Yet another religious cult raided

[Chesspiece_face]

Court: Texas Wrongly Seized Kids.

[Jim]

Hi,

Save the Children :wub:

On Larry King CNN, The women interviewed were from the polygamous community in Texas...they were like Robots without Emotion, they ALL sat erect with a Blank Stare and taked about their Children "WITHOUT A TEAR" not one Tear. There was a Sign in the School that caught my eye "PRAY and OBEY" :angry:

Woman describes ‘escape’ from polygamy

She left the same sect that 534 women, children were freed from in Texas

By Mike Celizic
TODAYShow.com contributor
updated 8:25 a.m. MT, Tues., April. 8, 2008

A polygamous community in Texas that follows the teaching of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practices pedophilia, torture and child abuse under the guise of a religion, according to a woman who escaped the sect with her eight children five years ago.

"I think it’s a form of pedophilia hiding behind a religion as a protection," Carolyn Jessop told TODAY’s Matt Lauer from Salt Lake City on Tuesday. "There’s just a desire to control and manipulate and torture people, and religion is just used as the cover."

The alleged control began in infancy.

"The method he would use with infants was a form of water torture," Jessop said of her former husband. “He would spank the baby until it was screaming out of control, and then he would hold the baby faceup under a tap of running water so it couldn’t breathe. He would do this repeatedly. Sometimes, it would go on for an hour, until the baby was so exhausted it couldn’t cry anymore. This method he called 'Breaking them."

To a child, the abuse becomes normal, she said, and resistance becomes unthinkable to most. “With this level of mind control, it’s something you’re born into and it’s generational. The babies born into this, they don’t stand a chance from the beginning,” she said.

Ex-polygamist wife reveals life in this VIDEO

Court: Texas Wrongly Seized Kids.

[kandrathe]

On Larry King CNN, The women interviewed were from the polygamous community in Texas...they were like Robots without Emotion, they ALL sat erect with a Blank Stare and taked about their Children "WITHOUT A TEAR" not one Tear.

They are all cried out? Its been a freaking month and a half since their children were stolen from them.

There was a Sign in the School that caught my eye "PRAY and OBEY"

Yes, but to whom? Would you object to children praying and obeying God?

And Carolyn Jessop...

You know Jim, I don't disagree that there may be abuse, as either physical or sexual going on in this community. It is the same in every community, although this it is harder to ferret out when the community is more closed. True of Amish, Mennonites, Old Quakers, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, some Jewish, etc... Carolyn offers emotion twinging anecdotes to attack the sect that she escaped from. It does not mean that all strict religious communities are rife with abuse. What religious perversity inspired Josef Fritzl?

Crimes need to be investigated and abusive parents need to be stopped. I applaud efforts to do so, however, sweeping vast numbers of people onto buses and sifting through which citizens are guilty and which are innocent screams of dictatorship. This is what is wrong in Texas. Not the motive, but the means.

[kandrathe]

Update: AP -- Texas officials fear polygamist sect might flee

Gee, ya think? That is what happens when you are persecuted for your beliefs. And, they have a 100 year history of government persecution where they ended up fleeing. Even if Texas keeps their kids, do you think they will hang around and have them take the next batch? One way or another, they will find a place where they can live according to their beliefs.

More news Thursday when Texas Supreme Court has asked lawyers for 38 polygamist mothers to file a reply brief by 9 a.m. Thursday. The Texas Supreme court will rule on it Thursday or Friday.

[eppie]

Yes, but to whom? Would you object to children praying and obeying God?

If they were mine of course I would. Once they are 18 years old they can do what they like but before that they should obey their parents and I would do anything in my power to stop them from being brainwashed by some priest.

[kandrathe]

If they were mine of course I would. Once they are 18 years old they can do what they like but before that they should obey their parents and I would do anything in my power to stop them from being brainwashed by some priest.

You have a double standard. You say "they should obey their parents", but you are opposed to parents having the right to teach their own children their belief system when their beliefs are in conflict with yours.

And, when you say "brainwashed by some priest", you assert some teaching is brainwashing and some is not. Why is the knowledge pumped into a young person at the University not brainwashing, how about the public school? How will we know when we are being brainwashed, as opposed to being taught?

When Voltaire said, "If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him." he was reflecting on a phenomena of human existence observed by many philosophers and psychologists, that is in general, people sense a basic need for God. Freud described that people feel powerless and insignificant in the face of the vast universe in which they find themselves, and thus, humans invent God within their imaginations to calm their fears. In contrast, philosopher J. P. Moreland states that "atheism is a result of a desire to kill the father figure (in Freudian language) because one wishes to be autonomous." Man's two greatest drives are his thirst for God and his desire to be autonomous. Man has a void that can only be filled by God. Still, man wants to be his own king. The Christian chooses God over autonomy. The atheist, on the other hand, chooses his own autonomy.

Regardless of my own beliefs, I'm more comfortable with a society that believes in the Christian God, because that limits the extent that they would choose to dominate each other. This is why I emphasize Lockian natural law as the basis of American government. And why most of the founders of America, whether deist, atheist, or theist all went along with the notion. If we are all equal under god, then we each can exert freedom within the constraint of God's laws. When we are each of us Gods, heaven help us.

It is my cynical view on the necessity of religion to provide a structure for civilization, and without this type of structure I feel we are destined to consume each other in endless violence. If you want each person in society to feel autonomous to the society, then promote atheism. If you want each person in society to be subservient to the society, then promote belief in a Higher power, or at least Lockian natural law.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Regardless of my own beliefs, I'm more comfortable with a society that believes in the Christian God, because that limits the extent that they would choose to dominate each other.

I nearly choked when I read this. The history of Christianity is a history of domination. Domination of one Christian group (i.e., "heretics") by the orthodoxy. Domination of non-Christian groups by the 'missionaries' (e.g., the conquistadors with their guns and crosses). Domination of 'pagans' (the 'conversions' of the Germanic tribes, of the Celts, of the Norse). Domination of other religions (the laws restricting the rights of Jews throughout Europe, the British laws restricting non-Christians in many places of the Empire, especially India). Domination of their neighbors, such as the Moors in Spain and the peoples of the Middle East throughout five centuries of 'crusades'.

Please, if that is limited domination, then what, short of the gas chamber and crematorium, is unlimited domination.

Give me the tolerance of the Tao over Christianity any day.

--Pete

[eppie]

You have a double standard. You say "they should obey their parents", but you are opposed to parents having the right to teach their own children their belief system when their beliefs are in conflict with yours.

My children can believe whatever they want. I just don't want them to live in fear afraid of going to hell.
I will not tell my children to do certain things 'because of evolution' or 'because of science', if only religious parents would do the same thing with their children when religion is considered.

Your question about brainwashing is too silly for words....and I will not answer it because I think you know the answer yourself.

[kandrathe]

My children can believe whatever they want. I just don't want them to live in fear afraid of going to hell. I will not tell my children to do certain things 'because of evolution' or 'because of science', if only religious parents would do the same thing with their children when religion is considered.

You seem to have only the basic understanding of the concept of Hell. You will also tell your children not to do some things, correct? Like "Don't kill people" or "Don't steal". In the Darwinian survival of the fittest paradigm, if you can dominate your peers it is success. The biological urge to propagate your genes is success, and whatever means you take to insure that is survival. Your children will ask you "Why not kill, dad?", "Why not cheat and steal to get ahead?" and your answer will be based on what? On a social theory? It is weak.

Your question about brainwashing is too silly for words....and I will not answer it because I think you know the answer yourself.

Yes, I know the answer. You used the word Brainwashing in the wrong context. To assert that people that teach religion are exerting methods of coercive persuasion is absurd. Just as it would be absurd to suggest that all university professors are are exerting methods of coercive persuasion. To teach something you are against is Brainwashing, but to teach something you are for is learning. That is why you have no words.

[--Pete]

Hi,

And you seem to have only a basic (and outdated) understanding of the concept of species survival.

In the Darwinian survival of the fittest paradigm, if you can dominate your peers it is success.

No. If the 'dominating gene' in a species reduces the overall probability of all the genes of that species to survive (including itself), then it is failure. And a whole bunch of research in genetics and game theory keeps pointing more and more to the value of co-operation in survival.

The biological urge to propagate your genes is success, and whatever means you take to insure that is survival.

Too simple. I'd recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins as a starting point. That'll catch you up to thirty years ago;)

Your children will ask you "Why not kill, dad?", "Why not cheat and steal to get ahead?" and your answer will be based on what? On a social theory? It is weak.

How about on Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern? Yeah, it's a lot harder to understand than "God says so." But at least it is rational, and you don't need to accept a god who wagers with the devil over how a guy named Job will react to getting unfairly #$%&ed over. Yeah, Job kinda gets it all back in the end, but I've always felt sorry for his wives and kids that died because the god of the Bible is a bastard.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And you seem to have only a basic (and outdated) understanding of the concept of species survival. If the 'dominating gene' in a species reduces the overall probability of all the genes of that species to survive (including itself), then it is failure. And a whole bunch of research in genetics and game theory keeps pointing more and more to the value of co-operation in survival. ... I'd recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins as a starting point. That'll catch you up to thirty years ago;)

Yes, I've read them. I'm familiar with the cooperation theories for survival. I was again contrasting Science and Philosophy.

How about on Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern? Yeah, it's a lot harder to understand than "God says so." But at least it is rational, and you don't need to accept a god who wagers with the devil over how a guy named Job will react to getting unfairly #$%&ed over.

I'm not sure its palatable for the masses. I used to spend my time convincing people they didn't need their crutches, like religion, only to watch them soundly face plant. I'm convinced now that people need something simple to believe in to make their lives fulfilling. People need a comprehensive life philosophy.

Yeah, Job kinda gets it all back in the end, but I've always felt sorry for his wives and kids that died because the god of the Bible is a bastard.

Job is an interesting story, but I'm not much of a literalist when it comes to some of the old, old tales in the Bible. Its one of the oldest Hebrew stories which is meant to explain how the righteous behave when bad things happen to good people. I doubt it was meant to show that an uncaring God wagers with the devil, but more of how the three friends of Job react and the advice they offer to him. I look at it more as a parable used for posing the question of how we react to misfortune, and in underscoring the mystery of God.

[kandrathe]

Hi,
I nearly choked when I read this. The history of Christianity is a history of domination. Domination of one Christian group (i.e., "heretics") by the orthodoxy. Domination of non-Christian groups by the 'missionaries' (e.g., the conquistadors with their guns and crosses). Domination of 'pagans' (the 'conversions' of the Germanic tribes, of the Celts, of the Norse). Domination of other religions (the laws restricting the rights of Jews throughout Europe, the British laws restricting non-Christians in many places of the Empire, especially India). Domination of their neighbors, such as the Moors in Spain and the peoples of the Middle East throughout five centuries of 'crusades'.

Please, if that is limited domination, then what, short of the gas chamber and crematorium, is unlimited domination.

Give me the tolerance of the Tao over Christianity any day.

--Pete

I don't consider the tyranny and abuse you describe as Christian. I think those episodes were a misuse and sometimes an intentional misunderstanding of the religion for selfish and greedy purposes. I also think that often religion gets the bad rap, when it was monarchy and feudalism that are to blame. The human being seems to thrive on tribal feuding, pitting one side against another. There is always a "them" for us to be against. I agree with you on the Tao by the way.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't consider the tyranny and abuse you describe as Christian.

Convenient. Given that all the things I quoted were done by people who considered themselves Christian and in furtherance of their Christian agenda, I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason to consider them anything else. Perhaps there is a Platonic ideal of Christianity that doesn't strive to dominate and that is what you are referring to. But if that is the case, then there have been few outbreaks of that type of Christianity throughout history, and many, many more of the type I describe.

Indeed, if history is to be any guide, if the United States ever officially declares itself to be a 'Christian' country very soon persecution of Muslims, Jews, Hindi, etc. will be tolerated, even encouraged. Then, once the 'external' threat to Christianity is under control, the protestant versus Catholic war, to make Northern Ireland look tame, will begin. And that will be followed by intra-faction barbarity until there is only one. Which, of course, will generate its own spin offs to persecute and hate.

Even RAH didn't have the stomach to contemplate that future, skipping over most of it in his 'Future History'. Part of what makes it so dreadful to contemplate is how easily it could come to pass. We know, it always went that way before.

--Pete

[Jester]

I'm convinced now that people need something simple to believe in to make their lives fulfilling. People need a comprehensive life philosophy.

Believe in a lie, ignorant masses, it's for your own good.

Goodbye Thomas Jefferson, hello Leo Strauss.

-Jester

Afterthought: Or Bokonon, I suppose. Foma, anyone?

[eppie]

You seem to have only the basic understanding of the concept of Hell. You will also tell your children not to do some things, correct? Like "Don't kill people" or "Don't steal". In the Darwinian survival of the fittest paradigm, if you can dominate your peers it is success. The biological urge to propagate your genes is success, and whatever means you take to insure that is survival. Your children will ask you "Why not kill, dad?", "Why not cheat and steal to get ahead?" and your answer will be based on what? On a social theory? It is weak.

I was teached not to kill and steel, 'just because it is not right'....and that is enough for children, once they get older they will find out why you don't do certain things, and at that time it is their private business.
It is ridiculous to state that children should be aware of some theory when they are young.

Yes, I know the answer. You used the word Brainwashing in the wrong context. To assert that people that teach religion are exerting methods of coercive persuasion is absurd. Just as it would be absurd to suggest that all university professors are are exerting methods of coercive persuasion. To teach something you are against is Brainwashing, but to teach something you are for is learning. That is why you have no words.

And that is my point you should not brainwash them. If you think the prospect of going to hell if a 7 year old does something wrong, and the prospect of getting a bad grade at university if somebody refuses to learn his english or maths 101 are both brainwashing are the same than I don't think it makes much sense to discuss more about this. (and at least at my university we were tought to think for ourselves)

Religion should be something spiritual for adults that cannot cope with certain parts of life as it is, it is nothing that you have to teach (tell) a child. Juts like you don't tell a chil;d to go to war and kill members of another tribe, you don't tell yoyur child that god wants him to blow himself up in a market full of americans and you don't tell a child she needs to have babies with a 50 year old guy.

[eppie]

I don't consider the tyranny and abuse you describe as Christian. I think those episodes were a misuse and sometimes an intentional misunderstanding of the religion for selfish and greedy purposes. I also think that often religion gets the bad rap, when it was monarchy and feudalism that are to blame. The human being seems to thrive on tribal feuding, pitting one side against another. There is always a "them" for us to be against. I agree with you on the Tao by the way.

This is the whole story Kandrathe. Like I said I would let my child beleive in God if he wanted to (I wouldn't be happy but I would let him), however being part of a religion is a whole different thing. Religion is an organized lobby group of people with a certain agenda.....and that agenda is not just being a good boy.

[kandrathe]

This is the whole story Kandrathe. Like I said I would let my child believe in God if he wanted to (I wouldn't be happy but I would let him), however being part of a religion is a whole different thing. Religion is an organized lobby group of people with a certain agenda.....and that agenda is not just being a good boy.

It's like any human endeavor. Some people don't know how far is too far, and so they push things too far. You tend to see those people on the news, and the other 98% cringe. It's like when Jeremy Rifkin writes another book, or gets himself on the news and all the *real* scientists roll their eyes. Don't judge the lot, by the fanatics.

[kandrathe]

Update: Texas supreme court upholds the appeals court ruling. The kids will be returned to their families, unless there are specific charges of abuse against individuals.

Seattle Times -- Was polygamist raid doomed from start?

Investigators "listened to a lot of misinformation and allowed themselves to be kind of captivated by these anti-FLDS people," FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said. At the risk of comparing apples to oranges, this sounds a lot like how the UN/US erroneously miscalculated WMD potential in Iraq.

"We had no choice but to treat those calls as credible. If we had not treated them as credible and something bad happened, people would be very upset," said Tela Mange Again, this argument also rings true in our apples to oranges comparison.

The problem with this comparison is that some things can be undone, like returning the children (although some trauma has occurred). You can't easily undo the toppling of a nation, the execution of its leaders, and the destruction of its cities. What is equivalent in both the Iraq war and this case is the discretion to use the hand of force of the State, rather than to rely on the albeit slower hand of justice and law. I would also question whether the UN really has the authority to govern the actions of nations, whether they be the recalcitrant States of Iraq, Iraq, North Korea or the heavy handedness of China or the US.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . I would also question whether the UN really has the authority to govern the actions of nations, . . .

Has the 'authority' from whom? Ultimately, international relations are based on 'might makes right'. Whether that might is based on military power, economic power, or consensus of opinion permitting things like sanctions to work, it's still just power. History may not agree with the actions of any given generation, but by then it's too late. So the UN has whatever authority it can muster. Sometimes that's good, sometimes bad.

And I'm glad to see that even in Texas the rule of law finally prevailed. It's just sad that, again, prejudice trumped justice until superior force forced the Neanderthals back into their caves.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Has the 'authority' from whom? Ultimately, international relations are based on 'might makes right'. Whether that might is based on military power, economic power, or consensus of opinion permitting things like sanctions to work, it's still just power. History may not agree with the actions of any given generation, but by then it's too late. So the UN has whatever authority it can muster. Sometimes that's good, sometimes bad.

And I'm glad to see that even in Texas the rule of law finally prevailed. It's just sad that, again, prejudice trumped justice until superior force forced the Neanderthals back into their caves.

--Pete

Spot on both counts.