issue is that I do not think the parents rights have necessarily been breached by the largescale hearing. As far as those two news authorities, I think they are both distorting or partially representing the facts. The hearings on 19 May, may not be to determine whether each child would be at risk if he/she is returned to his/her parents, but I would be surprised if there will not be hearings at some point to determine this. Wasn't that the given reason for the DNA tests, so that the Court could consider each child and their parents in turn? There were also other risks, other than their parents practicing polygamy and marrying off children, that the court found (such as an abnormal number of children having broken bones, the lack of death certificates for those burried on their compound, etc).(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, May 07, 2008, 19:24 (Agree/Disagree?) There wasn't an "abnormal" amount of broken bones. That's just the media telling you that. It's been shown that the FLDS children actually have a lower than average incidence of broken bones than the general population. As for parens patriae, well there would have to be proof of abuse or neglect, which so far has not been shown for the majority of these families who have had their kids ripped away from them. Their "adversarial hearing" came and went. As far as the state's concerned they are all proven based on the "preponderance of evidence" that they are all unfit parents, never mind that not one single parent had any evidence against them, let alone had a chance to answer for it. So far all they have had to show is 4 or 5 underage mothers. That's it. If this isn't an abuse of power and a miscarriage of justice I don't know what is.(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, May 08, 2008, 00:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Its just the media or the group telling us all anything that we know about this incident. Proof isn't required, just evidence and not evidence that there was abuse, just evidence that each child is at risk. The preponderence of evidence required seems to be based on the stage of proceedings. If, as you have said, the parents rights have been irrovocably terminated, then I would agree with you that something does not seem right. There are a number of intermediary measures between irrovable termination of a parents rights and absolute non-intervention. The situtation of each child should be considered individually. It need not be shown that the parents were likely to abuse the child, just that the children would be at risk if they remained with their parents. If the FLDS are anything like The Family or COG, I should would think that in most cases intermediary steps would be sufficient. Like I said, I don't know what evidence was presented to the court, what arguments were made on both sides, I am not even clear on the stage of proceedings (there isn't meant to be an "adversarial hearing" in civil law cases concerning children). Judges can be right dimwits sometimes. The law can also be unjust. If the judge decided wrongly, the FLDS will have grounds for appeal. If the law itself is unjust, they won't. What I have seen of the law there, seems pretty fair to me. There is a balance between a parent's rights to raise their children without state interference and "direct their destiny" and the child's right to be free from abuse or neglect. If you think parental rights should never be restrained by the State, I would disagree with you. I would argue that the right of the parent is too strong in the US. Your line of arguments seems to be entirely parent focused. Just here you say "these families who have had their kids ripped away", "that they are all unfit parents", "not one single parent had any evidence against them". They can be unfit parents if they neglect their children or fail to protect their child from abuse, hence the focus is whether the children are at risk if left with their parents, not whether the parents are abusive.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 10, 2008, 18:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, another filing was made today by the Mothers' legal team, and they state for the fourth time to the bonehead courts that even according to the state's own witness, the boys and the girls under 15 were in no risk of physical abuse if left with their parents. It was only the girls > 15 that there is any evidence from the YFZ ranch showing that they are in any danger, and this could have been solved by simply removing the men from the ranch, something the men already had offered. This is all on file. It will be interesting if the boneheaded Texas courts and CPS decide to prolong this tragedy by continuing to ignore the very laws they pretend to uphold, which state that a child must be shown through a preponderance of evidence that that child is at risk of imminent physical danger, not psychological danger, not possible danger 10 years from now, not in danger of eventually becoming a child abuser (amazingly this is the reason given for removing baby boys), but IMMINENT danger.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 08:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope you are not infering to those of us females who have BEEN ABUSED and then calling us WEAKMINDED. Do you have a real education?? What kind of holes can you poke?? Have you personnaly studied what signs to look for in the case of real abuse? The people envolved have spent years in educating themselves with ACTUAL DEGREES, and they base their info on what they find around them, and on thousands of case studies from the US as well as the rest of the world.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 08:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope you are not infering to those of us females who have BEEN ABUSED and then calling us WEAKMINDED. Do you have a real education?? What kind of holes can you poke?? Have you personnaly studied what signs to look for in the case of real abuse? The people envolved have spent years in educating themselves with ACTUAL DEGREES, and they base their info on what they find around them, and on thousands of case studies from the US as well as the rest of the world.(reply to this comment)

From Falcon Saturday, May 03, 2008, 05:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I suppose you would know a whole lot more about law than Marci Hamilton, who is well a credentialed human rights lawyer and academic who has written a number of books and successfully prosecuted the Catholic church in cases of child abuse. And you are?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Marci Hamilton spews Feminist, nonsensical drivel. You couldn't persuade me to take her inflammatory, biased drivel as remotely worth considering in a thousand years. (reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Sunday, May 04, 2008, 19:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I love your response!! Too many religious ZEALOTS ramble on about things that they really don't know anything about! And the RIDICULOUS fact is they all say the same thing! So, you retorted a very legit answer! (reply to this comment)

From Falcon Saturday, May 03, 2008, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) MARCI A. HAMILTON is one of the United States’ leading church/state scholars, as well as an expert on federalism and representation. During the academic year 2007-08, she is a Visiting Professor and the Kathleen and Martin Crane Fellow in the Program in Law and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Professor Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, and is the author of God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005) (paperback, September 2007), and Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge 2008). On Wednesdays, she posts to a blog on the Cambridge site. She is also a columnist on constitutional issues for http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/, where her column appears every other Thursday. Professor Hamilton is frequently asked to advise Congress and state legislatures on the constitutionality of pending legislation and to consult in cases involving important constitutional issues. She is the First Amendment advisor for victims in many clergy abuse cases involving many religious institutions, including the federal bankruptcies filed by the Portland Archdiocese, Spokane Diocese, and San Diego Diocese. She also advises cities and neighborhoods dealing with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. She was lead counsel for the City of Boerne, Texas, in Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), before the Supreme Court in its seminal federalism and church/state case holding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional. Professor Hamilton clerked for Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the United States Supreme Court and Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She received her J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. She also received her M.A. in Philosophy and M.A., high honors, in English from Pennsylvania State University, and her B.A., summa cum laude, from Vanderbilt University. Buuuut, apparently, you're the expert now.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 16:19 (Agree/Disagree?) It's because Feminazis like Marci Hamilton and others like her that the USA is going down the drain as a feckless, hapless, fretting, fuming, bickering nation. Look out everyone, the women are in charge! Geeze, didn't things start to really suck in the Family once Maria took over? Now I know where I've seen this before!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, May 31, 2008, 17:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh now you are acting like a COMPLETE idiot!  Look, listen to Conservative radio all you want (I do it all the time), but don't completely shut your brain off while you're listening!  You want to know why Limbaugh uses the term "Feminazis"?  Because he's a Conservative shock jock- that's why!  He just wants to shock people, and something that ridiculous is not meant to be taken seriously.  It's like the actors throwing chairs and fighting with each other on Jerry Springer!  None of it's real, and it is not meant to be taken seriously. The only reason why people think of Rush when they think of Conservative radio is because of his seniority in the industry.  Rush's problem right now is that he spends so much time on his own agenda and interests these days (like Operation Chaos!) that he can be viewed as out of touch with the American Conservative voice.  Especially since he has seniority.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 31, 2008, 19:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree that not all women are irrational. And I believe women provide a good balance to men in general in many areas of thought, particularly those concerning with children. However, I think in general, women are less rational when it comes to legal matters. The way I see it, legality is supposed to be objective ("justice is blind"). The way Mrs. Walther has behaved so far has proven to be irrational, that's why the higher courts ruled that she abused her discretion. I think society should take when placing women in positions of absolute power. Mrs. Walther has caused immeasurable damage to the lives of 460 children, and now she (and her CPS feminist cronies) are just trying to save face, seeing how most of their claims of child abuse at YFZ have turned out to be unfounded. We need judges who rule reasonably based on strict adherence to the code. I realize that code is dry, and the application can sometimes appear to leave matters unconsidered. But it's better to abide by the law, then engage in legislating from the bench, as Walther appears to try to do.(reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, June 02, 2008, 08:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Most judgments have an aspect of subjectivity.  Judges frequently reason backwards.  Maybe justice is blind, but judges are not anthropomorphic impersonations of justice.  If you have read any cases in full you might be aware of this.  I have not seen a predominance of bias in cases with woman judges.  You may or may not have statistics showing otherwise.  I would argue most decisions are influenced by some level of subjective "reasoning".  I too would like our judges to act as machines, adhering only to "the code".  Unfortunately, our politicians often do not make sense of themselves and judges must decide on their own reasoning, using established interpretation techniques, what "the code" is.  In the higher courts this may amount to legislation as it then becomes the law that lower courts must apply.  Having looked at common law and civil law systems, I think the doctrine of precedent is beneficial.  While judges are sometimes required to legislate from the bench, I do not see how Judge Walther might be deemed to have done so.  The fact that her ruling was overruled, does not mean that she attempted to legislate from the bench.  She is in too low a court to legislate.  It is far more likely that she simply missapplied or missinterpreted the law. (reply to this comment)

From murasaki Sunday, June 01, 2008, 08:19 (Agree/Disagree?) The way I see it, some men can be irrational when it comes to matters of war. Look at Bush, I mean they guy lied and the infamous "weapons of mass destruction", just so he could go over and finish a war his daddy started. And probably so he could play at being commander in chief. If you wanna talk immeasurable damages to lives, that's what you should be looking at. Although I can't imagine a woman doing a replay of what Bush has done, I don't draw the conclusion that a man should never again be in the white house. Some people would consider being raised in such an isolated environment far removed from societal norms to be a form of child abuse. Who's to say that each child was irreparably damaged by being placed in foster care? I'm not speaking of the younger ones who would in all likelihood been traumatized by being separated from their mothers, but the opportunity to experience life outside their closed community may have been a positive experience for some of the children. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, June 01, 2008, 11:59 (Agree/Disagree?) There is some nuance obviously that has to be considered. George Bush is a politician. We expect politicians do be slimy bastards and we reserve the right vote them out. However, in America we believe in checks and balances. In government that means the judiciary is supposed to perform a checks and balances role against the executive branch. Judge Walther did not perform her role but instead acted as a rubber stamp for the illegal, unreasonable actions of CPS. It's one thing for an elected official to do bad things with the approval of his constituents. In a way the constituents are to blame for approving of his actions (yes you say they were brainwashed into believing there actually were weapons of mass destruction--well it's their fault for watching the propaganda tube). It's wholy another thing for a judge, who is supposed to be an independent, objective mind of reason in the face of controversy. This judge has consistently sided with the unreasonable and illegal ideas put forward by CPS. As the higher courts ruled she abused her discretion. I see no reason why she shouldn't be removed from the bench, since if she abused her discretion once, she'll likely do it again.  My inclination in this matter is to take it a step further and ask why, why is this judge obstinate in maintaining she is right to approve of illegal actions? I think it's in part because she inherent lacks the ability to see both sides of the issue clearly, her mind being blocked by prejudice, and a mind made up does not easily change. Furthermore I believe there is a connection between this irrational obstinance and the fact that she is a woman. Women in the judiciary are rare. But so far I haven't seen much in the way of evidence that women in the judiciary make rational choices. The only woman on the supreme court bench incidentally sided with Walthers, implying she tacitly believed disproven the one ranch/one household theory. I think women have a hard thinking logically and pragmatically about things when a situation is posed that appears different that it actually is. They judge on appearance rather than proof. For that reason, I don't think women should be judges. The power of a judge in this country is for the most part unchecked, and unless more checks are placed against judges, particularly in matters of child custody or in a situation where a human beings rights can be restricted, I think society does well not to have women in those positions of power. Men are more rational than women (men are left-brained), and we need rationality in the judiciary not irrationality. There are exceptions, e.g. George Bush, but I don't think any one wouldn't laugh at the idea of making him a judge.(reply to this comment)

From left brain / right brain Monday, June 02, 2008, 05:48 (Agree/Disagree?) In general, the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, and the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body. According to the test results and the developing theory, the right brain is most often associated with direct sensual experience of the five sense organs as well as the "sixth sense" of intuitive thinking. "Feelings" are also associated with this side of the brain, and these feelings are often observed to be the result of the person's "sensation" of the environment. This "sensation" of the environment can be the external world or the internal "state of being." Also, we must note that the Right brain, as the Observer of the external and internal environment, only perceives NOW. The Left Brain is associated with the process of CONCEPTUALIZATION and IMAGINATION in its many forms, including the powers of symbolic imagination and those functions related to the symbols we know as language such as labeling, categorizing, following verbal rules and rules in general. The left hemisphere mode of operation is much like a computer screen on which the whole range of concepts of the mind are portrayed and manipulated in the "mind's eye." One of the main "concepts" we utilize is TIME as in Time future and Time past. Have a look at the chart below to see how the different hemisphere's seem to operate. Right Hemisphere Consciousness Conceptualization/imagination/dogma/TIME future/TIME past Physical connection Nonlinear logic Creativity/spontaneity Compassion/acceptance Science based on collecting of data, direct observation; can create theories with proper use of theoretical imagination Asceticism/sense deprivation Celebration Mysticism: Taoism, Tantrism, Yoga, the "Mystery Traditions," Gnosticism, Alchemy Left Hemisphere Consciousness Sensing/Perceiving Directly via observation/Empiricism/NOW (no time) Theoretical imagination Linear logic Ritual/habit/fixed roles/repetition/fixation Morality/judgment Superstition derived from imagination; often misuses limited direct observation and experience Theology: Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greco-Roman Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam Now, this is enormously important to grasp: religions, philosophies, "beliefs" in general, through which we view the world and by which we interact with the world also fall to one hemisphere or the other in terms of how they activate our consciousness. There are teachings that place emphasis on the sensual Right Brain, and there are teachings that place emphasis on the abstract, imaginative Left Brain. Belief systems organically reflect one or the other of the two kinds of human consciousness. The "sense oriented" traditions encourage direct interaction with the physical environment. This has been often corrupted to "gala sensuality" of physical pleasure. Nevertheless, the pure Mystical Traditions tend to identify spirituality with the Cosmos itself and urges its followers to seek their unity with God THROUGH the physical world. On the other hand, concept bound theologies tend to forbid sensual experience and observation, relying instead on imagination to support certain beliefs/faith. In this mode, spirituality is equated with conceptual constructs, images, symbols and words that must be "pictured in the mind's eye," or upheld in an abstract thought of imaginary belief, so that the person is effectively attempting to IMPOSE an imaginary construct on reality rather than observing reality and allowing the observations to form the abstraction. This is why the central issue in Christianity, to use just one example, is whether or not one "believes in Jesus Christ." What one is being asked to do is to imaginatively support the church's conception of Jesus: that he was the son of God, that he died for remission of sins, and so on. Each theological construct has its own cast of characters and its own plot, and each one demands that the followers "believe" in these imaginations. But the point is: the various symbols themselves are less important than the fact that the common act of conceptualizing, or imagining and "making real," of "make believe," that is central to theologies, is the LEFT HEMISPHERE mode of thought. Left hemisphere thought also tends to assign religious "authority" to different writings or permanent scriptures and words. It also has a hierarchy of clergymen and priests who are designated to administer or interpret those words. The Left Hemisphere mode of consciousness is opposed to direct observation and scientific progress and discovery. It focuses on ritual repetition of "established" ideas and traditions. The "words of the scriptures" and the traditions of the interpreters of these words are given more authority than the natural world itself. It is not just science that is the child of mysticism, but creativity in general. The great periods of art and culture are always connected with an erotic-mystical revival. [Alain Danielou, Shiva and Dionysus, 1982] So how are we to interpret this seeming contradiction that a "sensual" experience led to the "Fall," and yet the Right hemisphere, which relates to sensual experience, seems to be the mode of consciousness that is concerned with gathering knowledge and "seeing things as they are?" How do we interpret the fact that the Left Hemisphere Patriarchal, dominator theologies point to this "sexual fault" repeatedly, then go on to say that this "fault" was the actual "door" for the imposition of the Monotheistic Left Brain domination? I think that we may find some clues in the comparison of the legend of Orion to the stories of King Arthur and the Quest for the Holy Grail. What does Orion have to do with the Grail Quest? A great deal, I think. The similarities between the stories of Orion and Arthur, in essential terms, are many. The Arthur of the Grail Quest is not, in a certain sense, a real flesh and blood man, but an archetypal complex of images. Arthur is other and more than the sum of his appearances in literature, and he is present in myths, stories and images that have NO direct mention of him. Arthur is present in the myths of all the sacrificial kings, dying saviors, and heroic slayers of dragons from time immemorial. His story grows with every episode we study, and after a time, we realize that Arthur, himself, is only a clue. Arthur is a clue to the mythology of Fall and Redemption: The Once and Future King. He is the symbol of the Lost Eden and his story has branches that reach out to embrace all the ideas of cyclical changes and power over the environment. The Myth of the Golden Age: a period when the Pole was "Oriented" differently; when the seasons were different; the year was different; a primordial paradise where time had no meaning. The memory or imagination of a Golden Age seems to be a particularity of the cultures that cover the area from India to Northern Europe. In the Americas, the most fully developed mythologies of history were those of the Mayas and Aztecs, for whom there was no past era unclouded by the threat of cyclical destruction by fire of flood. Nor does the philosophy of Buddhism have any place for nostalgia, although in practice it absorbed the idea of declining ages from its Indian surroundings. But in the ancient Middle East there is an obvious relic of the Golden Age in Genesis, as the Garden of Eden where humanity walked with the gods before the Fall. The Egyptians spoke of past epochs ruled by god-kings. Babylonian mythology, as reported by Berosus, had a scheme of three ages, each lasting while the vernal equinox precessed through four signs of the zodiac; the first of these, under the dominion of Anu, was a Golden Age, ended by the Flood. The Iranian Avesta texts tell of the thousand-year Golden Reign of Yima, the first man and the first king, under whose rule cold and heat, old age, death and sickness were unknown. The most fully developed theory of this kind, and probably the oldest one, is the Hindu doctrine of the Four Yugas. A modern scholar describes the first of these ages: In the first Krita Yuga, after the creation of the earth, Brahman created a thousand pairs of twins from his mouth, breast, thighs, and feet respectively. They lived without houses; all desires which they conceived were directly fulfilled; and the earth produced of itself delicious food for them, since animals and plants were not yet in existence. Each pair of twins brought forth at the end of their life a pair exactly like them. As everybody did his duty and nothing else, there was no distinction between good and bad acts. After the Krita or Satya Yuga, things get progressively worse: each successive yuga sees the human race falling into increasing unhappiness and evil, until at the end of the Kali Yuga, the world is set on fire, deluged with water, and then reborn. [Arktos, Joscelyn Godwin, 1996] In order to see the relation of Arthur to Orion, and their respective quests, we need to understand at the outset that stories can be translated both linguistically AND culturally to provide meaning to their new "owners." There is a story found in the History of Herodotus which is an exact copy of an original tale of Indian origin EXCEPT for the fact that in the original, it was an animal fable, and in Herodotus' version, all the characters had become human. In every other detail, the stories are identical. As R. E. Meagher, professor of humanities and translator of Greek classics remarks: Clearly, if characters change species, they may change their names and practically anything else about themselves. The truth of the Holy Grail, the quest of the Arthurian knights, the finding of which would restore "Arthur" to the throne is the same as Orion's quest for the cure for his blindness. Arthur represents something other than just a British Dux Bellorum; he represents a long ago Golden Age, a time of social harmony and wise government, a time of ethics and morality, a time of the "Way of Former Kings." The theme of the "lost Golden Age" is so potent that when Geoffrey made Arthur a sort of Messiah, combining Welsh myth and tradition with genuine history, he touched something so deep in the human psyche that the Medieval Soul took flight in hopes of the restoration of the Kingdom on Earth which could only be restored by the discovery of the Grail. The story of the Grail is the story of the creative potential of the human race in very real, though esoteric terms - the power to re-create the Golden Age - a pathway to knowledge of an Ancient Technology that gave rise to the great megalithic monuments for which no rational explanation exists - a power that has been hidden from us for ages past. In discovering the True Grail, we may also find the source of the control system that has operated on our planet for the past many thousands of years, keeping mankind in bondage to time, history, misery, decay and suffering. We note above that the Left brain rules by conceptualization, imagination, and dogma. We then note that the Right Brain rules by sensing, perceiving directly via observation. When the story says that Orion raped his love, the meaning is clear: the Left Brain took over the function of the Right brain which was the direct conduit to universal powers of creation within the individual. In the prologue to Le Conte du Graal, we are informed that there was once a paradise on earth. There were two aspects of reality: an inner and an outer "nature." Events took place not only in a "real location" in the material world, they also simultaneously had an existence at another level of being, a realm of archetypes. The everyday world and the twin "otherworld" were twin universes running parallel to one another. In this paradise, maidens lived by sacred grottos, wells and springs. It was at these points that the two worlds were believed to meet, overlap, or bridge. It was at these points that one could cross over to the other side. This is a symbol of the Feminine potential, or the functions of the Right hemisphere of the brain. The "Maidens of the Sacred Wells" would feed wanderers and travelers from golden bowls and cups. This symbolized the "creative potential" of the Right hemisphere, that it was through this "wellspring of creativity" that one could literally "create reality and all that was needed." The "maidens" served all wayfarers and the realm was at peace and fertile until one day and evil King, Amangons, ravished one of the maidens, held her in captivity and stole her sacred bowl. Amangon's followers took example from their king and began finding and raping the Well maidens. Soon, there were no maidens serving at the wells. From that time onward, earth was the "Wasteland." The "wells and waters dried up" and the land became infertile. The "Barren Wasteland" was the condition of the loss of contact with the Otherworld. Now, this happened so long ago that we can only put together what it must have been like by comparing it to other "mind rapes" of more recent historical times. Regina Schwartz writes in The Curse of Cain about the relationship between Monotheism and Violence, positing that Monotheism itself is the root of violence. She has a chapter on Covenants. She says: 'Collective Identity, which is a result of a covenant of Monotheism is explicitly narrated in the Bible as an invention, a radical break with Nature. A transcendent deity breaks into history with the demand that the people he constitutes obey the law he institutes, and first and foremost among those laws is, of course, that they pledge allegiance to him, and him alone, and that this is what makes them a unified people as opposed to the 'other,' as in all other people which leads to violence. In the Old Testament, vast numbers of 'other' people are obliterated, while in the New Testament, vast numbers are colonized and converted for the sake of such covenants." [Schwartz, 1998] She also talks about the idea of the 'provisional' nature of a covenant, and that this means that it is conditional. Believe in me and obey me or else I will destroy you. That's all fine and good, and the chief thing that occurs to me is that this belief business in religions or whatever, constitutes a sort of 'permission,' if you will, to take the 'vengeful' action if the agreement is broken. The Hebrew phrase for 'he made a covenant,' is karat berit, or literally, he CUT a covenant. In the covenant with Abraham in genesis, animals are cut in two and a fire passes between them in a mysterious ritual. Then, there is the cutting of the flesh at circumcision, and the Sinai covenant where the laws were cut into stone. So, these covenants are apparently what constituted Israel as a nation. The entire foundational frame of Israel, which is the basis of Christianity, is framed by the severed pieces of animals, it seems. 'In ancient Near Eastern rituals, the cut made to the animal is symbolically made to the inferior who enters into the covenant with a superior." [Ibid.] At the making of the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, there was a bunch of sacrificed animals, and Moses took the blood , dividing it in half, he cast one half on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it to the people, and they said 'we will observe all that Yahweh has decreed. We will obey.' And then Moses took the blood and cast it on the people saying 'this is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you containing all these rules.' 'We are heirs of a long tradition in which Monotheism is regarded as the great achievement of Judeo-Christian thought. Monotheism is entangled with particularism, and with the assertion that this god, and no other, must be worshipped. This particularism is so virulent that it reduces all other gods to mere idols, and is so violent that it reduces all other worshippers to abominations. The danger of a universal Monotheism is asserting that its truth is THE truth; its system of knowledge, THE system of knowledge; its ethics, THE ethics; not because any other option must be rejected, but because there simply IS NO OTHER OPTION. They presuppose a kind of metaphysical scarcity, a kind of hoarding mentality, hoarding belief, hoarding identity, hoarding allegiance, because there is a finite supply of whatever, it must be contained in whole or part. It suggests limit and boundaries.' [Ibid.] What they are doing is developing mental "boundaries." They are creating an "image of the world" in the left hemisphere mode of thinking. It is fixed, limited, and most of all, prevents discovery, change and spiritual evolution. Worse than that, it blocks creativity in a cosmic sense. The Christian church is the triumph of Monotheism/Left brain domination. At that point in time, there were still adherents of the True Mystical tradition, and it is very likely that Jesus was an initiate of the "Grail" and the only hints we can find to his true work are in the Gnostic writings and sects that continued to exist. At the very heart of Gnosticism lies an essentially feminine/Right brain view of the cosmos and this was the inspiration of the Cathars and alchemists. The patriarchal priests of Rome, probably as agents of Drachomonoid beings at 4th density, unleashed a horrendous persecution of the Gnostics and Cathars and any others that did not adhere to their dogma. It has been estimated that the cost of bringing Europe under the domination of Christianity was about ten million innocent lives. By their fruits, you shall know them. The "Grail Hero," who can be ANYONE, is one who must discover the meeting place between the worlds where he can reestablish the links between Feminine Creative Sovereignty and the kingship of the material realm. The loss of communion between the divine feminine rulership of the inner land and the rightful kingship of the outer realm is what we are concerned with here. The Right brain "rules the land" or the material reality only by right of his true union with the Feminine principle and championship of Her freedom. Springs and wells are symbols of the most powerful outward expression of Life-giving Abundance. Finding the Grail is the reestablishing of this Creative Power. In the Grail stories, we find that our Hero, Parzival, has to go through three stages on his quest. The first is innocent and unquestioning acceptance of what others tell him. This is a state of unconsciousness of actions. The second is doubt. Parzival rebels against all he has been told because he has seen that it only causes him more trouble. The third stage is when he begins to believe in NOTHING but the love of a woman. This only means that he finally sees that what is natural and real is more trustworthy than a God who is an unreal, supernatural construct of the Left Brain. And it is at this point that magic begins to happen. "Central to the Grail legend is that renewal must be preceded by a ceremonial cleansing, a purging, rather than just a purification. There must be a radical departure from what was past. The old world dies in order for the new one to be born. The principle is 'The King is dead, long live the King.' "The essential theme of the Grail, repeated in all the Celtic accounts, is that of a union of the two principles of the Goddess and the Hero King. This is the foundational condition of paradise. "But man wishes to create paradise to his own specifications which contains all the desirable elements and none of the undesirable. Yet, "every time Parzival lets the reins of his horse loose and relaxes into the saddle, accepting that wherever he goes is fine, it turns out for the best. But, the moment he tries to take control and "change things," to impose his "superior vision" upon the natural order, he promptly becomes lost in the Wasteland. "When we come to the Lovers in the Tarot, the whole underlying message of the Gnostics, the Cathars, and the Grail finally fits into place. The Lovers is the card of BALANCE and HARMONY and wholeness reflected in its twin card: Temperance. "And the path to the Light in the little landscape at the bottom left of the card lies between the two peaks - Perce a Val. Parzival has remained loyal to his true love, true to the quest to find something bigger than himself and to find his way out of the habits of being unable to truly see our true predicament in life. He has trusted in the natural order of things and has learned to observe and think for himself. He has stopped dividing life into Black and White and trying to change one to the other and he has learned to accept life as a seamless whole of nature including himself as both a spiritual being and a man of flesh with a family. "The new metaphysical age in the West has become a supermarket place for spiritual wares. All seekers are desperately trying to transform themselves. Every guru, therapist and preacher tells us that with only a little more effort, sending a little more love and light, we can attain whatever particular goal we desire, be it Moksha, Liberation, return to God, Higher Consciousness, Psychic Enhancement, or Enlightenment. " [The Holy Grail, Malcolm Godwin, 1998] What is wrong with efforts to "send love and light," the achieving of the goals of "world peace" or "personal prosperity?" What is wrong with wanting a "return to God," or "higher consciousness" or any of the touted experiences that are guaranteed to "initiate" a person to whatever they desire? The problem is ANTICIPATION. When you seek any of these things by "holding the thoughts" in the Left Brain in anticipation of "making it real," you are RAPING THE MAIDEN OF THE WELL! What if you are just trying to "believe it is NOW?" BELIEF is a function of the Left brain, it blocks the manifestation Creativity because the creative Right brain is also the Empirical half of the brain that observes the dichotomy between the belief and the reality. Desire is anticipation. Anticipation is read by the Right brain as "in the future, therefore not right now," and the Right brain can only create NOW. When we desire, we have a "future object" in mind. The Right brain only knows Now. If we "desire to Love God," we have a concept (Left Brain) of the "future goal of loving God." It can't exist Now. Therefore we experience struggle to constantly "love God," against the ongoing "Now" of "not loving God." If we desire to win the lottery, and produce in the Left brain "future image of money flowing into our life." It isn't now. So "now" continues moneyless. If we desire happiness, and create the concept in the Left Brain, we have "future happiness" in mind. And the Right brain reads it as unhappiness now, and this can manifest in thousands of unhappy experiences. So, it seems that the answer to this part of the problem is that when we are "connected" to the Cosmos via the Right brain, and are not blocking the ability of our Cosmic Connection by limiting the forces with boundary forming imagination or images or illusory concepts, we allow the perfect manifestation of our own frequency resonance to occur. By the same token, when necessary, we can "close the door" to manipulation of our minds by constantly running a sort of "computer scan" of possible breaches of our security system in the Left brain. We must marry the Left Brain Kingship of the MATERIAL world to the Right Brain Queen of the Inner Realm. Yet, it was only when Parzival rejected ALL of ...The advice, the exhortations, when he quit seeking to be a great knight on a sacred quest to save the world, only when he rejected God as the pure and good all-father that... It found him! What is the Wasteland? That we cannot accept the world and all within it, including ourselves, as being perfectly natural and perfect just the way it is - with all the good and evil it contains as part of the natural and necessary balance - the whole of existence is natural and as it should be at every moment. When you accept that all IS perfect, when you cease holding God hostage by usurping the power of the Right brain Feminine principle with the images in your Left brain, then the world will BE perfect and fertile and you will heal the wound of the Wasteland in your own heart. If only we can act spontaneously, without being programmed into someone else's belief system, we can ask the real question of ourselves; ask with no preconceived notion of what the answer will be; ask with no anticipation... Then, miraculously, for one moment the vessel of the Grail is empty... and in the next it is filled with the wonder and glory of ALL AND EVERYTHING! The Spirit of the Valley never dies. It is called the Mystic Female. The Door of the Mystic Female Is the root of Heaven and Earth. (Lao Tzu) And the Mystic Female is the Infinite Sea of Potential... it is God in the "Not" aspect that only can BE when expectations, anticipations, assumptions and obsessions are completely left at the door. "Negative existence is the silence behind the sound, the blank canvas beneath the painting, the darkness into which light shines. Emptiness is the stillness against which time moves. Negative existence enables a man to be what he is. It is the mirror of mirrors. Non-anticipation is noninterference, and allows the most perfect reflection of creation." eve is symbolically the female right brain energy. Who gave her power over to the left brain. Was tricked so to speak into Believing that one source contains all knowledge ( thus contradicting reality.) If the concept was the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge provides all knowledge, then one is being deceived, because no one particular source can provide all knowledge. Therefore, when one believes in the deception, one has now trapped oneself within parameters. And, forevermore, the human race, will be poisoned by the very same problem which is reflected in several different ways: one is always seeking the truth through one pathway instead of seeking it through a myriad of pathways; and also believing in simplistic answers to very complex issues and questions. "Believing that one source contains all knowledge is contradicting reality." It is "conceptually limited." stick that in your left brain and smoke it! (reply to this comment)

From correction on the list.. Monday, June 02, 2008, 05:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Right Hemisphere Consciousness =Sensing/Perceiving Directly via observation/Empiricism/NOW (no time) Physical connection Nonlinear logic Creativity/spontaneity Compassion/acceptance Science based on collecting of data, direct observation; can create theories with proper use of theoretical imagination Asceticism/sense deprivation Celebration Mysticism: Taoism, Tantrism, Yoga, the "Mystery Traditions," Gnosticism, Alchemy Left Hemisphere Consciousness =Conceptualization/imagination/dogma/TIME future/TIME past Theoretical imagination Linear logic Ritual/habit/fixed roles/repetition/fixation Morality/judgment Superstition derived from imagination; often misuses limited direct observation and experience Theology: Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Greco-Roman Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam (reply to this comment)

From ........ Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 10:14 (Agree/Disagree?) http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html(reply to this comment)

From ........ Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 10:14 (Agree/Disagree?) http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html(reply to this comment)

From ........ Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 10:14 (Agree/Disagree?) http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html(reply to this comment)

From moon beam Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 10:13 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From ........ Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 10:11 (Agree/Disagree?) http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html(reply to this comment)

From murasaki Sunday, June 01, 2008, 21:19 (Agree/Disagree?) My comment was meant to be extreme and sarcastic, reflecting the extreme and nonobjective nature of your comments. While I could think of many things to say, I don't think there's any point in trying to argue with someone whose mind is "all mixed up and permanently set". It's ironic that the "blind justice" that you cite is traditionally portrayed as a woman. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, June 01, 2008, 09:22 (Agree/Disagree?) It has been said that we have war because "men love soldiering, and women love soldiers".(reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, June 02, 2008, 07:29 (Agree/Disagree?) It has been said that God created the world in seven days.  It has been said that the earth is the shape of a disk which sits on the backs of 4 elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that floats through the universe.  It has been said that all we need just three things in life: something to do, something to look forward to and someone to love.  It has been said that the closer one lives to the equator the more fulfilling and longer life will be.  It has been said that someday human being and fish will peacefully co-exist.  It has been said that one plus one does not equal two.  It has been said that women are from Venus and men are from Mars.  It has been said that people say all kinds of crap.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, June 02, 2008, 18:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Really?  Because the way I've heard it, God created the world in six days (Hebrew word: yom) and rested on the seventh.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 04:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm kinda glad I got that wrong.  Anyway, I'm sure many people have said 7 days.  I have, and so what I said is still accurate.  It has been said, what I said.(reply to this comment)

From amenlord Friday, May 30, 2008, 22:52 (Agree/Disagree?) please let jolifam keep on in this vein, since it really helps the cause of intelligent people, TYJ, PTL, hallelujay, TYJ, PTL (ad infinitum)(reply to this comment)

from DeeJay Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Texas unleashed the greatest injustice - Bush - on the world. I say if some of them have to suffer a few minor injustices, they deserve it. So the fuck what? We've all suffered a lot more at their hands. A little "tit" for such a big "tat". You Texans ARE stupid. (reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 09:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I am on yourside about the government being envolved in the lives of the cult children, but your comment is very biased and makes you sound kind of stupid about people living in Texas. What kind of degree do you have? Or are you just NATURALLY SMART? So I don't really get what your point of view is, do you think the government is acting ignorantly on the issue of this cult but saying it's cool because all Texans are stupid or are you actually on Texas' side about this whole ordeal and then you just contridicted yourself by saying "they made an intellingent desicion about taking the kids, but they are still all ignorant"!! (reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Sunday, May 04, 2008, 17:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever. Go down and read the timeline of my comments. I posted a few further down and finally just couldn't take it any longer. I've been reading this bullshit jolifam's been posting, and he is just another ex-cultie who who couldn't get the cult out of him. I'm irked by his views and constant defense of all the cult's abuse. I have nothing against Texans per se. It was an emotional outburst. It expressed what I felt at the time. Yes it's a biased statement.Again, I ask, so the fuck what? I say ban ALL CULTS! As a matter of fact, ban religion too. Anything or anyone that preaches that it's okay to disobey the rule of law because "we're special and god says it's okay for us to." Yes, again this is a very biased statement and no I don't have a degree in religion, law or cults for that matter, except that I was born in one. Why does everything have to be taken so seriously? I was venting. I am the first to admit many of the posters here are much more intellectual than I am. Still, I am allowed to venture an opinion, and yes, a biased statement if I choose to once in awhile.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, May 02, 2008, 05:11 (Agree/Disagree?) DeeJay! You were doing so well! Why did you have to come out and make a sweeping statement against Texans like that?(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Sunday, May 04, 2008, 17:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Lol! Don't take it personally.(reply to this comment)

from waking up Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 10:53 (Agree/Disagree?) The difficulty is that the parents in the cult are most likely multi-generational and have one fixed belief. They will not understand the 'invasion' into their little bubble of make belief and seeming happiness. However some may wake up. It is only in being shocked can one start to evalulate their system of beliefs/brainwashing. What we know about religions/ big established cults is that the number one rule of 'don't ask quesions'. The monothiestic model is clever and devious form of control/programming. 'We have the truth and light. Follow me and I will make you predators of men.' Then proceed in the 'double bind' of 'now what are you gonna do for me sweetie?' It seems any one can do and will do anything in service to that belief hosted by a leader, prophet, idol, gods etc... The lord of hosts has really dominated history available to us. here is how. you have a deception v truth. but how to make the deception unrecognizable as such In an enviroment of free will? You have to dangle a big carrot which is knowledge, on a stick. ( The stick which will beat you and make you chase that alusive carrot forever. Harder and harder even till death) "And therein you have the deception! Remember, those who seek to serve self with supreme power, are doomed only to serve others who seek to serve self, and can only see that which they want to see." -Laura Knight as soon as some one believes that truth originates from one source they instantaneously become limited in pre-defined parameters. (reply to this comment)

From found this... Thursday, May 01, 2008, 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) In all the world, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy. [Ibid.] It doesn't matter who it is, whether it is a graduate of some group therapy, a born-again Christian, a meditator, or the follower of this week's channel o'choice. If you ask a question, the individual will spin around and around in circles of nonsensical beliefs and dogma. If you interrupt and re-ask your question, they simply start right where they left off, or go back to the beginning and start over again. Such people are not just simply incapable of carrying on a conversation, they are completely programmed. Even though they were not talking about the kinds of programming we have been discussing, some of the work of Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman in their book Snapping is applicable to the present problem. They ask: How do you reach such people? Can they be made to think and feel again? Is there any way to reunite them with their former personalities and the world around them? A man named Ted Patrick developed the first remedy. A controversial figure dubbed by the cult world Black Lightning, Patrick was the first to point out publicly what the cults were doing to America's youth. He investigated the ploys by which many converts were ensnared and delved into the methods many cults used to manipulate the mind. ...In unsuccessful attempts to free cult members from their invisible prisons, Patrick was repeatedly thrown into real ones. ...In July 1976, ...Patrick was sentenced to serve a year in prison for a cult kidnapping he did not in fact perform. ...Early in 1977, we first visited Ted Patrick in the Theo Lacy Facility of the Orange County Jail to learn about deprogramming from the man who coined the term. "The cults completely destroy the mind," he said without qualification. "They destroy your ability to question things, and in destroying your ability to think, they also destroy your ability to feel. ...They have the ability to come up to you and talk about anything they feel you're interested in. Their technique is to get your attention, then your trust. The minute they get your trust, just like that they can put you in the cult." It was the classic sales pitch, carried off so smoothly that it amounted to what Patrick called "on-the-spot hypnosis." It was in 1971 that Patrick infiltrated the Children of God... In his brief encounter with the Children of God, though he was alert to the cult's tactics, Patrick found that he was not immune to their effects. "You can feel it coming on," he explained. ..."Thinking, to a cult member is like being stabbed in the heart with a dagger. ... It's very painful because they've been told that the mind is Satan and thinking is the machinery of the Devil. ...When you deprogram people, you FORCE them to think. The only thing I do is shoot them challenging questions. I hit them with things that they haven't been programmed to respond to. I know what the cults do and how they do it, so I shoot them the right questions; and they get frustrated when they can't answer. They think they have the answer, they've been given answers to everything. But I keep them off balance and this forces them to begin questioning, to open their minds. When the mind gets to a certain point, they can see through all the lies that they've been programmed to believe. They realize that they've been duped and they come out of it. Their minds start working again." That, according to Patrick, was all there was to deprogramming. Yet since Patrick began deprogramming cult members, both the man and his procedure had taken on monstrous proportions in the public eye. ...Cult members had been warned that Black Lightning was an agent of Satan who would subject them to unimaginable tortures to get them to renounce their beliefs. ...No ex-cult member, parent or other reliable witness we talked to ever substantiated any of those charges. In truth, Patrick told us, and others later confirmed, many of the distortions that had been disseminated about the deprogramming were part of a coordinated campaign by several cults to discredit his methods. In the end, he said, the propaganda only worked to his advantage. "The cults tell them that I rape the women and beat them. They say I lock them in closets and stuff bones down their throats." Patrick laughed. "What they don't know is that they're making my job easier. They come in here frightened to death of me, and then, because of all the stuff they've been told, I can just sit there and look at them and I'll deprogram them just like that. They'll be thinking, What the hell is he going to do now? They're waiting for me to slap them or beat them and already their minds are working." In the beginning, Patrick admitted, he developed his method by trial and error, attempting to reason with cult members and learning each cult's rituals and beliefs until he cracked the code. Refining his procedure with each case, he came to understand exactly what was needed to pierce the cult's mental shield. Like a diamond cutter he probed with his questions the rough surface of speech and behavior until he found the key point of contention at the center of each cult member's encapsulated beliefs. Once he found that point, Patrick hit it head on, until the entire programmed state of mind gave way, revealing the cult member's original identity and true personality that had become trapped inside. "The first time I lay eyes on a person," he said, "I can tell if his mind is working or not. Then, as I begin to question him, I can determine exactly how he has been programmed. From then on, it's all a matter of language. It's talking and knowing what to talk about. I start challenging every statement the person makes. I start moving his mind, slowly, pushing it with questions, and I watch every move that mind makes. I know everything it is going to do, and when I hit on that one certain point that strikes home, I push it. I stay with that question - whether it's about God, the Devil or that person's having rejected his parents. I keep pushing and pushing. I don't let him get around it with the lies he's been told. Then there'll be a minute, a second, when the mind snaps, when the person realizes he's been lied to by the cult and he just snaps out of it. It's like turning on the light in a dark room. They're in an almost unconscious state of mind, and then I switch the mind from unconsciousness to consciousness, and it snaps, just like that." It was Patrick's term for what happens in deprogramming. And in almost every case, according to Patrick, it came about just that suddenly. When deprogramming has been accomplished, the cult member's appearance undergoes a sharp, drastic change. He comes out of his trancelike state and his ability to think for himself is restored. "It's like seeing a person change from a werewolf into a man. It's a beautiful thing." Snapping is a phenomenon that appears to have extreme moments at both ends. A moment of sudden, intense change may occur when a person enters a cult, during lectures, rituals and physical ordeals. Another change may take place with equal, or ever greater, abruptness when the subject is deprogrammed and made to think again. Once this breakthrough is achieved, however, the person is not just "snapped out" and home free. Deprogramming always requires a period of rehabilitation to counteract an interim condition Patrick called "floating." "Deprogramming is like taking a car out of the garage that hasn't been driven for a year," he said. "The battery has gone down, and in order to start it up you've got to put jumper cables on it. It will start up then, but if you turn the key off right away it will go dead again. So you keep the motor running until it builds up its own power. This is what rehabilitation is. Once we get the mind working, we keep it working long enough so that the person gets in the habit of thinking and making decisions again." "...The grave questions Patrick first flamboyantly brought to public attention are not ones we can choose to like or dislike - nor will they simply go away if we ignore them. Is an individual free to give up his freedom of thought? May a religion, popular therapy, political movement or any other enterprise systematically attack human thought and feeling in the name of God, the pursuit of happiness, personal growths or spiritual fulfillment? These are questions that Americans, perhaps more than others, are not prepared to deal with, because they challenge long-standing constitutional principles and cultural assumptions about the nature of the mind, personality and human freedom itself. ...In a statement more prescient at the time than either of us knew, Patrick became somber, concerned over what he saw as the public's growing apathy in the face of the cult world's increasing wealth, power and social legitimacy. "The cult movement is the greatest threat and danger to this country that we have ever had. But the people won't wake up, the government, Congress, the Justice Department won't wake up until something bad happens." [Ibid.] http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave11i.htm (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 17:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Sounds like a bunch neo-Freudian psycho-babble hogwash, certainly not scientific. For me personally, I had no snap-to-it experience, nor do I believe this Patrick. I believe for the most part he was imagining things, I hope he rots in jail. My personal view of the cult is yes it's domineering and yes it's out to control your mind. I can recognize that well. Perhaps that is why I'm so cynical towards influences from the media or the government. I can recognize indoctrination a mile away, and the TV and all the CNN pundits who pretend to speak with such wide latitude of objectivity and balanced coverage in fact are neither object nor balanced. How do you think we were led into the Iraq war? Through a concerted effort of brainwashing aimed at the public. Brainwashing happens, whether your in a closed small society or an "open" large society. Being out doesn't mean your are no longer under mind-control. So I'm not too hateful of the cult, if anything I feel sorry for them from the lowest follower right on up to the leader--even if the leader is a conniving bastard, he's really no worse than used car dealer or door-to-door salesman, each of which uses mind-control techniques to sell inferior products to gullible people.(reply to this comment)

From shock can undo a mind either way Saturday, May 31, 2008, 09:07 (Agree/Disagree?) The long evolution of developing procedures to control human behavior all came to a head in the modern world with Pavlov, a Russian scientist. In the early years of the twentieth century, Pavlov made the discovery that you can condition a dog to salivate on command simply by associating food with the ringing of a bell. Once that association is fixed in the dog's mind, the food can be removed and the dog will salivate merely when it hears the bell. Pavlov carried out the identical experiments on human beings with the same results. Those principles have been adapted to television and motion pictures and can now make Americans salivate in response to a wide array of bells and whistles. We can call it phase one in the evolution of human behavior control. Phase two was accomplished by the same Russian scientist, Pavlov. Very few people know of this part of his research. During a particularly severe storm in Russia, heavy rains continued for days and Pavlov's laboratories were flooded. Pavlov and his research assistants were able to return to the laboratory only after the flood waters had receded days later. Upon returning, Pavlov discovered something truly remarkable. Before the flood, many of the dogs had been conditioned to respond to various stimuli. Lo and behold, all traces of the conditioning in the dogs had disappeared! Bells, food, nothing could induce the former salivation response that had been so carefully implanted in the dogs' nervous systems. What mysterious influence could account for this remarkable turn of events, Pavlov wondered. So, being a good scientist, he studied carefully what had transpired while he was away from the dogs. They had been left without food or warmth. They had been isolated for days; some of them had drowned. They had been subjected to extreme stress, never knowing if they would live or die. These were the factors that had produced the washing away of the previous conditioning from the dogs' brains - brain-washing. Pavlov and other Russians followed up this line of research, but it was the Chinese communists in the 1950s who first saw its real potential for use with human beings. They employed these very principles in brainwashing American and other Allied prisoners of war during the Korean conflict. Isolation, periodic denial of food or water, cold and exposure, extreme stress associated with uncertainty of life or death--these conditions, together with a continual barrage of indoctrination produced the erasing of previous beliefs and behavior patterns in American soldiers in particular. Thus brainwashing became phase two in the evolution of human behavior control. But brainwashing is not very reliable, as the remarkable film "The Manchurian Candidate" shows. The trigger mechanisms can be tampered with, sometimes even erased, before the desired behavior can be carried out. ............ The famous example of dogs salivating when a bell rings is an example of classical conditioning. The dogs were conditioned to do this. The unconditioned stimuli may have been the smell of food and the unconditioned (normal) response was salivation. The unconditioned stimuli, the smell of food was paired with the soon to be conditioned stimuli, the bell. Eventually when one withdraws the smell of food stimuli, the bell alone produces salivation. This is the new conditioned response. Extinction is when the conditioned response diminishes. In other words, if the bell conditioned stimuli is not reinforced with the giving of food, the response (salivation) will diminish after a while. The more trials performed, the more there will be resistance to extinction. In other words, the more often the bell is paired with the smell of food, the longer it will take for the conditioned response to fade away. Generalization is when a similar stimuli produce a similar response. In this case, a bell with a similar tone or note may also produce salivation. Pavlov's Law of Strength states that when higher intensity conditioned stimuli are paired with conditioned stimuli with shorter intervals between them or if they are overlapping, this will produce better conditioning. If the bell was rung a long time after the smell of food, the conditioning would be weaker than if it was rung at the same time or close to the same time as the smell of food. Programming is similar to this in several ways. A survivor may be tortured repeatedly until an new alter is created. This alter will be given a cue to let them know when to come out, this could be a smell, word, number, sound, color and so on. This cue is either paired with the alter's creation and is given to the alter to listen for or to look for. The law of strength applies to the strength of the trauma and the strength of the cue. A stronger smell may be easier to associate with a strong trauma, which makes the conditioning stronger. Also if the alter and cue are paired together or closer in terms of time, they will associate more easily. Extinction may occur or at least the cue and programmed connection could be weakened when the survivor avoids the cult and other cues for long periods of time. But these cues could also lie dormant and be regenerated unless the survivor does the necessary work to undo the program and all its components, including the emotional components. William Sargant first looked at combat PTSD and compared it to Pavlov's classical conditioning. He extended Pavlov's model to explain how people could change their world view suddenly. This was caused by intense trauma, followed by a person's personality breaking down, followed by the application of new ways of thinking. Pavlov's dogs during a flood either forgot or reversed their previous training. First, Pavlov's "equivalent" phase of brain activity or breakdown occurred. Second, Pavlov's "paradoxical inhibition" occurred where weak stimuli would produce strong responses and strong stimuli would produce weak responses (inappropriate responses). Third, in the "ultraparadoxical" stage, responses changed from positive to negative and vice-versa. Current models of PTSD suggest that PTSD can be understood as learned helplessness, a set of foci in the brain firing repeatedly and inappropriately. Cognitively, a person's world view is so changed as to become untenable. Pavlov's observations on animals breaking down under extreme stress could be applied to humans and survivors. Pavlov was able to build up and break down behavior patterns in dogs. Pavlov's work seems to have influenced confession getting and brainwashing techniques. Pavlov's dogs had four basic temperaments, strong excitatory, lively, calm imperturbable type and melancholic. Each type reacted differently to stress. Pavlov could cause a dog to break down by increasing the intensity of a signal (electricity), delaying the time between the signal and food, confusing them with positive and negative signals interchanged or tampering with its physical condition. If a dog of stable temperament acquires a behavior after extreme stress, it is hard to break this behavior. The could be compared to a person of strong character becoming a one-track minded fanatic. Some survivors may also become fanatics. The implications for survivors of ritual abuse and their symptoms are obvious. Increased trauma could cause dissociation, making a person more susceptible to suggestion. The delay of gratification could also make one more suggestible. Positive and negative signals interchanged, like praise and insults given rapidly can cause a break. Or the lack of sleep, food or drugging can also make one more suggestible. And once a survivor becomes suggestible, they are easier to program or reprogram. Propaganda techniques are similar in many ways to programming techniques. One could say a person is being programmed when being propagandized. The combination of vision and sound on TV make a person more suggestible. Most people get their news from TV. Once a person is overly emotional or numbed out, they become more suggestible and less likely to critically think about their choices. Subliminal learning is then enhanced. According to Sargant, various types of beliefs can be implanted in people after brain functioning has been disturbed by fear, anger or excitement. These cause heightened suggestibility and impaired judgement. These group manifestations may be classified as the herd instinct, they appear most strongly in wartime and periods of common danger. Prolonging the time between giving a signal and the reward or giving an unexpected shock or alternating positive and negative signals and not giving the reward can also cause dramatic changes in patterns of behavior. Sargant describes Edward's conversion techniques. In brain-washing and eliciting confessions an induced sense of guilt is important to achieve. This is also common when programming survivors. Anger against external and internal enemies nationally can be used to make the masses suggestible, like our war against Iraq. Examples in our media today are all too obvious. It is unfortunately too easy to direct people's attention away from the fraudulent elections in our country and the outright thievery (like Enron) of the rich corporations against the populace, by creating enemies (like Iraq) and fear (like different color codes against apparently almost nonexistent threats). The malevolence or benevolence of the society depends on the social programmers, in our case those that control the media and television. Malevolent social programmers will cause wars, extreme poverty and suffering, like we see in the United States. But Skinner also believe that people make the environment which in turn controls them. Therefore people can have control, if they take it. http://members.aol.com/smartnews/nbsurv03.htm (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 31, 2008, 20:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree there's a lot of truth in the findings of Pavlov and Skinner, etc.. However, I'm of a firm belief that the danger to society comes when charlatans use and twist these findings to apply to populations on a wholesale basis. We can appreciate the simple truths, but be wary of extrapolating to much more complex cases. For example, applying simple pavlovian concepts in creating a quack science called brainwashing is a highly error-prone and damaging act. Black Lightening's methodology was so far removed from the simple concepts of Pavlov that it bacame pure quackery. Psychology is another area that is being exploited to dangerous proportions in our society. For example, nowadays on the basis of a psychological evaluation, taken at some point, a persons rights in this country can be restricted, regardless of the accuracy of the test or the conditions he was in when he took the test. Psychology is a very very inexact science. Psychoanalysis is all but proven to invalid. When we start to write laws or government procedure based on such shoddy grounds, we can all shudder, because that is what dark ages was all about. The rule of law based on myths.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Sunday, May 04, 2008, 19:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Why would you compare a confined compound, where their very own children are not allowed any sort of freedom, with the media?? Please remember, that although there are regulations that have to be followed concerning what is approprate or allowed and what is not, (concerning the media), journalists go to school and one of the biggest things they learn (and everyone that goes to school for that matter) is how to think for yourself. (Anyone out there who is going to school?? Don't you agree??!!) I really don't want to be so rude (though I know I am being quite rude), but I don't think you, jolifam77, realise how indoctrinated you still are! (reply to this comment)

From jolifam67 Monday, May 05, 2008, 16:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Au Contraire. I think for myself. I even have the gall to call spade a spade and a spic a spic. I know what's worth what. I don't kowtow to the notion that I must be politically correct. I haven't succumbed to the TV indoctrination that we are all equal, white, black, brown, yellow, red, female, or male. I'm not so ashamed and self-hating that I feel in order to prove that I'm not a racist I must vote for Obama. I can think for myself alright, unlike most people on the street.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:23 (Agree/Disagree?) When you say "people on the street" what are you inferring to? The bums and the street walkers, (I would surely hope you are smarter than them), or are you suggesting the uneducated crowd of blue collars who perform very necesary jobs to keep our country going, or are you talking about your average college kid?? If you really get out there with an opened mind, you might find people to be a little more interesting than you think. What do you mean about the TV indoctrination that we are all equal? Politically correct? Being politically correct means that you respect anothers point of view and that you treat someone they way you would like to be treated. If you want to be racist, that is your own choice. I don't know why you would choose to be that way, but not my problem. But, I can't understand where this whole conspiracy theroy keeps coming from? The American government and people in places of power have to promote peace. There is already enough caos and hatred spread out, I don't see how you are original in your way of thinking? (reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Thursday, May 01, 2008, 21:36 (Agree/Disagree?) No one says we are not subject to brainwashing, but we are not required to blindly accept all of it as truth. We will not be beaten, given silence restriction, given physical labor or confined to an enclosed space for not believing them. The forces of brainwashing are everywhere, but at least our here they are not enforced by my boss, and he is not holding "The Rod of God" over my head (or my butt) in case I don't believe. Sounds to me like you are more upset at "the system" than the "cult". I don't know, I'm starting to think that maybe you were one of those leaders' kids (brats) who just had things too easy. Your picture of the cult is far too rosy and definitely far too removed from what I experienced. Your attempts to absolve and explain away all their actions and guilt is really starting to irk me.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 02:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I admit that cult life is not for me. I cannot judge whether it is right for others; my stance is not to interfere. It annoys me that people do try to interfere. Right now there's so much emphasis on preventing child abuse in this country that it's getting to the point where people are quite willing to sacrifice the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, i.e. Due Process, the fourth amendment, the fifth Amendment, etc., in order to make the job of catching child abusers easier. I'm not willing to sacrifice the constitution for that, I'm sorry. I'd rather the one guilty person go free then throw a blanket of guilt over 99 innocent people. Right now there is no doubt that some innocent people over at the FLDS have lost their kids, and that troubles me. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Sunday, May 04, 2008, 21:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Point taken. But it actually has nothing to do with what my comment was about. I was stating that the "brainwashing" present in society today is very different from the "brainwashing" we experienced in the cult. I agree you make a good point and you are entitled to your opinion, but please stick to the point. How does the "brainwashing" out here measure up to the "brainwashing" in the family? You can re-read the original comment if you need to.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 16:46 (Agree/Disagree?) The Family's brainwashing was more overt (forced memorization, forced prayer, forced confessions, etc.). However, I fear that the brainwashing in the general society is nearly as bad, and certainly more insidious. I know this because of the degree of shock I receive from coworkers when talking about stuff that may be a little too "edgy," maybe a little too sexist or borderline racist--the kind of stuff that ruins careers in the mainstream society. Folks in mainstream society have all but resigned themselves to dependency and/or fear of the government. I think that Americans are living in a state of political timidity. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the average person in mainstream society is just as brainwashed as the cult-member. I remember looking outside from within TF and pitying all the "flatlanders." Well now living among them I think back that just maybe I had a point. It's definitely not black-and-white, but on a relative scale, everyone's brainwashed in a sense, it's like the old dictum, "You are what you read" (or watch or hear). Is the degree of brainwashing dependent on the amount and variation of input one receives? What determines the amount and variation? When I was a cult member I got to see the world, talk to a lot of people about a lot of things. My only confinment was that I was to keep a Christian/Family perspective, forgo formal education/employment, and to tithe. I had a problem with those things, so I left. Everyone's faced with choices and I made my choice. As for brainwashing I can't say with certainty that I'm less brainwashed now, principally because that is a qualitative judgment. For me to make that judgment would imply that I'm more enlightened than I was, that I'm now "in the right." I don't want to be so presumptuous as to make that normative error. After all, I am a moral relativist.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, May 06, 2008, 02:52 (Agree/Disagree?) You have fair points here. But you're picking the wrong topics. The reason people are so instantly offended by racist or sexist comments from you is because the people you (from your American male privilege point) are denigrating have fought long and hard and come through so much to earn their place in the sun. They've heard all that hatred you're regurgitating before. It shaped their self-image as children. Individually and collectively, the feminist, black, and gay communities have fought for recognition and respect. They have been tortured and outlawed. They know where they've come from, and they remember what they've fought against and are still fighting against. Now even your average white male would be offended to hear you resurrecting that old hatred. The whole world has seen the battle for equality and tolerance. But, I did say you have a point. Yes, we have a pretty brainwashed society here. People are very brainwashed by greed and laziness. Let's change it.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Sunday, May 04, 2008, 19:45 (Agree/Disagree?) You might change your mind when you have a child of your own. And who's liberty are you talking about giving up?? I actually think the children out number the adults in this case (If I am wrong on that fact, forgive me) and so whose freedom are you talking about? (reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, May 05, 2008, 01:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Elisha, this is completely off topic, but do you understand how the polls work? I must say, yours is rather bewildering. There don't seem to be any options, just your personal experiences.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 11:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, I didn't get what you were saying! I was wondering about that! Are you supposed to leave options? This is my first time! Thanks!(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 07:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Rainy, what do you mean it is completely off topic? Please explain further? We are talking about children being taken away from their parents, and the parents and children not having a choice in the matter. My point is when do the parents give their children the freedom to choose what they really want? Please don't tell me that these children get a choice in the matter being all cooped up in their compound!! These children do not have a clue of what really goes on in the world, and so I always find it hypocritical when religious folks are always so quick to cry that their rights have been violated, when they in return are about the biggest culprits with their very own children. What do you mean about me not having any options, just experience? Actually, experience is about the least thing I depend on nowdays! What I look at are facts. Us children were denied our own American rights to go to school, and nothing can ever give me back what was taken! Yes, I can try and compensate,( which I am doing by going to school), but my childhood and teenage years were taken without me having a choice in the matter. Just like these children, it will be painful in the beginning, but after they will be so exicited to experience life and be part of so many wonderful things. These children will thank these social workers one day! (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 16:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think they will ever thank their social workers for ripping them from their parents who they obviously love. I'm not sure about being required to give a child a choice. I think that's too much to ask of parents; it's a slippery slope as well. A child will always blame the parents. Even a rich child ("Why didn't you get me into Harvard? Now, since I only got Pamona College, I'm screwed for life!") I think it's the parent's right to raise the kid however they want; it used to be the kids would grow up and take over the family trade. Now if you don't intend to pass over the reigns to your child, then maybe you shouldn't be having kids in the first place, since obviously you've got nothing to offer, except a government school and a dead-end job for the government or some corporation starting out at the entry-level. Talk about getting screwed.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, May 06, 2008, 02:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't want to see the children separated from their mothers either, but only for the children's sakes. I don't care about the fathers. Any man willing to marry the teenage girls he's watched grow up since babyhood has no right to care for children. And if the children are returned to their mothers, it should be with the proviso that they live normal lives in individual houses with counselling, regular school, and regular lives. Anyway, that's what I'd do if I were the judge.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, May 07, 2008, 19:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank God you are not the judge. Unfortunately Mrs. Walthers is just like you. She seems to forget that in this country you cannot separate a child from it's mother because the mother chooses to live in a religious way. "Children may not be separated from their parents based solely on the state’s disagreement with a group’s thoughts or beliefs, religious or otherwise." http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35123res20080502.html (reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 08, 2008, 03:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Huh? Didn't I just say I DON'T want the children to be separated from their mothers?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 10, 2008, 18:39 (Agree/Disagree?) you said they should only be returned with the "provision" that they leave the ranch and their husbands, learn about stuff they don't believe in, etc., in effect asking them to renounce their faith.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Children grow up and get intergrated into society, so I can't figure out why people think that the parents should dictate every move their child makes. I mean, all the screw ups get thrown on us, our prison system is over-flowing, and a very big factor (actually the main factor) is these children come from dysfunctional homes and wind up affecting the rest of us. So I really disagree with you! A lot of parents need to be taught how to handle kids, and if they don't, there needs to be some consequences. Innocent kids need advocators who will monitor their safety! Family trade comes from the illiterate times (before school was mandatory for all children), when only the very wealthy could afford a private tutor, and then it advanced to creating these Universities where only the privileged and wealthy could attend. During these times children had to follow in their parents footsteps, what their parents taught them was the only thing they knew how to do (most couldn't read or write, that is why a lot of parents sent their kids to the church to live a consecrated life, because there they would be able to get an education). Dead-end job? At least the government jobs have very good health plans! Lol!! And by the way, just because you get a government job doesn't mean you can't keep bettering yourself and move up the ladder or graduate to a better job. It all depends on the individual! Please don't tell me that these cults provide better jobs! -- Childcare, fundraising, or dishes? (Sorry, on the ranch I guess they get to milk some cows too!) (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, May 05, 2008, 08:41 (Agree/Disagree?) rainy means that she is making an 'off topic' remark in regards to the poll which you submitted regarding 'divorcing your mother': http://www.movingon.org/poll.asp?pID=421(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 10:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Gotcha!! I didn't realise it is up! Thanks!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, May 03, 2008, 07:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I see. But you have said in the past that you'd would like to have Mexican immigrants shot if they try to sneak into the country, which is sacrificing their right to a trial by jury, their right to question witnesses, their right to due process, their right to counsel, and their right against cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not saying you shouldn't care about the rights of this cult and it's members, but why do you believe these rights don't apply to Mexican immigrants? Simply because you don't like them?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 16:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Because they ain't citizens!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, so they ain't citizens? Is they noncitizens then? In that case, this website will inform you of the rights of noncitizens. Please get informed before you post on this site, man, because it just makes you sound very ignorant when you don't. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/studyguides/noncitizens.html(reply to this comment)

From jolifam67 Wednesday, May 07, 2008, 19:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't have time to waste reading your endless ecclesiastical laws. I really don't give a damn. And when the shit hits the fan, it won't matter anyways. The thirdworld cesspool is flooding in and eroding our rights and standard of living. They are flouting our laws even as we are expected to keep them. A breaking point will come, and only those prepared will be able to deal with reality. Everyone else will be caught helpless in the fray, and most likely wind up dead. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, May 06, 2008, 02:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Good point Samuel!(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Thursday, May 01, 2008, 22:14 (Agree/Disagree?) When I read it again, this really highlights your stupidity. "even if the leader is a conniving bastard, he's really no worse than used car dealer or door-to-door salesman, each of which uses mind-control techniques to sell inferior products to gullible people." I don't even know where to begin. That's just really stupid. Berg, with all his pedophilia, raped little girls, child beating, forced child labor and perverted fantasies which he acted out on us and used us to fulfill, IS REALLY NO WORSE THAN A USED CAR DEALER? I'm sorry man, you have some serious mental issues which need to be tended to by either your doctor or psychiatrist. Whichever help will arrive earlier. I thought that despite all your language in the original article, you did bring up some valid points. But the more you explain yourself, the more you have really exposed your delusional tendencies. Please get help. Arguing with us isn't going to help you either. I don't think any of us are qualified to deal with......loonies.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 02:27 (Agree/Disagree?) The fact of the matter is, my friend, at the end of the day, Berg was harmless. His only power was in your head. I left, my brother and sister left. People left all the time. People joined all the time. The fact of the matter is, these cult personalities like Berg actually base their appeal on good marketing of their particular brand of belief system, and people buy it. I made the comparison to the car dealer because it's the same basic concept: salesmanship. Both the car dealer and the cult leader are out to screw you over whether they consciously think that or not. People buy into it because they need something to believe in, and they are weak maybe. It doesn't mean that later they can't decide otherwise. When I say "no worse than a used car dealer" I wasn't speaking in moral terms, but purely qualitative terms. Whether one is more "evil" than the other is up to any one's interpretation. I'm a moral relativist as I've stated so I don't make moral judgements on people. I think moral judgments can quickly become a slippery slope, and can lead to fanaticism one way or the other, as well as witch hunts, by people who believe they are right or righteous--in the long run these same people whose zeal knows no bounds are shown to be absolute fools. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, May 05, 2008, 11:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok this statement pisses me off the most. Berg was harmless, his only power was in your head. What a crock of bull. He ruined our childhood, because of him we were abused and beaten as children. That is like excusing all of the worlds dictators, because no one really had to listen to them. He ruled by fear, fear of God and fear of man. He did exactly what this FLDS cult is doing now taking away all outside influences so that the people inside have no idea of what else is out there. You really piss me off if you think they are so great why don't you go and join them. This has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with child abuse. If you in your small narrow minded world can't see that then screw you. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:00 (Agree/Disagree?) screw you too :)(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Sunday, May 04, 2008, 21:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I can understand your argument for those who joined voluntarily. It does not however, in my mind, extend to me, my siblings, or anyone second generation member. We did not choose to be indoctrinated, we (Or maybe I. Maybe you personally were granted the ability to speak up against and question your leaders. Though I think I can safely say the large majority of posters here were not allowed this liberty.)had it forced upon us. "Idleness is the devil's workship," was one of the many ploys enforced to keep me from thinking for myself. Then of course there was, "Leave no room for the devil in your head. Let's get everyone together to lay hands on you and cast him out!" Putting me on the national prayer list so everyone would know how "out of the spirit" I was. Not once in my entire life was I ever encouraged to question or think for myself. I was in fact punished, humiliated and beaten for it. I stand behind my statement - I was not given a choice. Moral relativism? I'm against it. Individuality is one thing. Complete separatism is another. Everyone is afforded the freedom to express themselves and pursue their own delusions of freedom, the line is when you hurt, or more importantly, knowing hurt others to achieve it. Everything can be condoned under the umbrella of "relativism". Many of the worst war-mongers and/or murderers in history were in fact acting out what they really "believed". When it begins to adversely affect others, who have no choice in the matter and thus become "helpless victims", that changes everything. No amount of reasoning can or should justify that. I agree that fanatiscism is another problem. I don't think my opinion as expressed thus far can necessarily be deemed "fanatic" though. There is a rule of law, which is imperfect, but which must be enforced nonetheless. In each and every instance people will have varying opinions as to what is right and what is wrong. That's why there are judges, that's why there are juries. Will they get it wrong sometimes? Of course, but by being there, they are put in a much better position to decide than either you or I. Like I said before, I assume that there are enough people who know enough about it who have dedicated themselves to making the systems as viable as possible, that I can't presume to be "right" and know everything all the time. So I disagree with you on both your points. I don't think morality should be defined as one standard for everybody, but there are still limits and some things which can still be defined as immoral. ie: anything where there are helpless victims involved. Thus we need a rule of law. Not to tell us what is moral, but to give some idea of what is definitely immoral. Since we as humans are flawed, every system we propose or instigate will in term be flawed to some extent as well. It doesn't mean we need to throw it all out. Mankind still needs boundaries, even if they are imperfect ones and all enforced by a slightly imperfect system. Lastly, no matter how much I rack my brain, I still cannot for the life of me understand how you come to the conclusion that Berg was harmless because we had a choice. I state again that for 18 years I didn't have a choice. My parents share some of the blame, which absolves him slightly to them, but not to me. I didn't "buy into" his bullshit. It was forcefed and jammed down my throat. When a salesman tries to sell you a car, you can look up other dealers as well. I was not allowed to listen to music, watch movies that weren't pre-approved, talk to people who weren't cult members except to witness to them, read anything that wasn't a cult publication. I didn't choose any of it. How does anything you just said apply to me? Apply to us? I really don't get it.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course you didn't choose. You were after all a minor, and technically you didn't have the same rights that adults had, so the car-salesman analogy didn't apply to you until you turned 18. This status of "minor" isn't exclusive to the Family or any other cult, it's the same in mainstream society. Many many parents choose to prohibit their children from watching TV, wearing make-up, sleeping over at friends, requiring to go to church and be baptized, requiring this, requiring that. Don't think you were all that special in being deprived. "...the line is when you hurt, or more importantly, knowing hurt others to achieve it. " Yes, where do you draw the line. For me it's the same definition that SUPPOSED to be used by the court in Texas: "imminent physical danger." That's where you draw the line. (reply to this comment)

From Randi Thursday, May 08, 2008, 00:34 (Agree/Disagree?) On one of your other posts you claim that your parents didn't really have a choice to join... (A sort of "fate" argument.) Now you say we/they had a choice to buy into the cult and then leave it. You're all over the place. Berg was a weak and sick messed up pervert. Someone who really needed psychological help. I don't really like to think of that sad alcoholic as a "dangerous" person either. BUT: He was having or had sex with his daughter though before he started the cult. He had his own strange set of morals (which in itself is dangerous because we are only safe in society if we all respect the law!)...he had no qualms about preying on the weak and innocent, I'd say that is dangerous. He played around sexually with Faithy and then later on... bashed her publicly for drinking and sun bathing... He "married" and had sexual relations with his granddaughter Mene, and then beat her and had her tortured and isolated for years for having issues with him (duh)... Destroyer her for life. All this he did, and no one stopped him... Id say he was dangerous.. dangerous enough to need to be put in a straight jacket in a padded cell. He was crazy and some crazy people are really dangerous!! He felt that he was allowed to do all that...because he was Gods anointed; therefore, he put himself outside the law...Dangerous! Plus he had a sort of dynamic fatal attractive "quality"... something that many psychopaths have... and people followed him. He wasn't as dynamic or anything as Hitler... but he had similar tendencies... plus he hated the jews... blacks, homos and etc... what a dork. I would compare him to most abusive type personalities... low self esteem... paranoid and have distorted grandiose ideas. They know what kind of people to prey on... You can tell a beaten woman to leave and take her tortured children with her... I mean the door is right there... but its not that simple. She is scared to leave and she is programed into believing that she cannot survive without her abuser. In this case; he preyed on the young druggies. People who were feeling "lost" and purposeless...some idiots and some perverts. These people were easier to control... they didn't have a clue. They were hungry for something, anything. Those "beaten women," those puppets became our parents. That whole scenario is dangerous... (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 10, 2008, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, according to the constitution, we are free to practice our religion, and if that be following some crackpot, then so beit. I'm not a big fan of Berg any more. I will say though that you are right, he did have his own set of warped morals. He felt justified in molesting children apparently, and he was a proponent of child sex. Okay, 50 years ago, he would have gotten a slap on the hand for that, but with today's histeria over child abuse, he probably wouldn't gotten a life sentence. Okay. At any rate, I wouldn't consider Berg's morality to be a particularly dangerous one, particularly because I don't know of any one who had their limbs sawed off or got killed on his orders. Frankly, I'm more afraid of George Bush then I would be of David Berg. As for the choice/fate paradox, I already explained it in another comment. I also didn't really use the word choice but the word "right" to indicate that children's rights are restricted by their parents until they turn 18 in this country. So their "atomic movements" are restricted. As much as their atomic movements (what you perceive to be "choice") struggle to leave their environment and go out drinking late at night, their physical actions/movements are restrained by an external force, namely their parents. Is that good enough for you?(reply to this comment)

From Randi Friday, May 30, 2008, 10:32 (Agree/Disagree?) You can practice whatever freaky religion you want... AS LONG AS YOU DONT BREAK THE LAW!! AS LONG AS YOUR RELIGION DOESN'T PRACTICE CERIMONIAL ABUSE.  (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 31, 2008, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Regardless of any alleged religious practices, it is illegal to punish an entire community of religious adherents without individualized proof of wrongdoing.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 10, 2008, 18:56 (Agree/Disagree?) *would have gotten a life sentence(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 02:34 (Agree/Disagree?) And obviously if Berg was molesting children, someone should have turned him into the authorities. Those surrounding him that didn't do anything about it were culpable as well. But I'm not commenting on Berg's sins cuz I never met him personally. My testimony in court would be hearsay and invalid, so I won't cast judgment, lest I fall into the slippery slope and turn into a stark-raving frothing-at-the-mouth exmember and look like an idiot at best or end up doing something I regret at worst.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, May 03, 2008, 07:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Your testimony in court would not necessarily be hearsay. You could tell the court what "The Judgment of Lord Justice Ward" says, you could tell the court about the investigations around the world, you could walk into the courtroom with "The Davidito Book" and explain to the court at most how The Family created such a sexuallized atmosphere that the Berg's actually felt safe sending it to every home around the world without anyone raising an eyebrow or informing the authorities. You could also bring in the statements from The Family and blow them to pieces. I dare you to go and look up the Family's statements. Then pirnt them out. Then take a look at what the FLDS' statements are saying, and I'm sure you will find many similarities. That's because there's nothing new under the sun, cults wil usually use similar methods of mind control and brainwashing. Brainwashing is for the members, and whitewashing is for the public.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not saying the FLDS or the TF weren't aweful. I am saying that brainwashing alone, according the Constitution as interpreted by the experts (see Volokh, ACLU, etc.), is not enough reason to separate children from parents. In my opinion the brainwashing aspects shouldn't even be brought up, because they skew the emotions of the Jury and Judge, when they should be focusing on the particulars of physical abuse. That's where the tragedy occured in this case, and what led to children 1 yrs and over, some nursing, being forcefully torn from their mothers' arms. There's no excuse for this kind of cruelty, and I hope to God that those responsible pay dearly.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 18:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Most of these cult leaders' physical abuse is brought about by being able to brainwash their followers into their way of thinking in the first place. Um, Hitler was able to brain wash his followers with his BS, look how many people died from his brainwashing! Lets see, Communism was a belief that turned into brainwashing! Physical abuse is sometimes the lesser evil compared to the emotional and psychological effects done to children or even anybody for that matter. The body can be treated, the unseen part is what is a lot more difficult to try and help.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) That was fascinating. Thanks.(reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 13:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I honestly think this judge did the right thing. The initial case was so confusing with too many factors involved, child abuse, teenage marriages, assistance to rape etc....She just did what she could do in the meantime so that the prosecution could actually start proving a valid case, I mean look at it, they have no paperwork no birth certificates they are all the same race, it's hard even to distinguish parents of children. (reply to this comment)

from calmbomb Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 07:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I would just love to see this cult trying to get away with what they did in a different country. I think that we can complain till we are blue in the face about the injustices in our country; but really, when it comes down to it lets compare our freedoms to those of other countries. This is no thing short of Americans taking advantage of their freedom. Their Amendments have not been violated by the raid; but I believe that their children should not be victims of their bad decision to take part in that cult. I believe that it was the right thing to do, and I believe that the United States in the midst of the corruptness has the right perspective on the situation. In fact I feel relieved that those children have the potential to live wonderful lives and can start adapting to the real world at young ages. Babies being ripped away from their mothers? The poor babies have probably never experienced air conditioning in the heat of Texas, they have probably had all kinds of diseases and infections that were not taken care of due to their extraordinary religious beliefs, no real diapers, and were going to grow up in a harsh 'Little House On the Prairie' lifestyle; child marriages, bad beatings, etc. etc.. Mommy and Daddy can do whatever they want as they have the freedom of expression and religion, but for God's sake, they shouldn't have the option of raising their kids in such a dangerous and morally wrong environment. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for the parents, I know that the children will hurt initially, but they will be thankful later. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 19:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Completely disagree. Texas flouted the Constitution by acting on shoddy evidence and the judge denied due process to each child as required by law. If she wasn't capable of handling all the cases then the cases could have been assigned to many courts in nearby counties. The possiblity that some FLDS broke the law doesn't not give license to Texas to break the law. Hypocrisy brings bad karma. In this case it's a precedent set that if we decide a particular group isn't living to our standards, we can effectively remove all their kids effectively destroying the group==genocide. The whole thing makes me want to vomit.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Go ahead and vomit I hope you choke on it. Their children were removed because they the parents failed to protect them from the other parents. It is very simple. Due process would have gone a hell of a lot faster if the parents had been honest in the first place and told the authorities who their children where and when they had them. Some birth certificates would have been nice too.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 17:58 (Agree/Disagree?) They did have birth certificates; when they presented them to the judge, the judge said "in this day and age of identity theft you want me to accept those?" she then tossed them out. With a friendly judge like Walthers who needs enemies. The fact of the matter is, the CPS, officers, and judge mistrusted (and hated) the FLDS more than the FLDS mistrusted them. Now their kids are taken away. I hope Texass pays for these brutal acts.(reply to this comment)

From calmbomb Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:05 (Agree/Disagree?) "In this case it's a precedent set that if we decide a particular group isn't living to our standards, we can effectively remove all their kids effectively destroying the group==genocide." Thanks for that Berg. My point was this is an absolute valid reason to remove children from parents---as a country we should have strict standards regarding the rearing of children; and we should all be expected to live up to them. This is not wrong, this is how I would like to see our country change. Destroying an entire group and violating a constitutional right of freedom of expression means absolutely nothing to me when children are involved. Additionally, like I said before, one can do/believe anything he/she wants under the constitution as long as children are out of the question. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 18:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Then you are going to need to abolish the Fourth Ammendment. Good luck with that. And your ideas are so statist, they are self-contradictory. If children are to be raised by the state and property of the state, then you have effectively limited their choices which is no different then forcing them to be raised in the worst of cults. I know you probably aware of Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984. I know you want to live in such a society. But I will choose freedom any day. And I believe children were meant to be raised by their parents according to their parents beliefs. If children choose a different way later that's up to them. But it is not the state's place to replace the parent, nor to place restrictions on the parent. The state may facilitate the parent or rescue the child if the child's life is in danger, but to steal the child from the parent and place the child in foster care with no evidence of a parent's wrongdoing is unnatural, unfair, and cruel.(reply to this comment)

From say Friday, May 30, 2008, 23:13 (Agree/Disagree?) No sir, you will simply need to abolish those men who misunderstand the 4t amendment (one "m").  Or may be easier for you to understand, don't "rightly divide" the word of the 4th amendment. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 31, 2008, 20:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Spelling aside, I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you disagree with the idea that all are individuals under the law and that probable cause is needed before entering one's home and taking one's children away?(reply to this comment)

from GetReal Monday, April 28, 2008 - 16:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Who cares if the original call was a hoax. 31 out of 53 girls are pregnant or have kids. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 09:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I think this is the crux of the matter that Joli can't see. These children may have been loved by their parents but they were not protected by them. No parent in their right mind would watch their kids be married off at 14 years of age. Had they only taken away those kids of marrying age what about the ones who would have been of marrying age in two years? Do they then go back in two years and get them? And with the pool of young brides gone how can they not be sure the men will then just go back to the younger children say 11 and 12. If the 14 year olds are having children are they also having school? How can you say this was a healthy environment for the children? Perhaps you wouldn't mind if you dominated your wife and children but I guarantee you that your wife and children wouldn't care for it. Any time that a group of people are cut off from society and secluded it foster and festers unhealthy lifestyles and beliefs, one would think that after being in the Family it would be easier for you to see that. Then again your spiritual cunt may be having sex with Jesus.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 08:38 (Agree/Disagree?) This is about the best response I have read so far!! (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 19:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Texas decided the best way was to barge in like cowboys and haul off ALL their children. This is barbaric. A better way would be to initiate some kind of conversation, maybe issue a warning, and demand inspections. Arrest any males that are suspected of having married a minor. Taking draconian measures only serves to further isolate the group, Waco is a case in point--a total tragedy and travesty that could have been avoided if a more understanding route were taken. Shows we never learn from history--at least the fucking Texans don't.(reply to this comment)

From um, yeah Friday, May 30, 2008, 23:25 (Agree/Disagree?) "Selah" ('member?).  Get the security risks far away.  Are you pulling an elaborate episode of "punk'd" here??  (reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 10:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever! Like that would do any good. People like that are very secretive about things and you can't believe a word they say. And anyway, sex-offenders are ALMOST impossible to rehabilitate. (I am sure their are exceptions). I am going into psychology, and I have been warned by a few pro who work with sex-offenders and they are completely disillusioned with the notion of being able to cure them. They do not have one success story to speak of yet (and thats with dealing with hundreds of cases). Hopefully one day we'll find a cure.(reply to this comment)

From calmbomb Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Haven't you learned anything by living in the Family?? "Issuing a warning" and "demanding inspections" would allow the cult to spend sufficient time covering their tracks and prepping the children for the event of "persecution." Honestly, are warnings or inspections problem solvers? Conversation... "hey... uh... ya'll aren't marrying 16 year olds right?" "....I didn't think so, have a good day." The way they dress would be warning enough for me.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 18:14 (Agree/Disagree?) you scare me. Your thought pattern scares me. you say "The way they dress would be warning enough for me." This smacks of intolerance. You would be the first raise a pitchfork and burn the witch's house down. Shoot first, ask questions later. A way a person dresses does not mean the person is a child molester. I can't believe folks like you advocate kidnapping god-fearing--if naive--simple folk's children and placing them in state care. Your cruel mind is terrifying. Can't people live and let live? Wow.(reply to this comment)

From a question Friday, May 30, 2008, 23:28 (Agree/Disagree?) What do you mean by "God fearing"?  And what is "God fearing" supposed to entitle me to?  Knee-jerk defenses from the jolifams (Bible belters?) of the world?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 31, 2008, 20:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Uh no. It's just an adjective. Don't read too much into it. Adj. 1. god-fearing - deeply religious; "a god-fearing and law-abiding people" H.L.Mencken devout religious - having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god-fearing wn() (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, May 01, 2008, 20:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I really don't think calmbomb was being serious when she said the way they dress was warning enough. I made a joke about the way they dressed as well (perhaps you remember it, that assuming that you are correct they can sue the government and they'll be shopping at the GAP rather than sewing their own clothes anymore?) To be quite honest, they can dress however they want- they're the ones who have to look at themselves in the mirror. By the way they choose to wear those clothes. The same can't be said for women in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Ever been to the gym "Curves"? Okay, that was trick question as "Curves" is a women's gym. The reason I brought that up is that I saw an article on the internet about one opening up in Egypt. http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/02/851104.aspx Women come in with their burkas and everything and can't wait to finally be in a place where they can actually be themselves. It's like a sanctuary, the most serious women can come into the gym and suddenly reveal themselves to be fun loving, happy, laughing, all the things that they cannot be in the male dominated society outside those walls. They want to open more in Egypt. (reply to this comment)

from jez Monday, April 28, 2008 - 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I wish I'd been removed from my parents' 'care' as early in my life as possible. At about the weaning stage would've done nicely. I'd have taken my chances with foster parents over the communal parenting of the cult. At least I'd have stood a better chance of an education and interaction with the real world. But, that's just my opinion and I'm bloody glad I get to express it! :-) (reply to this comment)

From rueful Friday, May 30, 2008, 23:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi Jez, I think some of the younger ones don't understand the potential for brutality in that horrible cult.  I find myself ruefully agreeing with most of your posts, and thinking that it seems to be necessary for people to suffer the crime and its consequences before they have an iota of interest in preventing the crime and its consequences for befalling others.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 28, 2008, 21:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Foster care, where 15% of children (nationwide average) are sexually mollested, and over 50% put on psychotropic drugs. Majority drop-out of high school. 3X average teen pregnancies. Kids are beaten. Some die. Anything BUT foster care. Oh and it's been found that children are 3X better off being left with abusive parents then thrown into foster care.(reply to this comment)

From WTF??? Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 18:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Once again, Jolifam has pulled some dubious and unsupported statistics out of his ass. Foster care is far from perfect, but it's still better than the Cult we were raised in. I don't know much about the FLDS.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 08:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you, WTF???! At least the children who want to do something with their lives get a fighting chance. There is help available, unlike leaving the Family where once you wanted to leave, you were on your own.(reply to this comment)

From GiveMeLiberty Sunday, May 04, 2008, 16:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, those are dubious statistics; the real ones are far worse. "Now, I've said this before, the statistics tell us that 73 percent of all children that go into foster care wind up on the street or in jail. So, that means that if you apply those numbers to these 416 children, 304 of them would be predicted to wind up on the street or in jail. Is that a good alternative? And I don't think it is. And I don't think that it makes sense to take all of the children out of this situation without doing a case-by-case study, to see which one of these children are at risk and which ones are not." --Phil McGraw PhD aka Dr. Phil(reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, May 05, 2008, 11:00 (Agree/Disagree?) The conditions in a child's life that lead to that child ending up in foster care might be in part to blame for how the child turns out. Perhaps suffering abuse from one's parents could have an impact later on in life. Is that meant to be in the USA or in Texas. It is possible that the figures in Texas could be very different than those in the US as a whole. It is also common courtesy when using statistics to quote your source. "Dr Phil" ought to have given a source. Him claiming to have said so before, does not make the figure more reliable. "Dr Phil" also seems to be assuming that the matter has come to an end and that there has already been a final hearing in the matter. Perhaps "Dr Phil" is also slightly biased in this matter as he was sanctioned by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1984 for unethical behaviour. While he refers to himself as a "Dr" he is not allowed to practice. He has had several run ins with the law in Texas for his unethical and sometimes fraudulent behaviour.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 18:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Go! Go! Sar! Good point! Very logical and well-spoken!(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Monday, May 05, 2008, 08:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you on them doing a case by case study on each child and parent individually. I think that is their intention. But prodedure has it that whenever a child is potentially at risk, they remove the child from the situation, until they can resolve the matter. Now, I don't think you would like to do a real case study on all the children that got molested, denied an eduation, and subjected to "God knows what" in the family. I think the statisics would be quite frightening. I don't think you would like to compare the statistics with the "Jones Town' tradegy or even the "Branch Davidians." How do you think the government feels when they have recieved hundreds of alegations of children in the Family who have been molested. This is a very difficult situation to handle, and experts from all over the world are trying to make sense and know how to handle these types of situations. (reply to this comment)

From jez Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 15:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I still haven't changed MY opinion. Especially as most of your arguments (apart from the drugs) sound like better odds than the cult (TF) to me. Dropping out of high school is very different to having not been sent, every kid I knew was beaten and teen pregnancies were the norm. Besides I'm English, so your stats are irrelevant to me. (reply to this comment)

from murasaki Monday, April 28, 2008 - 06:10 (Agree/Disagree?) While I agree with the gist of your article, you undermine your credibility with offensive language and sexist slurs. I have no idea what your story is, but you come across as a bitter misogynist who is threatened by females and blame them for ruining the world, or at least the US. I think your article has some valid points, but your rude and polarizing approach makes me want to disagree with you on principle. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 28, 2008, 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Any woman who capriciously decides to take 463 well-cared-for children from loving parents and put them into abusive foster care situations DESERVES to be called a cunt.(reply to this comment)

From calmbomb Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I wish this 'cunt' would have included me as a child in the 463 children she swiped.(reply to this comment)

From murasaki Monday, April 28, 2008, 22:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Look, whatever it is this person deserves to be called is besides the point. What I found offensive was your conclusion that due to this incident, which I happen to agree was a bad call, women in general should not be in positions of judicial authority. You go on to make other comments that are extremely biased and narrow-minded. I'm pretty certain that if you were to exchange the word "cunt" for "nigger" in your first few sentences, you'd qualify as a racist bigot. I was simply stating that your article is worded in such as way that it portrays you in quite a negative light. Like I said, I don't know your backstory, but you obviously care about religious freedom and the welfare of innocent children, two things I also happen to deeply care about, so I wanted to give some feedback as to the effect of your article in case this was not your intent. If this in fact was your intent, then you may find counseling and attempting to broaden your horizons to be beneficial. If not, penis enlargement surgery and perhaps relocation to a patriarchal culture where women are "protected" and "in their place" would suit you. I hear the Taliban is recruiting.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Women in general should not be in the position of judicial authority? Who the hell gave this idiot a thumbs up?(reply to this comment)

From Please read it again Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:50 (Agree/Disagree?) "What I found offensive was your conclusion that due to this incident... women in general should not be in positions of judicial authority."(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) No. Re-read it.(reply to this comment)

From Ok, I did... Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 14:24 (Agree/Disagree?) and I'm worried about you. (reply to this comment)

From At least use gender neutral slurs Monday, April 28, 2008, 12:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Better to use some slur that can be applied to both sexes, the C word seems to be very offensive. Bitch can be applied to both sexes.(reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, April 28, 2008, 13:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Cunts can also be "applied" (interesting choice of word) to both sexes.(reply to this comment)

From afflick Monday, April 28, 2008, 13:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Um, no. "Cunts" is a negative term derived from women's genitilia. Not men's. Weak argument. Also, "bitch" is not generally used in a gender neutral fashion.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 13:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Bitch is gender neutral. "Hey, that bitch just cut me off!" or "Larry better learn to stand up for himself while he's in prison, or he's going to become somebody's bitch."(reply to this comment)

From cosmogrrl Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 16:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Not exactly, Sam. Your second scenario still shows male dominance. Prison rape, or turning a weaker person into one's "Bitch", is not about sex. It's about power and control. Yes, these days the term "Bitch" is occasionally directed toward males. But overall, it's still used to describe negative qualities perceived to be feminine or to show one's domination over another person. "Bitch" (and "Dick", for that matter) is not nearly as offensive as "Cunt".(reply to this comment)

From Redundancy ahoy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 21:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I recall this whole "is bitch a gender specific, gender neutral, or gender based insult, and should women be offended" horse was beaten to death some months back. (reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Thursday, May 01, 2008, 22:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Since you know, enlighten us with a link?(reply to this comment)

From Ok, it was a year ago... Friday, May 02, 2008, 00:44 (Agree/Disagree?) http://movingon.org/article.asp?sID=8&Cat=33&ID=4081(reply to this comment)

From - Friday, May 02, 2008, 00:46 (Agree/Disagree?) http://movingon.org/article.asp?sID=8&Cat=33&ID=3981(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 00:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Why does everyone always need an explanation? I'm guessing the imagery didn't carry too well. I hadn't stated the argument, only the conclusion. I kinda figured most people would be able to tell how one might have got there, but I guess not. Though, perhaps you were actually saying that your own argument was weak. Bitch is derived from female dogs, not humans, yet the term is frequently used on human. If I were to use the logic which you applied to your take on the word "cunt" and apply it to the word "bitch", the word "bitch" should really only be used to insult a) female dogs or b) people that have female dogs (male or female). You can call anybody a dick, a cunt or an ass. You will ofcourse be technically incorrect in all cases, but I guess that if you calling a person a dick, cunt or ass, you do not care to refer to a person by what they really are (a person). The aim is to insult, in some way. I don't really see the point of telling someone who is referring to a person in an incorrect way (many insults will amount to this), that they are being incorrect in the wrong way. Its no more incorrect to refer to a person as cunt if that person is a woman or a man. In neither case is that person actually a cunt.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, April 28, 2008, 14:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Will we then also rule out all negative terms derived from male genitila by the same token?(reply to this comment)

From cosmogrrl Monday, April 28, 2008, 16:50 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all, are females on this site using derogatory terms based on male genetilia? If so, are they using it as a put-down or as a response to harassment? I'm not saying that the latter would excuse the name-calling, but I do think it makes a difference. Also, one could argue that using those terms toward women is more offensive because women have historically been discriminated against and men have traditionally been the dominant sex. Bottom line: Using sexist or derogatory slurs takes the focus away from the argument at hand. It makes Jolifam come across as a misogynist who is threatened by women in power. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 13:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I absolutely agree that resorting to slurs and ad hominem attacks detracts from both the argument and the credibility of the one who does so. However, the comparative degrees of insult in respective words and terms lie almost exclusively in the perception of the user/hearer. As such, it is those who try to suppress words or terms that give them their value. In fact, much of the value of genitilia-based insults is directly derived from the historic stigma against use of those words. So if anything attempting to suppress the use of terms only adds to their power as an insult.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 13:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think I agree with that, no matter how many times I hear bitch or cunt it is still offensive to me. I don't think calling a man a Dick is as offensive as calling a woman a cunt, after all we have a Dick and a Bush in the white house.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 13:44 (Agree/Disagree?) You say you disagree, but then you evidence his point. Once you get a Cunt in the Whitehouse you'll think its not so offensive. I wonder if someone somewhere is named Cunt.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 19:31 (Agree/Disagree?) A Dick as in Dick Cheney.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 19:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I think we all got that, cheeks.(reply to this comment)

From madly Thursday, May 01, 2008, 00:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, I know this is off the subject and I know I am going to piss some of you off, but if I may interject a thought for Sammyboy here: I don't think people should be allowed to have an opinion about cunts, vaginas, pussies, etcetera, unless… they have one, been in one, kissed one, licked one, or at least had the opportunity to view one. You simply can't know that one isn't, if you don't know what “isn’t” is... IMHO. (reply to this comment)

From I think Friday, May 30, 2008, 23:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Madly is not a female.  And that is not meant as an insult.  (reply to this comment)

From madly Saturday, May 31, 2008, 20:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Last time I checked I was.(reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, May 31, 2008, 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) You suggest that madly has misrepresented her sex.  This equates to an attack on her integrity.  I'd say that is an insult, intended or not.  (reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, May 01, 2008, 00:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm pretty sure I don't agree with that - people frequently get away with expressing opinions on things they do not have first hand experience of. This particular thread is filled with people expressing opinions on the FLDS. I'm pretty sure most people on this site have not, been in one, kissed one, licked one (I like to see someone try), or even had the oppportunity to view one (in person). Anyway I thought I might point out that Sammy was not expressing an opinion on cunts, but on Cheeks' reference to Dick Cheney.(reply to this comment)

From madly Thursday, May 01, 2008, 01:02 (Agree/Disagree?) heh... well, I guess he has "one" and he probably plays with it enough to have a right to an opinion on, or about, any "dick". I am mainly just awake, bored and trying to entertain myself by being a bitch.(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, May 01, 2008, 01:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought so. :)(reply to this comment)

From madly Thursday, May 01, 2008, 01:05 (Agree/Disagree?) ... or cunt, if it so pleases. See I can call myself that, but it best not come from someone else.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 01:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Women on this site are free to use derogatory terms based on male genetalia. They are free to use it as an insult. They do not have to justify their reasons for using male genetalia to describe a person. How do you think women will ever be seen as equal if they can't look past offensive terminology? Getting upset about a rude remark, hardly shows strength of character. Men will continue to be the dominant sex so long as they are able to dominate by name calling. Here is one argument to counter yours. During the time women were discriminated against more than any other time, men would rarely utter insults of any kind while women were present. If men did do so, they would apologies. These were men that were quite happy to sell their wives, rape them, beat them, etc. The argument I am putting forward is that women should be more offended (and perhaps even threatened) by a man not using rude insults in front of you, than by a man who rudely insults you. I agree with your statement that offensive terminology usually detracts from the argument. I also think it shows a person more easily ruled by emotion than logic. I think in Jolifam's case, if you removed the use of the word "cunt", he would still come across as a misogynist.(reply to this comment)

From murasaki Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 07:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Can't believe I did this, but since we're nitpicking I looked up the words cunt and dick and this is what I came up with. According to the American Heritage dictionary one of the definitions for cunt is: 1.) Female sexual organ. 2.) Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a woman. 3.) Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable. Definitions of dick include: 1.) Chiefly British A fellow; a guy. 2.) Vulgar A penis. 3.) Vulgar A person, especially a man, regarded as mean or contemptible. Similar, but cunt seems the stronger insult. You'll notice that cunt is described as "offensive", while dick is classified as "vulgar". Dick also has benign and adjective meanings while cunt does not. Anyway, there may be worse words for male genitalia, I'm not particularly up to date on my urban vernacular. I came across the following in etymology.com. I especially got a kick out of "Gropecuntlane" and "A pox upon your Christian cockatrices!". Gotta love the English language. :) cunt "female intercrural foramen," or, as some 18c. writers refer to it, "the monosyllable," M.E. cunte "female genitalia," akin to O.N. kunta, from P.Gmc. *kunton, of uncertain origin. Some suggest a link with L. cuneus "wedge," others to PIE base *geu- "hollow place," still others to PIE *gwen-, root of queen and Gk. gyne "woman." The form is similar to L. cunnus "female pudenda," which is likewise of disputed origin, perhaps lit. "gash, slit," from PIE *sker- "to cut," or lit. "sheath," from PIE *kut-no-, from base *(s)keu- "to conceal, hide." First known reference in Eng. is said to be c.1230 Oxford or London street name Gropecuntlane, presumably a haunt of prostitutes. Avoided in public speech since 15c.; considered obscene since 17c. Du. cognate de kont means "a bottom, an arse." Du. also has attractive poetic slang ways of expressing this part, such as liefdesgrot, lit. "cave of love," and vleesroos "rose of flesh." Alternate form cunny is attested from c.1720 but is certainly much earlier and forced a change in the pronunciation of coney (q.v.), but it was good for a pun while coney was still the common word for "rabbit": "A pox upon your Christian cockatrices! They cry, like poulterers' wives" (reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 13:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Why are you picking nits and why does picking nits make you look up genetalia? I like this game. I think I might start using "cunny" (or "female intercrural foramen", just to see if anyone gets that they should consider it an insult. I don't understand the link between cockratrices and cunts though.(reply to this comment)

From murasaki Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 17:20 (Agree/Disagree?) That's just disgusting sar, lol!(reply to this comment)

from Randi Monday, April 28, 2008 - 00:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Please do not refer to women as cunts!! OK? How about an apology? (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 13:45 (Agree/Disagree?) HE ALSO TOLD ME IN THE COURSE OF OUR CONVERSATION THAT I HAD SAI D SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT A PARTICULAR WORD.A PEJORATIVE WORD, A WORD THAT'S BEEN USE D TO DECLAIM THE VAGINA ,AND SHE NEEDED TO HELP ME RECONCEIVE THIS WORD. SO, FOR THE NEXT HOUR, SHE TALKED TO ME ABOUT THIS WORD, AND WHEN SHE WAS DONE, I WAS A CONVERT.. I WROTE THIS FOR HER. I CALL IT... CUNT. I'VE RECLAIMED IT. CUNT. I REALLY LIKE IT. CUNT, JUST LISTEN TO IT, LISTEN TO IT. CUNT. CA...CA... CAVERN,CACKLE, CLIT, CUTE, COME-CLOSED C, CLOSED INSIDE, INSIDE CA...CA... THEN U...THEN CU... THEN CURVY, INVITING SHARKSKIN, U...UNIFORM, UNDER,UP,URGE, OOH, OOH, U.... THEN N, THEN CUN..CUN... SNUG LETTERS FITTING PERFECTLY TOGETHER. N...NEST, NOW,NEXUS, NICE, ALWAYS DEPTH, ALWAYS ROUND IN UPPERCASE ,CUN, CUN... ! A JAGGED WICKE D ELECTRICAL PULSE .N..., N...THEN SOFT N, WARM N...CUN, CUN. THEN T, THEN T... THEN SHARP CERTAIN TANGY T...T EXTURE, TAKE,TIGHT, TENT,TANTALIZING, TENSING,TASTE,TENDRILS, TIME,TACTILE, TELL ME ! TELL ME, CUNT ! CUNT ! SAY IT ! TELL ME, COME ON ! CUNT.CUNT.CUNT ! WHOO !. LOVE THAT WORD I CAN'T SAY IT ENOUGH. I CAN'T STOP SAYING IT. FEELING A LITTLE IRRITATED IN THE AIRPORT, JUST SAY "CUNT", EVERYTHING CHANGES. "WHAT DID YOU SAY ?" I SAID, "CUNT, THAT'S RIGHT, CUNT, CUNT, CUNT, CUNT."I T FEELS GOOD TRY IT, GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. CUNT.CUNT.CUNT.CUNT.. CUNT, CUNTCUNT.. CUNT, CUNTCUNT !( together ) CUNT, CUNT, CUNT... ! I'M A CUNT ! MY MOTHER'S GONNA SEE THIS, I CAN'T.CUNT. To read the rest of this amazing play, go to: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/v/vagina-monologues-script-eve-ensler.html (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 28, 2008, 21:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck apologies Randy. Howebout miss Janet Reno Walthers and Co. apologize for ripping crying babies from their mothers arms and telling the mothers they are unfit until they kiss her ass???!(reply to this comment)

From Randi Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 08:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow!! You really have issues. It sounds to me like you're in a way too biased state of mind to come close to any sort of objective perspective. 'What happened to you when you were young ?' is a question that I think needs some attention. Those kid's are unlucky period! They were born into strange and unhealthy environment... and now they are paying the price. No one wants to take innocent children away from their parents...That is one of the toughest jobs there is... The thing is though, something should have been done long, long time ago. This kind of isolation should not have been allowed to continue and flourish for this long. Perhaps it would have never gotten to this point if they would have been less "relative" and demanded that the kids be socialized etc. Isolation, lack of education (ignorance) mixed with religion is VERY dangerous. I can't believe they didnt take proper steps sooner to ensure the safety and health of all involved. This didn't have to happen if the social system in America worked. They always seem to end up with drastic measures because they fail to build a fence at the top of the hill. I know there are issues with the law etc... but come on..(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 19:29 (Agree/Disagree?) The way you describe this group is completely biased. I happen to be a moral relativist, so when you describe something as an "unhealthy environment" it makes me want to scream! Who are you to say what's healthy and what's not?? These people grew their own food, they built their town with their hands, they had their own doctor, cheese factory, cement factory etc. etc. They lived like the pioneers of this country. They arranged marriages for their daughters only when their daughters requested. Apparently a few requested before 18. But according to the stats out, not all the underage girls were married by a long shot. I'm also leaning toward Libertarian. That means get the fucking government out of goddamn lives, that means you don't tell me what I can or cannot do until a complaint is lodged against me and I'm convicted of a crime. This whole bullshit of this was an "unhealthy environment" so we cannot allow you to be parents flies in the face of what this country was founded upon: Liberty and Justice for all--whether Shakers, Mormons, Quakers, Ammish, Pentacostals, Seventh Day Adventists, Homeschoolers, or the FLDS.(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Thursday, May 01, 2008, 10:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Damn you Jolifam I thought you were on our side!--LOL If you were to understand how mentally retarded it is to have a baby making factory on the Arizona Utah border, where lawmen, cops, teachers, physicians are all involved in scamming their state governments of funds to build their church and practically worshipping Warren Jeffs, all the while dumping their teenage sons to the horrible vices of Arizona than I think you would recant your comments. This cult is worse than any I can think of because it preys on weak women and children. (reply to this comment)

From Randi Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 23:44 (Agree/Disagree?) hmm. Your country was founded on liberty and justice for all? That might be debatable. Why didn't the Indians get any of that? Anyway... I am certainly no moral relativists so that is where we differ!!! Freedom is a very loose term...We are or at least should be free agents, yet the rights of others sets limits and boundaries on our freedom and no matter how free we might claim to be, we have no right to infringe upon the rights of another human being. That is what was happening over in psycho vill. No government or society is perfect..But I believe that if we chose to live in a country, we should follow the rules to the best of our ability. We have a job as parents to integrate our children into the society that we chose to live in. We should and we must, however, protest and criticise what we do not aggree with and we should do what we can to change what we can change but we should not make a circle around ourselves and say.. Hay Im a free agent, so Im going to abandon society's morals and rules and make my own... and then Im going to force it on my children etc. Moral relativity might be a remotely interesting philosophy, but you can't use it in society... Nations would crumble and there would be complete anarchy. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 18:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Perfectly fine with me--anarchy that is. The USA is crumbling apart anyways, just look around. Forced democracy doesn't work. Might as well let groups to form their nuclei and operate their own society as exclusively as they wish. If they break the law then certainly prosecute, but don't persecute. The groups will form anyways, they always have, it's the tribal nature of mankind and there's nothing you and your little ultra-liberal, fascist, control-freak, yuppie world can do about it in the long run.(reply to this comment)

From Randi Friday, May 02, 2008, 06:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Call me a yuppie... but at least I'm no hippy like you. (reply to this comment)

From Joli? A hippie?? Friday, May 02, 2008, 08:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh dear God, I'd hate to come across his brand of Peace and Love. (reply to this comment)

From Randi Friday, May 02, 2008, 06:34 (Agree/Disagree?) hmm are you just saying this stuff to be annoying? I'm wondering if I should take you seriously of if youre just messing around. No one is being persecuted... this is not about religion, this is about the protection of children. If you can't see that, perhaps you're the one that is brainwashed here. Perhaps there is nothing you can do about arranged mariages between 12 year olds and 40 year olds in somalia...education might be the only way to make a difference there. But in America, Scandinavia etc.. that should not be accepted. Children are not property, they are people with the right to chose...love, education and life. Tribes may form... of course... but how can one feel free to choose what tribe they would like to be part of if they are already married off and baring children by the inocent and juvenile age of 13? That is a literal form of bondage and entrapment. I think you're sick if you think that is ok.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 02:46 (Agree/Disagree?) First of all, you are assuming many things, in particular you are assuming that these people by rule marry their daughters off to old men at age 13. You must hearing a lot of negative media that leads you to believe that, because it just ain't true. There was only case where it was assumed a 13 year old had conceived in that entire community of 700 people, and that took place almost 10 years ago. The document produced in court, specifically the "Bishop's Record" did list I believe four 16 year olds that were married. So there's an element of truth to the marrying early part. But based on interviews I've read and accounts for the most part most females in the FLDS do not choose to marry until at least 18 or later. So really you're obviously being misled along with the public; this is one of the most disturbing aspects of this tragedy is how the public swallows any bit of sallacious news they hear on the media, which is full of anecdotal evidence and unsupported assertions. Poeple really should know better and do their own fact checking before assuming things.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 20:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Isn't Ultra-Liberal the opposite of Fascist?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 03:09 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right, they aren't quite the same. But the effects felt by the population can be very similar, since both are extremist and in one way or another sacrifice people's rights on the alter of the particular ideology put forward.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 16:52 (Agree/Disagree?) "Moral relativity might be a remotely interesting philosophy, but you can't use it in society... Nations would crumble and there would be complete anarchy." What a typically Continental/collectivist opinion! Moral relativism does not mean the absence of law - I would say that it is dangerous to confuse legality for morality, the two are not, and should not be the same. As a libertarian and minarchist, I believe in negative liberties, not positive liberties, and one role I most certainly do not consider appropriate for government is as the arbiter of morality - law enforcement, yes, morality no. Can you understand the difference?(reply to this comment)

From Randi Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 23:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you trying to educate me ;-) ? The law is supposed to enforce a common sense of morality within a society. For example...You are not supposed to marry or have sexual relations with underage girls/boys. Lets take incest here as well...These are not only laws in America, they are part of the set of morals they have collectively adopted as a society be they religious, traditionally based or whatever. These rules, well at least these social type rules and laws come from a collective sense of what is right and wrong.... That is what I'm talking about not theoretical philosophical definitions. Aside from law enforcement, I think moral relativity, if put in the wrong hands, can be dangerous. I am not a relativists period.. "anything goes" is not a notion I aggree with.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 12:20 (Agree/Disagree?) The law is meant to enforce a sense of morality? That is so different to the way I see things. I think we put laws in place BECAUSE of our natural morality. But there I go again bringing up my old argument of inborn morals...I cannot be persuaded against it. No matter how many regimes try to impose cruelty, the human soul knows it is wrong. Even if it's all you've ever known. Even if you grow up in some perverted society, you KNOW it's wrong from the time you're a toddler. Your soul feels it. That's how healthy societies all over the world are able to decide upon such similar laws.(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, May 01, 2008, 13:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think you see things so differently to Randi. Laws enforce a common sense of morality not because most people wouldn't broadly follow them anyway, but because there will always be some people who are inclined toward behaviour other than that which is for the common good of all. Whether or not morality is instinctual, laws do not change the way people think but may in some cases will hopefully modify the way they choose to behave. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 18:32 (Agree/Disagree?) This concept of "common good of all." I don't like it. For example, I highly disapprove of homosexuality. I would gladly move to a country where this is illegal. UNFORTUNATELY, every goddamn country in the industrial world is so permeated by Freudian/feminist/Homo/repulsive garbage that guys like me could get landed in jail for saying an "insensitive" remark accidentally at the wrong time! This is totalitarianism. I do not believe a Homosexual is ammoral (I don't believe in the concept of "Morality" as we know it from our judeo-christian perspective), however I do believe it is repulsive. I also don't believe women should be judges, because they always make stupid decisions like Walther's in the Texas case. I also believe that were I to have the opportunity I could start my own society where I could live my own way amongst people that agree with me, and I see nothing wrong with that.(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Friday, May 02, 2008, 16:01 (Agree/Disagree?) David Koresh and Warren Jeffs surrounded themselves with their "own" people and look where it got them. I am beginning to think Jolifam that you either went through the cult completely blind or are using your type of contradictoriness to try to justify your pre-existence in the cult something I know that deep down inside you are ashamed of. Common man give it up Warren Jeffs is just as bad if not worse than that Austrian guy that locked up his daughter and kids because he instigated abuse to thousands. (reply to this comment)

From R.. Friday, May 02, 2008, 11:28 (Agree/Disagree?) ugh...That was disgusting...This is all so wrong!! You're so full of contradictions, its amazing. You must be in a very dangerous place in your life right now... I suggest major, prolonged and intense therapy!! Drugs too. You really have issues. You sound like that JB guys that has been banned from this site 109 times. I don't know. I hope you're just going through a self discovery stage...Be careful though ok?(reply to this comment)

From shikaka Friday, May 02, 2008, 12:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Why? Jolifam has the right to post and disseminate his opinion, same as you. Your ideas of morality and what constitutes 'normal' are nothing more than your mind being programmed to think a certain way. He doesnt 'need' drugs or therapy unless HE feels he needs it. I dont agree with everything he writes, but once you realize that your carefully constructed morals and cultural values amount to nothing more than a mind virus, you may gain a sense of perspective. Repeat after me...."there is no spoon"...(reply to this comment)

From there are spoons Friday, May 02, 2008, 12:47 (Agree/Disagree?) many kinds of spoons too.(reply to this comment)

From dinnerware Saturday, May 31, 2008, 21:40 (Agree/Disagree?) and many kinds of spooning.(reply to this comment)

From steam Friday, May 02, 2008, 06:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought you were moral relativist seeking no government interference. Oh you meant "except when it comes to gays or anything I have an opinion on, the government should exist to enforce my personal whims but nothing else". You are a total characature of a cult leader, IMHO. Maybe I can copywrite you for a book/movie character that everyone would see as a total nutjob.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 03:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes it is complicated isn't it? I steer clear of judging things on purely moral terms; this action I believe is trap that many fall into to rationalize their likes and dislikes. I think I'm safe though as long as I'm honest in saying that I like something or don't like something. I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with grouping together with people who share one's likes and dislikes. I believe in peaceful anarchy. If it gets to the point where a government has to be formed to enforce the opinions of the majority, I think that's the point where the people should be divided into groups that share common interests, simultaneously doing away with the need for authoritarian government.(reply to this comment)

From Fred Phelps Thursday, May 01, 2008, 20:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Nor do I, brother. Sounds like an awesome place, man. Think you'll have room for us and a small church of about 50 people? And would Americans courts still have jurisdiction over the land? Because we got sued a couple months ago for 12 million dollars.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 03:34 (Agree/Disagree?) wouldn't that be nice. No government breathing down our throats, tearing down our walls, and dragging our children off on mere suspicion of wrongdoing... I feel sorry for the FLDS. They didn't think the American courts would be so nasty and obtrusive. Well the fascist 21st century caught up with them quick. I don't think there's anywhere in the States where you can really just be free to live like you want to live without facing intense government scrutiny and taxation.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, May 03, 2008, 09:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't believe what I'm reading, Jolifam. First off, it appears you don't know who Fred Phelps is(I simply wrote an anonymous comment and typed his name in). Fred Phelps is the "pastor" (if you can call him that) of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Why they have "Baptist" in their name is beyond me, as they are not affiliated with any mainstreem denomination, Baptist or otherwise. They claim to be Primitive Baptists, but rather than bringing casseroles or a covered dish over to his house for a fellowship, mainstream Primitive Baptists pretty much condemn the church. He has a small following of about 100 people, mostly members of his family. And he, like you, happens to be a homophobe, which is what I was trying to get at but you apparently are too dense/ unfamiliar with the news to get that message. At least that is my hope. If on the other hand, you know who Fred Phelps is and would invite him to live in your community, then you've got more issues than I thought. Now, if they were to stay in Kansas and not bother anyone else, that would be one thing. But do they do that? NOOOOOO! They have to go around the country protesting at military funerals. And they believe that the soldiers who have died in Iraq are God's judgment on us for allowing same sex marriage (which we do, in certain states). The afore mentioned lawsuit was brought against the church after they protested at a military funeral in Maryland (it was actually 10.9 million, not 12. My bad) for invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:30 (Agree/Disagree?) You got me on that. I admit I am pretty dense. But I believe in freedom. And if he wants to start his own autonomous, sovereign country, where there's freedom of religious, freedom from taxation, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech, then I'll be glad to leave the States and sign up as one of the first citizens of that free country.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Go ahead, have your damn homophobic country. Just don't expect Elton John to sing your National Anthem at the opening ceremonies (maybe one of the girls from Phelp's church will sing it for you, though?) Or you could just move to the Iran, India, Ethiopia or Saudi Arabia. They already have laws against gays over there.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, May 05, 2008, 20:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, you know what, Jolifam? I'm afraid I owe you an apology. I've been looking back at my past comments, just a few years ago, and I'm reminded that there was a time when I once thought the same way about gays. And I realize how wrong that was. Considering that, it is a bit hypocritical of me to get on you for your attitude toward them. So while I do think you're wrong, you're not stupid, and you're no Fred Phelps. My sincerest apologies. (reply to this comment)

From shikaka Monday, May 05, 2008, 21:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, your witless insights and asinine sentiments astonish and amuse me. "....He both pleases men, and angers them. So they laugh at him, and beat him." (reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 19:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm pretty sure that would be a society of one. I doubt anyone would want to live near all your hate and vitriol.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, May 01, 2008, 14:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Which comes right back to my original point that morality and legality are two separate things. Laws are the mechanism to regulate the behaviours of a society - particularly as regards their interactions with each other and institutions. Laws therefore are absolute within their respective jurisdiction (of course that doesn't mean they are absolutely applied or enforced). Morality therefore does not need to be - and in most cases is not - universally held within a jurisdiction. While I agree with rainy's point of a degree of moral commonality, I don't see this as extending beyond a 'baseline', and even that is not necessarily identical, with nuances specific to individuals or groups. Therefore moral relativism does not mean a lawless society because one needn't share the lawmakers' morality in order to respect that society's laws.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 19:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said.(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, May 01, 2008, 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Argh why the fuck can't i just get it right the first time?? '...may in some cases hopefully modify the way they choose to behave' (reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 14:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I get what you're saying. I suppose it's a 'which came first, the chicken or the egg' kinda deal. Hey are you available for chat?(reply to this comment)

From Randi Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 23:49 (Agree/Disagree?) You being a moral relativist? Do you then accept the way we were raised? (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 18:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe I have come to accept it. We are all animals. I believe in fate. That was my fate. I'm skeptical of "free will." I don't think my parents had a choice. They could not refuse what they had coming. I don't blame them any more for their decisions, because their are just weak globs of flesh and blood, as we all are.(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Friday, May 02, 2008, 08:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Joli, you can't believe in fate without believing in Destiny. I've honestly given up both, it's just too random to have one recieve good things and another bad and that's supposed to be part of some pre-destined order. I no longer believe in morals except not hurting other people. Half the world could die tomorrow and it won't really faze me. (reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, May 02, 2008, 07:49 (Agree/Disagree?) So are you trying to change the FLDS fate?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 03:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I would like to see the mothers reunited with their children. Nature dictates that children are raised by their mothers. Anything else is unnatural and thus cruel, barring some mental disability on the part of the mothers. My second foremost concern is adherence to the Constitution of the United States, which grants certain inalienable rights to individuals. The FLDS individuals' rights were trampled on by Texas, and I find that to be disturbing, outrageous, and unacceptible, because if it happens to them it can happen to anyone.(reply to this comment)

From neez Thursday, May 08, 2008, 05:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought they most of them weren't really being raised by their natural mothers.(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, May 08, 2008, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) From what I've read, most of the kids didn't even know who their natural mothers were.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 10, 2008, 18:42 (Agree/Disagree?) That's BS. Quit reading the tabloids.(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, May 11, 2008, 03:41 (Agree/Disagree?) How do you know that what you're reading is not also BS? I'm not saying I believe it. I do not believe most of what I read in the news. I was simply stating that that was printed. (reply to this comment)

From neez Thursday, May 08, 2008, 05:38 (Agree/Disagree?) that*(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 08:22 (Agree/Disagree?) What rights do the children have?? Seems to me their rights are what their parents and supiorities dictate to them!!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, May 03, 2008, 07:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately nature does dictate that children are raised by their mothers. That's the only reason why The Family won the British Isles case. And look how far they've gone to exploit that?!(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Thursday, May 01, 2008, 21:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I am sorry, but that really is a pretty weak argument/defense. I mean what the fuck is this "fate"? Someone or something choose us to be brainwashed and coerced into being mindless soldiers in "King David's Endtime Army"? Fate is not pre-destined, fate is what you make it. Hard work = more money and better opportunities = better house, car, friends and women. Do good deeds = get taken advantage of = finish last. Brainwashed as a child = mental struggles and physical hardships then and in later years = anger and aggression when woken up. We were not "destined" to be born into a cult. We are the end-result of one man's deluded and perverted but above all DELIBERATE actions to subvert and enslave weaker minds, compounded by bad judgements on our own parents part. Fuck fate. I mean come on. No matter what our original intentions, we must all take responsibility for our own actions. That includes Hilter, that includes us and that includes our parents. This really sounds like your own attempt at defering your own responsibilities by claiming "We are all just weak globs of flesh and blood." That's one of the weakest cop-outs I've ever heard. Why spend so much effort on this thread defending the "free will" of the FLDS, and then contradict yourself by saying you're skeptical of "free will"? Should our parents then have been free to pursue their own "free will" even though they were so obviously misguided Berg. Or is it that you really just don't see anything wrong with the way we were born, raised and abused? If the answer is the latter, I think you are very dangerous and your "fuck the authorities" sentiment has really led you off on a very delusional path. Much the way Berg himself got started - resenting authorities because it infringed on what he thought was his right to pursue sick inclinations. I say you are free to pursue whatever sick desires you may have, AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT FORCING THEM ON OTHERS OR PREYING ON AND ENSLAVING THE WEAK OF MIND FOR YOUR OWN GAIN. What the FLDS have done, IMO, definitely constitutes - forcing them on others and preying on and enslaving the weak of mind for his own gain.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 04:00 (Agree/Disagree?) My understanding of fate is that it IS predestined. So I have to disagree with you on that. And fate is a fact. For example, if you were born to an impoverished family, chances are you will never get enough money to pay for the tuition at Yale University, no matter how hard you work. That's fate in action. And I could go into more theory about atomic movements and theories concerning bodies in motion, etc., but I think you prefer to keep things simple, judging from your conversation. As for the FLDS, and the "free will" stuff, I agree it does seem contradictory to say that the FLDS members are "free" to choose to leave whenever they want, and then later on state that there's no such thing as free will. Well, there's really no contradiction. In the first case the "free will" was actually the capacity for moving in a particular direction (for example out of the group) that is in the best interest of the entity (FLDS member) at the time. But this is not to be mistaken with metaphysical "free will" which I believe doesn't exist. The movement out of the group that the FLDS member took was actually a reaction to a long series of gazillions of previous actions she took or which were taken on her. For comparison sake, I would say the movement outside of the group, which I define as a capacity or capability to leave the group is very much like withdrawing one's hand from lit torch. Both actions are instinctual. However we mistake the former for free will since we don't understand how our brain works, so we assume the movement was a "decision" which stems from this vague notion of "free will" when in fact it was just one reaction in a long chain of reactions and events occurring in our mind and body.(reply to this comment)

From DeeJay Sunday, May 04, 2008, 22:52 (Agree/Disagree?) This is where we disagree. I don't believe in fate as in pre-destined fate. Like you said, there are some things we can't choose. Those can be deemed as "fated". But while fate may apply to some factors, fate doesn't apply to any and all outcomes, which is what I was getting at. Being born into an impoverished family doesn't necessarily dictate poor as unavoidable fate. You can work hard, you search out opportunities and you can turn your life around. Fate may dictate circumstances, but not the outcome. Next, while humans are instinctual in nature, they are not instinctual in their entirety. We have the strength and reasoning capabilities to make decisions which are counter-instinctual. Even if our concluding action is the result of gazillions of previous actions, ultimately we still choose whether or not to go through with it - my definition of free will. You're right. I don't know a lot about atomic theory, but I still contest - Regardless of what forces are in action pulling me, it is still a conscious decision on my part whether to let it take me, or pull in the opposite direction. Plenty of people make decisions which are far from instinctual. Basic human instinct? - Survival. Plenty of people choose to jump off buildings or blow their brains out every day. Also,by your argument, can you really blame the judge since her decision was simply instinctual and by extention the mothers are simply"fated" to be separated from their parents?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:36 (Agree/Disagree?) No I can't blame the judge--for being a female, and a rather uneducated one at that. As for your rambling on about conscious this, conscious that...go take a philosophy course or something. When you figure out exactly what "conscious" is, come back and let me know. Until then all you're saying is a lot blah blah, I could readily hear from the man on the street who doesn't know is mind from his dick.(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 09:26 (Agree/Disagree?) If leaving the group is like with-drawing your hand from a lit tourch then why is it better for the kids of this cult in Texas to be with their mothers, as you have just compared it with getting burnded? You seem too contridict yourself jolifam77, not to be sounding too rude!(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:42 (Agree/Disagree?) They should be given the chance to leave when their "of age" whether that's 16 or 18, I'll leave that up to you. Until that time they need their mothers; it's an essential part of being human to have the mother-child bonding. If you don't get that, then well I don't know what to say. If when they're finally expected to work and make decisions they feel they need to leave, then should be allowed to do just that, I don't think anyone can stand to live in a "burning" situation for long, they will run away if they have to and many do, and good for them. But don't fault the ones who choose to stay, that's their choice, and you shouldn't be the judge of that.(reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, May 03, 2008, 04:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Joli I want to chat, have you got time? (reply to this comment)

From WTF??? Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 22:11 (Agree/Disagree?) The FLDS do not support themselves, they mooch off of welfare. Also, you keep repeating FLDS talking points and media statements as truth. As an ex-Family teen you should know better than that. I support religious freedom, but freedom of religion DOES NOT include the right to sexually abuse your children, and for all the bluffing and bulshit being spewed, it is apparent to anyone that has looked at the FLDS, that they did indeed PROMOTE, not just allow, the sexual exploitation of young, underage girls.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, May 01, 2008, 18:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh c'mon. You don't know every single FLDS parent deliberately and wilfully abused there children. Please...you make them out to be a tribe of flesh-eating satanists. Have a little sense. I think child abuse was the last thing on all but perhaps a few of the FLDS people's mind, judging from what I've seen so far. Also "Abuse" is a relative term. Parent's used to require their children to hoe the fields for hours, and work in the farm. They would also get beaten or spanked pretty good when they did the wrong thing. Nowadays we would consider that abuse. By the same token those guys would probably consider being forced to brave schoolyard negroes and endless learning about sociological nonsense in public schools to be abuse. So 'abuse' especially psychological abuse, can mean different things to different people. Also arranging your daughter's marriage is not abuse per se. People have done that for millenia.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Thursday, May 01, 2008, 20:10 (Agree/Disagree?) It doesn't matter how many millennia people have arranged their children's marriages. It's still abuse. You are still forcing another person into a lifelong situation not of their choosing. Then when you pair that with the fact that this person is young, innocent, vulnerable, and your responsibility, it becomes abuse of trust, and abuse of the duty all people have to care for their young. Raising a child in an environment that stifles, quashes, forces, and manipulates them to suit yours or someone else's purposes is abuse. Restricting their thoughts and information is abuse. Why were you so bitter about your upbringing? (We all remember that, JF) Because you were denied freedom and a normal life and a chance at life. Now take everything you hate about your childhood and multiply it by 100. These kids can't even speak in modern English. Are you seriously saying you want them to continue their lives in this way just so the world can fit your new-found libertarian ideals? These poor children would never get a share in that liberty. They would be the casualties of your perfect world.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 04:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe that these kids belong to their parents. As liberal and interested in the welfare of others as you may be, until you abolish parental rights, you cannot tell that parent which environment is right for their kids. Again, what may be abusive to you is not abusive to them, and vice versa. It could be argued that helping a daughter choose a husband by offering her a prospect is easier on the girl, then forcing her do all the work herself with all the attendant drawbacks (makeup/drama/crushes/being dumped/being divorced multiple times/ending up miserable/suicide). Cultures practice arranged marriage successfully around the world. For you to say your culture is superior to anothers is to be rather ethnocentric.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, May 05, 2008, 01:08 (Agree/Disagree?) you think people should be free to raise their children as they see fit- but when a parent begins imposing their particular head-trip on their children that parent becomes a microcosm of the imposing, meddling society you abhor. I just don't think your Libertarian view carry water if they are not also extended to children. A true Libertarian would not want to control their child's environment. They would respect that person as a human being equal to themselves, and allow their child to make their own mistakes without meddling and interfering that much. The argument about sparing a daughter the pain that accompanies life's decisions is similar to the freak who locked up his daughter for 24 years. He, too, is saying that he thought he was doing what was right for her. He, too, is saying that he was trying to spare her the world. You say I'm being ethnocentric. I'm saying you're egocentric. I state that children are people in their own rights. I don't think it's about me thinking my culture is better than other cultures. It's enlightenment and tolerance versus dogma, prejudice, and hatred.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Parents have the right to teach their children whatever they want. If you have a problem with that take it up with the supreme court. The case in Austria was one of physical abuse--completely different story. Parents have the right teach/train but not physically abuse. end of story.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, May 06, 2008, 02:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Physical abuse is only one of the five types of child abuse. Mental and Emotional and Neglect are the others, along with Sexual abuse. I define raising a child in an environment in which they are made to feel guilty just for being themselves, in which curiosity is punished and dissenting thoughts are treason, in which their very reason for existence is taught to them as being for some higher purpose or someone else's pleasure, (The leader's God's, or whoever) where there is no freedom of thought, constant manipulation, constant agendas, constant expectations, where there are no future options given to them apart from that life; all this I define as emotional and mental abuse. Therefore it is child abuse. Therefore parents doing these things are robbing their children of the right to a natural childhood. Defending this with "the parents' rights to raise their children as they wish" seems rather ridiculous. The pain caused to these parents with this raid (and I agree, it must be horrible) is nothing compared to what they have inflicted on their own children. Are children not people too?(reply to this comment)

From elisha717 Saturday, May 03, 2008, 08:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree with you, as I am so tired of parents treating children as if they were their personal possession and therefore can decide their childrens fates with out giving their child a REAL choice in the matter. And then when the child turns of age and decides they want to have a different life, who has to pick up the pieces and help these children integrate into society? I will tell you one thing --It is NOT the PARENTS! It is not the parents going out there who are paying for their adult children's education because they got denied their own rights growing up as children with their DICTATOR parents. It amazes me how normally the first people to scream that their INSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are being denied them are usually the parents that raise their children as if they were living in Biblical times (where to answer back was punishable by being stoned). Amazing their DOUBLE STANDARED!!!Lol!(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, May 05, 2008, 17:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Take it up with the supreme court. This vague mandate to "give the children choices" is so subjective it's not even slightly practical to enforce.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Excuse me? I've got to ask you, do you ever watch the News? Because last year they did a special on the Branch Davidians, lots of info I never got to hear in The Family! Did you know that a close relative of Koresh actually testified before Congress that she had been sexually abused by him? Did you know that children who had been rescued from the group were able to tell their caretakers that there was going to be a fire? Now, that tells me that either they had psychic powers, or David Koresh knew exactly what was going to happen when the Feds arrived, and for some sick reason had decided to fill everyone in on his intentions- including the kids! In which case, all I can say is thank God someone cared enough to rescue the kids that they could before David Koresh had his way with them. This is the guy who taught the kids a song about having to "hold up the blood stained banner until we die". Makes "We're Going Forth to Conquer!" sound tame.(reply to this comment)

from cosmogrrl Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 18:04 (Agree/Disagree?) You may have some points worth discussion, but it's hard to focus on them when your article is full of sexist slurs and sweeping generalizations. (reply to this comment)

from jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 14:15 (Agree/Disagree?) A couple blog entries to provide a little counterbalance to the opportunistic bitter women and their generalizations. http://paul.malan.org/2008/04/yearning-for-zion-invading-the-flds-ranch.cfm http://againstthemodernworld.blogspot.com/2008/04/yearning-for-zion.html (reply to this comment)

From rainy Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 01:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry, that blog is just stupid. "The teenage girls WANTED to be married to older men!" Yeah right. This is just another misogynistic cult, and as usual, young women are the ones paying the highest price for the pleasure of the male leaders.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 02:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Here are two very telling paragraphs: "Anyone that thinks there is something wrong with having a bed in a temple that has disturbed linen and a female hair, is assuming WAY too much." Uhh...yeah...messy bed in the temple. PERFECTLY NORMAL. "I left on my own accord because I was standing in the way. I wasn't ready to give up material things and I didn't believe Warren Jeffs was a prophet. I drew my own conclusion, and every member of that church is fully capable of doing the same if they so choose" Someone's mind OBVIOUSLY isn't free yet.(reply to this comment)

from GetReal Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I’d like to nominate this article for the front page of thefamily.org. Does anyone know how I can submit a formal request? (reply to this comment)

From P.S. Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:19 (Agree/Disagree?) You may also want to consider writing cult rebuttals. I’m sure you could do better than any cultie (reply to this comment)

from sar Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 10:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Joli, as you say you've been following this case for some time, do you know where I would be able to access a legal reporting of the case? News reporters tend to be full of shit. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:07 (Agree/Disagree?) sar, this case opens up a can of worms in terms of parents' rights versus states' rights vis-a-vis a parent's children. It also raises questions regarding the constitutionality of outlawing paligamy and creating laws to regulate a person's sex life including the setting of "age of consent," etc. I also hope the topic of "selective prosecution" comes with regard the law officers targeting special groups like the FLDS for underage sex between "minors" and adults but ignoring the rest of mainstream society where the problem is rampent and unstoppable. Some of these laws were created with the sole purpose of destroying an unpopular group, creating the environment for a legalized modern-day witchunt. There's not a lot of legal blogging so far, but I hope there will be as this case certainly can create legal precedents that can affect us all. Here's one interesting blog/comments section: http://volokh.com/posts/1209027623.shtml(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:27 (Agree/Disagree?) The case probably will create legal precedents, but I was actually just looking for a reporting of the case by someone who maybe knew a little bit about children law in the US and so could understand and perhaps explain a little bit about what is happening. Many of the news and blog commenters on this issue seem to think that these are criminal proceedings. I don't understand why criminal proceedings would be got underway before care proceedings (different levels of proof probably required), and so I assume that the current set of proceedings relate to care and the newspapers are simply getting it wrong. I haven't found a paper that states at what stage the proceedings are at. That blog you mentioned seems to talk about the recent judgment as if it were a final hearing, but I would be very surprised if any care proceedings could take so little time. Do they even know which parents belong to each child yet? I do hate newspapers and their shoddy reporting.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 14:29 (Agree/Disagree?) "Family Law" is as much as a sham as the Tax code in this country. Neither is Constitutional. Family law falls under the realm of civil dispute resolution and is practically a parallel legal system to the Criminal legal system. I don't know much about either so I can't really say and the reporting has indeed been spotty, but basically, the courts have 14 days from the seizure of children to rule that the children will remain in state custody. Then by the 60 day mark, the judge has to hold a hearing to address whether the family is following the CPS service plan. Over all the state has up to a year (with 6 month extension) to prove that the child should be separated from its parents. It's really confusing and basically unconstitutional unless you believe that taking a person's children isn't as bad as putting a person in prison--the end result of a criminal proceeding, which is, let's just say, *more* constitutional at least since there's more checks and balances. Frankly the whole system stinks and should be completely overhauled or gotten rid of as it's being abused by CPS, the state, and drug companies who induce the CPS to force foster kids to take psychotrophic drugs to control their behavior (60% of Texas foster children on mind-altering drugs). As for whether CPS knows which child belongs to which parent? Of course they do. They're just buying time with the DNA testing so they can try to prosecute the parents and/or extract incriminating testimony out of the children.(reply to this comment)

From cassy Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Again, you're making untrue statements, I know plenty of people in 'normal society' that have been put away for having sex with underage girls and/or their own children. It's called abuse and is a criminal offence. For you to say that they are ignoring it and only focusing in on groups like the FLDS is bullshit. In fact, it's been the other way around, they've been hands off for the last 50 years which is part of the reason why it's led to this action now. They shouldh have been investigating reports all along and putting the criminals in jail, however, this whole community sectioned themselves off to where even the police officers and ambulence men were in it together, making it near impossible for the women to speak out/get justice or escape. No group should be able to get away with cutting themselves off, there have to be checks and balances so that they don't get away with criminal behaviour without repercussion. And yes, there should be regulation of sexual behaviour in so much as someone's actions should not hurt or infringe on another person (especially if that person is younger and more vulnerable). (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry but I disagree with Texas' actions in going in aggressivly questioning young children all night and abducting every last one of them from their parents without giving the parents any say or considering that maybe not every single parent or family was guilty. They should have found another solution. Two wrongs don't make a right. Hopefully the Texas government will pay a heavy price for its illegal actions.(reply to this comment)

From cassy Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:36 (Agree/Disagree?) 'questioning young children all night' ???? Do you have any proof of this accusation? Again, just scare-mongering. You make it sound like they are torturing the kids to confess. I think you have let your distaste for the US government run away with you. I would implore you to get a more balanced perspective on things.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 19:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Here's your proof: http://www.captivefldschildren.org/TimeLine.php The USA is a Fascist state.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 01:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Reading that reminded me of going through the raids. It was very close to the operation and procedures we experienced. It's still hard for me to have a position on my own experience of the raids, let alone this one, where it's so hard to know where the truth lies. Only time will tell.(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 20:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Here's some more proof: www.myconclusion.com Ex-Family members are all a bunch of evil liars.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 28, 2008, 21:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I followed this case intently. You don't have to believe me. In fact go scoop the poop into your wide open mouth which is poured incessantly from the media, which lied about the initial caller, lied about the so-called temple bed used for rape, lied to the mothers to get 'em to give their babies, lies lies lies is all that comes out of CNN/FOX/MSNBC.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 19:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, so I guess that means you didn't read this- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356447 One of the sect teens has given birth to a boy. Now all they have to do is run a paternity test and find out if this random teen from the compound was sexually abused or not.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 19:34 (Agree/Disagree?) This particular "teen" is actually 18 and married to a 22 year old. They should let this couple go home with their kids. But the fact that they don't proves that this all about destroying this sect. The CPS are baby snatchers and should all be tried for kidnapping. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmm...I remember this same thing being quoted in one of The Family's propaganda PR videos. http://www.captivefldschildren.org/WhatIsGenocide.php(reply to this comment)

from steam Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 09:24 (Agree/Disagree?) As to your last sentence "I almost wish I was just a naiive cult member, practicing my simple faith in God." You needn't worry you still are. (reply to this comment)

from cheeks Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 20:31 (Agree/Disagree?) You are right the tip was a fake. But I don't think it was wrong to pull those kids from those homes. At least in the Fam for the most part we knew the names of our parents. Jesus babies being the exception to the rule. What normal church has a bed in their sanctuary? What normal church believes in marring off their children to nasty old men? And why the hell should they live off of our tax dollars, producing child after child so we can food the bill? Do you know why they had to have DNA test? Because most of the kids didn't know who the hell their parents were, and the adults sure as hell weren't saying, teenage mothers were denying some of the kids were theirs so that they wouldn't get the compound in trouble because they had kids at 12 years of age. Who the hell cares their leader is in Jail, would you marry a child because some sick bastard told you too? (reply to this comment)

from rainy Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 15:14 (Agree/Disagree?) May I remind you that the reason these raids happened in the first place was because of a sixteen year old girl's call for help? She secretly managed to call and tell of her forced marriage to a 50 year old man, and of the abuse she was suffering every day. They all needed to get out and away from those people for the rest of your life. Some of the things you've said above are deliberately vile. Are you just flaming or what? (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, April 26, 2008, 18:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Haven't you heard the call was a hoax by a Ms. Swinton in Colorado??? Wake up. This was a conspiracy by the Texas Rangers, Flora Jessop, and Ms. Moran and possibly others to destroy (commit genocide) the FLDS. I may or may not approve of the FLDS, but they have rights under the Constitution of the United States; and right now there is no doubt they are suffering persecution live before our eyes. They will be lucky to get out of this better than the Family did in Argentina or Australia. At worst their kids will be raped and brutalized in the Texas "foster care" system where it's estimated that 12.5% of children are known to be sexually assaulted. It is a sad day when an anonymous tipster (hoaxster), a couple of pregnant teenagers and some bad rap in the press are enough to warrant kidnapping 462 children from an entire community.(reply to this comment)

From cassy Sunday, April 27, 2008, 06:31 (Agree/Disagree?) You're really scare mongering -- and the language you're using for the judge is shocking. She's not some 'evil' woman, she is just trying to do her job professionally and, believe me, you wouldn't want to be in her shoes, or have that responsibility because no matter what you do you're not going to please everybody. I'm not sure where you live, but it's not THAT bad as you describe out here in the world. It depends on where you are and who you associate with. There are plenty of schools who are doing an excellent job and teachers who have the children's best interests at heart. What I have found is if you look for the good, you'll find it, but if you look for the bad, you'll find that as well. The world will never be perfect, but at least out here we as individuals have a CHOICE. The situation with the FLDS is not persecution. The FLDS has been for a long time now using 'religion' to facilitate blatant oppression of women and children right before our eyes and at least the state is doing something about it rather than turning a blind eye to it. If you actually looked into it a little more carefully they are doing their best to keep siblings together and they are not rushing things until due process is done for each family. Because of their mistrust of anyone outside and lying (yes just like we were taught) it is unfortuately not good for the parents to have access to their children where they can threaten them or indimidate them. They are only in temporary foster care at the moment until the investigation is complete.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 09:51 (Agree/Disagree?) The Constitution demands due process. None of these mothers ever got a chance to answer to the allegations of child abuse in court, save a couple perhaps. The state assumed they are all guilty until proven innocent, when it should be the other way around. This trampling on these people's basic rights should alarm any one who knows that down the road this legal precedent could justify ripping children away from an entire group based on what they believe. If you want to criminalize an entire group for their beliefs go right ahead. But as for me I'll take the Constitution and presume innocence until proven guilty. Unfortunately the Constitution isn't enough nowadays. So much for Freedom and Liberty.(reply to this comment)

From cassy Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:32 (Agree/Disagree?) If the parent is the one that is possibly part of the abuse of their own child, then due to the imbalance of power and the influence that parents have over their child, the child should be removed from that parent, until it is established that the child will be safe with that parent. That's the way it is in any abuse investigation involving family members - better to side on caution as that child's protection takes priorty over the 'right of the parent' to be with that child. If the parent is innocent, then they will be reunited with their child/children when the investigation is complete. May I just say jolifam77 that I am a parent myseif, so I know what it's like to have children. If I were to be investigated as being a threat to my daughter I would cooperate with the investigation, and would not worry about being separated from my child during the course of proving my innocence, understanding the reasons why it has to be done.(reply to this comment)

From Jailbird Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:57 (Agree/Disagree?) In a functional system, what you say may be correct. The system in the United States is dysfunctional to put it mildly. My emotions are all over the board when it comes to this case. One thing for absolute certain is that the children will need care, counselling and therapy going forward, which I very much doubt that they'll get. Our system is big on sensationalism, poor and follow-through. Also, the forster care systems in the states of Texas and California are horrific, with very high incidences of both physical and sexual abuse. I have two friends / aquaintences who were in the system, and were the victims of suffered sexual in their teens, and their abuser had a pattern of abusing teenage girls he got access to through the foster care system. Very sad. The situation with the mothers and their children is sad, because children need their parents and experiene a great deal of trauma when seperated from them. If the parents are abusers, well, then they nee to be take out of harm's way, but it's still very traumatic. I think the courts/cps said that if the women got their own appartment(s), moved out of the compound etc., the they'd look much more kindly to re-uniting the children with their mothers. The sad thing is that the above more than likely will never happen or it will be very difficult for it to happen since the women are completely dependent on their husbands and / or the group for financial sustinence. It would be nice if the state could/would help some of the mothers willing to make that step for the sake of their children. In lieu of any help from relatives, the state, or some positive support group, the mothers are going to just be controlled by the group to the detriment of their children. I don't think all the mothers or fathers for that matter were or are complicit in child abuse, but owing to my background I'm very distrustful of isolationist communities where children are involved. I'm also distrustful of the media. I'm also very distrustful of the state. This whole thing is a mess, and the most vulerable, the children, are going to bear to scars of this going forward. It's sad, it's unfair, it's life. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:52 (Agree/Disagree?) If I were a parent I wouldn't find it acceptable to have my child taken away from me for up to year while I try to "prove" my innocence. Your childlike faith in government is what is giving the gov carte-blanche do do as it pleases. People need to stand up for their own rights and those of their children. Kids should not be taken from their parents unless and until their parents have be charged with a crime.(reply to this comment)

From cassy Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) There can be no prosecution of a crime unless the witness is willing to speak out about it and give evidence. If the perpetrator remains with their victim, the likelyhood of indimidation is very high, and therefore they will get away with their crime. You seem to demonstrate little understanding of abuse within the family setting and why some children need to be protected from their parents during an investigation.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 14:37 (Agree/Disagree?) So what your saying is since there's no evidence of child abuse we're just going to hang on to the kids until they confess and testify against thier parents. Nice. I'm glad you're not in charge. Because that would mean if there's any suspicion at all that some sheltered community has a child abuse problem, then it's okay to steal all their kids and question them for months until they confess. Reminds me of the novel 1984. We're just going to keep you in custody until you break. Pathetic. Flies in the face of "Innocent until proven guilty."(reply to this comment)

From Jailbird Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:35 (Agree/Disagree?) What you say is true. Victims have to be out of the economic, physical and psychological control of the perpetrator(s) and the structure in which the perpetrators operate in order to honestly come forward. This takes time. Some of the victims may be "stolkholmed", (refernce to Stolkholm Syndrome), and may not be willing to testify against their abusers for well beyond the investigation's time-frame. Also, to these isolated children the "outside world" is bad, scary, etc., it's doubtful many of them will cooperate as fully as needed, look at what we went through in Argentina, France and Australia. Don't tell me none of the kids in Argentina weren't victims of abuse, I know that they were. Don't tell me that none of the kids in France weren't victims of abuse, same with Australia etc. ... This whole situation stinks. It seems more than than likely that abuse of all sorts occured within the isolationist compound. Just the isolation in itself is a form of abuse in my view. I don't know what the "right way" to deal with these types of situations are as I haven't seen any that have worked or been all that successful in the over all scheme of things. At this point it's gotten political and it's doubtful that the system will back down and or be fair, or honest. The whole thing is a mess. My thoughts are with the children, they deserve a better, safer life with access to the rest of the world etc, and freedom from pervish characters marrying teenagers etc., very strange.(reply to this comment)

From cassy Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, April 27, 2008, 05:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I haven't been particularly following this story, and I do recognise an ironic tone in joli's post above, but I do remember reading something about the reliability of the original report that triggered all this being called into question.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, April 26, 2008, 21:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I was unaware of that. Apart from the initial news, this story hasn't had that much coverage in my country. But I did read about the systematic abuse, the "water torture" used to break babies' spirits, etc. Those children REALLY needed to be free from that horrible environment. I think they could return the kids to their mothers though, and the mothers should receive housing and counselling and they could have social workers visit them daily. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought it interesting in the light of all the ridiculous accusations, sensational stories, and public "alarm" that it's been proven that false memories can in fact be implanted in children through aggressive questioning and in some cases the children grow up believing they actually had been severely abused when in fact they weren't. I hope we learn from history but it looks like we won't. see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_case.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/wenatche.htm(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 09:59 (Agree/Disagree?) For people like me who have followed this story extensively and know first hand what it's like to live in a fundamentalist group, I can attest that the environment most likely was not "horrible" as you say. You are just assuming that it was based on some best-seller that was written by a disaffected ex-member with the attent of shocking the public and making a shitload of money in the process. We don't know what Flora Jessop is making up and what is truthful about her story. But in court, her testimony is meaningless since she wasn't at the FLDS ranch and left the group years ago--meaningless unless the group itself is on trial, which is exactly what is happening. So much for freedom of religion. Might as well make it illegal to be an FLDS member because the media tells it's a horrible group. Where's the proof? Who needs proof Walthers says, let's just hang them all, fucking child abusers. Or better yet just incinerate them along with the children like they did in Waco. Fucked up situation.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, April 26, 2008, 19:54 (Agree/Disagree?) "Haven't we heard?" No apparently we didn't. Would you like to enlighten us? Please, I'd like to hear your sources. Or, you know what? Never mind telling little ol' me, call the Attorney General! Call the press! Not just the locals either, call the Washington Post! Call Time magazine! Call CNN! Call Dateline NBC! And be prepared to get a response, because if your story has any support behind it, lawyers are going to be calling from every part of the Western world for an opportunity to take this case on for free. I mean, what better way for a lawyer to make a name for themselves than to uncover this hoax and bring on a massive lawsuit against the Federal government!? And the members of the FLDS can forget about sewing their own clothes, they'll be able to shop at the GAP soon! However, do realize that unless you can back up your story with evidence other than "he said/she said", you'll be lucky to get in on some low rated radio show in the middle of the night after you lie about the reason for your call, or a little blitz in the back pages of the National Enquirer. I think you need to back away from the conspiracy theories, and embrace the real world. Now repeat after me : "The government is not out to get me. The government is not out to get me. The government is not out to get me..." Your statistic is a classic example of how conspiracy theorists spin things. You mention that 12.5% of children in the Texas foster care system are known to be sexually assaulted. Did it ever occur to you that that might be WHY they're in the Texas foster care system? What do they expect the system to do when they find out a child has been sexually abused, leave them on the street? Send them to the Family Care Foundation? Sometiems you really worry me, Jolifam77. But I do hope you're doing well.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 10:19 (Agree/Disagree?) The system is shit and these people, the FLDS, are being singled out and persecuted. Why don't they snatch all the children from the underaged mothers in 'the hood' and get DNA samples from everyone. Because they don't really care about the children; it's all political. The FLDS should sue for civil rights violations and I hope they make Texas broke. The CPS needs to be dismantled--long over due. How much more pain and suffering will they cause? How many will they offend with their zeal to punish the innocent for the crime of being different? The CPS, FBI, etc. are big brother. Don't step out of line or you might find your life turned up-side-down. They'll find something to prosecute you on, even if they have to plant evidence or just plain take your enemy's word against yours. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, April 27, 2008, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) The system is shit? Gee, jolifam, even David Berg himself rarely put it that strongly. The FLDS are not being persecuted, they are being prosecuted! They have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, over course, we all do. What they don't have a constitutional right to do is to abuse children, marry them off at a young age against Texas law (to adults for that matter), deny them an education, etc. They had a warrant, which you can see right here. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0410081polygamy1.html You might be right about it being political, though, as it doesn't look good to allow a group of sex abusers to keep their victims couped up in a compound during an election year. Now, the court battle is a very long, drawn out process. There is no doubt in my mind that each member of the group that has been arrested will have his/her day in court, they will have access to proper counsel, the right to question witnesses, a speedy trial, and every other right that they are afforded by the Constitution of this great nation. Perhaps the Texas CPS needs to be dismantled. If so, you should do something about it (however, if you don't live in Texas, you can't really know much about CPS there and in that case I highly recommend you give Texas CPS a little bit of a break).(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:03 (Agree/Disagree?) IMO the second warrant was invalid since it did not list the names of the children they planned to seize. The first warrant was also invalid since the Texas Ranger knew that the 16 year old's story was inaccurate being that officer Moran had talked to the man (Dale Barlow) who the 16 year old (well the 32 year old Swinton) had accused of abusing her. Moran knew Barlow hadn't ever stepped foot in the YFZ ranch. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 27, 2008, 22:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, that's Sheriff Doran (not Moran, well Moron could very well be a suitable appellation). see http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2008/04/you-know-i-really-dislike-both-taste.html (reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, April 26, 2008, 15:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh sorry, mistakes above. Hungover.(reply to this comment)