He Has A Point

First of all, I am not a Rick Santorum fan. I think that he's a little too gung-ho on too many Christian fundamental issues and I really don't think that those sorts of things should have much of a part in determining American policies and politics. Besides, it just opens the door for other sorts of fundamental religious groups to start acting like nutjobs. And they do it so well that the very thought kind of frightens me. But back to Mr. Santorum. Even though I think that he's kind of a tool, I think that I did find something that him and I might agree on. Actually, it's more of a theoretical agreement if anything, but it does lend credence to the fact that you would really be surprised at the things that you have in common with people that you don't particularly care for.

Here's the thing: According to USA Today, Mr. Santorum was doing a little town hall meeting in Concord, New Hampshire and he got booed by a bunch of college students when he brought up what I feel is a realistic and logical argument. Now, Mr. Santorum is against same-sex marriage, also known as a gayrriage. (Well, known here as a gayrriage.) And one of the students said to him, "How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love ..." That is when Rick interrupted and asked, "What about three men?" Needless to say, this wasn't well received among the oh-so-worldly (in their own minds) college students, who began booing him.

The woman who had posed the original question responded with the equivalent "I know you are but what am I?" Or maybe "I'm rubber and you're glue." She answered, "That's not what I'm talking about." It might not be what you're talking about, but it is something that is going to need to be addressed at some point as I don't see how you can argue that gayrriage is OK, but plural marriage is not. If you're going to take what is known as a 'traditional marriage' and start making an addendum to it, you're going to have to take other things into consideration. And I don't really see how, on a basic level, you would be able to deny plural marriage to people if you're going to allow gayrriage for people. If you think that this isn't a reasonable discussion to have, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest.

Mr. Santorum went on to say "Reason says that if you think it's OK for two, you have to differentiate with me why it's not OK for three." I agree. The students did not. They booed him. But he still was able to add, "Let's just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean." From what I can tell from the article (which really did an extremely poor job of summing up how the discussion actually went after Rick asked his question), the discussion went nowhere and the students booed Rick as he left. Good Lord, people.

I respect the man for wanting to have a reasonable discussion about this issue. What I don't respect are a bunch of self-righteous college students who think that they have everything all figured out, but aren't even willing to engage in a reasonable discussion about a subject that they are so blindly passionate in favor of that they won't even entertain the possibility that there is more to it than they think. Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. And I don't really think that I'm opposed to polygamy either. (Regular polygamy, that is. None of that FLDS nonsense.) I think it's a bit weird (I can barely manage ONE relationship at a time, let alone several) and it's definitely not for me, but I'm not quite certain that it's hurting anything. But I do think that the polygamy question is one that has to be answered, as I don't see it being any fundamentally different than a gayrriage. And I was really disappointed that I don't know how those students feel about polygamy and, if they're against it, their reasoning for that position. Very disappointed indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS - Flawed Logic Doesn't Stick

Let's return for a moment to the land of the YFZ Ranch. YFZ standing for "Yearning For Zion". (Ranch standing for "ranch".) You remember. The mother ship of the FLDS church down yonder in Eldorado, Texas. That's where the followers of Warren Jeffs (self proclaimed Grand Poobah of the FLDS) set up camp and continued their practice of having the older men marry much younger and, in many cases, underaged girls for the purpose of sexing up. Multiple wives, underage intercourse, and lots and lots of children. Them's the makin's of a Texas Child and Family Services Round-Up.

The State of Texas moved in on the compound and removed all of the children who were living there after receiving an anonymous phone call that underage girls were being forced to marry and have sex with adult males for the purpose of bearing their children (ie, the whole "be fruitful and multiply" rule of thumb that is cited by the "religious groups" who make it a practice of allowing underage females to be sexually sacrificed to adult males in their offshoot and whack-a-do sect). "All of the children" means 462! And 462 is a lot of anything, let alone kids.

A one Maggie Jessop, a current member of the FLDS sect whose four children are in the custody of the State of Texas, has written a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune which was published on 05/09/2008. Her letter begins with this opening statement: "So, you want to hear from the FLDS women, huh? OK, you asked for it." And while I appreciate the response, she didn't quite grasp what it is that some individuals want to know (with "some individuals" meaning those of us who are NOT living in a weird religious sect that has cut itself off from society and allows it's underage females to have sex with older men). Yes, we DO want to hear from the FLDS women. BUT we want to hear them ANSWER a question, ANY question, DIRECTLY. We don't want to hear whatever is coming out of your mouth that has nothing to do with anything that was asked of you. We want to hear an ANSWER that is RELEVANT to the question that you were just asked.

For example, when the FLDS women have been asked about underage girls having sex with older men and if that goes on at the YFZ Ranch, the answer that is given is along the lines of, "There is no force. No one is forced. We love our children." (Please recite in a quiet and sing-songy voice for the full effect. Oh, and stare blindly ahead or down at the ground as well. Then you'll really get a feel for it.) And that's fine. But you DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! It's a "Yes" or it's a "No". That's all. And NONE of the women who have been asked that question will say either one. So, good job twisting that around, Maggie. Continue, dear.

Maggie does continue and this time she goes along the same lines with more inflammatory statements/rhetorical questions such as, "In the face of the holocaust going on, most people want to know the truth, right? Well, do you get truth from liars?" Allow me to just say that when people use the term "holocaust" to represent their unpleasant situation, one that is completely unrelated to and uncomparable to the Nazi holocaust in Germany in WWII, it makes me angry. Kinda sick and a little bit angry. (Aside from the fact that the basic definition of a "holocaust" is something that is consumed by fire. If this was Waco, I might be a little more lenient on the "holocaust" comparison. But it's not, so it irritates me.) So, again, nice try with the inflammatory prose, but you're out of line.

She writes, "If someone is different, people get suspicious, perhaps even jealous, and assume the worst." Wait. What? Jealous? Jealous. We're jealous? Of THIS??:

Um, yeah, I don't think so. We might be a lot of things. We might be angry, annoyed and appalled (among other things), but we're not jealous of THAT. Next!

She also states, "I expect the freedom to worship God after the dictates of my own conscience, and believe all men, and women, should be free to do the same." You have that freedom. So do those of us not living inside a walled up compound with men who like to have sex with underage girls. She continues, "Put yourself in my shoes, because you and your children could be next. You think you are safe because you belong to the public?" No. Those who are in public, who are protecting their young children from sexual predators by not allowing the children to be handed over to the older men for sexual gratification, those people ARE safe. And they're safe for THAT reason, NOT because they "belong to the public". And you and your children would be as well if you were doing the same...in a public setting/society or NOT.

Maggie continues along these same "poor me" lines for quite some time. And good for her for speaking out. She's a very articulate individual and can convey her thoughts on paper quite well. However, she is also very good at dancing around the issue at hand and making it appear as if there is some sort of unfounded persecution that is happening to the members of her little community. Children were NOT removed from the YFZ Ranch because they were denied their freedom to worship. Her situation is NOT like the holocaust. People who are not subjecting their underage children to inappropriate (and illegal) situations involving sex are NOT going to be facing the same consequences that she did. We are NOT jealous that they get to dress up like the cast from "Little House On The Prairie" and we don't get to.

It's a pretty long letter. It is available, courtesy of the fine folks over there at The Salt Lake Tribune, at this link: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9211573?IADID I'm going to jump to the end where Maggie wraps up her letter by stating, "Ask your questions about the most misunderstood people on Earth. Seek the truth, and we will answer with truth. Just ask." We HAVE asked. YOU don't ANSWER us directly! (Although, that wasn't one of the things that she stated she would do. Does that mean it's too much for us to ask for a direct answer? We're just supposed to accept the vague truth as "good enough" because it's the truth? I don't think so.) And I'll ask you again, Maggie. Are girls at the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, who are underage, put in situations where they are in an unescapable position where they will be having sex with an older man? (Please note, I'm not using the term "force". The FLDS seem to differentiate between the terms "force" and "doesn't have any other choice" as if they are different. They're not, but they would like to believe that they are. That's why I'm not saying "forced".) The answer is simple. It is either Yes or it is No. (Maybe my first question should have been, "Can you answer a question with just a one word answer?")

She also includes the URLs of two websites that she asks the readers to visit. (One of the websites is http://www.captivefldschildren.org/ ) And that's when the vagueness and the releasing of information that the FLDS members want to release continues. The other website, http://www.fldstruth.org/ , is not exactly the most complete, nor comprehensive, depiction of any sort of "FLDS truth". There are photos of all of those who have been "President" of the FLDS church. Click on each one and you're supposed to be treated to a lovely summary of their life and their Presidency. There are nine photos. There are six summaries. Whose summaries are missing? Why, those of Leroy S. Johnson, Rulon T. Jeffs, and Warren Jeffs. Leroy S. Johnson apparently founded Colorado City, AZ and led the largest polygamist organization in North America until his death at the age of 98. Rulon T. Jeffs took over for Johnson in 1986 and, at the time of his death at the age of 92 in 2002, he had amassed himself at LEAST 19 to 20 wives (some reports say 75) and produced between 60 and 65 children, with 33 of those children being boys. Shortly after his death, one of his sons, Warren Jeffs, took over for him and married all of his dad's wives except for two of them. That meant that he was now the stepfather to his siblings. Nice. Another of Jeffs' accomplishments was getting himself on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List in 2006 unlawful flight to avoid being prosecuted in Utah on charges alleging he arranged marriages between his adult males and underage girls in the FLDS sect. (Oooh. Sounds familiar, doesn't it, Maggie?) Warren was charged with eight counts in Arizona, including sexual conduct with minors and incest (two separate charges there). He was found guilty in Utah of the charges there which consisted of two counts of rape as an accomplice. He is now serving a 10 year to life sentence at the Utah State Prison. Former FLDS members claim that Jeffs has around 70 wives.

But none of THAT information is on the website at http://www.fldstruth.org/ . Why not? You said ask, so we're asking, Maggie! We're asking! We want to know ALL about Warren Jeffs and the stuff that has gone on in the FLDS "church" and over there at the YFZ Ranch RECENTLY! Or maybe you'd just like to change the name of that website to fldspartialtruth.org and leave it at that?

Sphere: Related Content

Be Aware Of All Laws You Violate

So with this whole FLDS polygamist compound down yonder in Texas (Hmmm...an offshoot religious cult holed up on their own compound in the state of Texas. Who'd a thunk it?) there seems to be a lot in the news about the women and about the children. And from what I've seen and heard from these women, my opinion is that they really seem to believe in what they've been doing and how they've been living. And it's the conveyance of that belief with a rather vacuous and monotone delivery of non-responsive answers to questions posed that really makes you wonder about what really goes on inside of a community with a lifestyle such as the one of the FLDS crew.

Those who I've wanted to hear about and hear from are the men of that wacky Wife Wonderland . What are THEY like? What do they think? Would you be surprised at all to learn that they are very similar to the women with their empty stares and their halting and forced speech and their non-responsive answers to questions? It shouldn't surprise you at all, because that's just how it is. The men, however, do have an additional aspect to their personalities. That aspect is fear, as in "I might go to jail because of my collection of child brides" fear.

The video here (courtesy of The Early Show and CBS) is an interview of three male FLDS members from the Texas compound. The video is about 5 minutes long (sorry about the freaking commercial at the beginning), and you'll probably get the idea after about a minute, but I'm going to recap just a bit here.

The FLDSers that we meet are Edson, Rulon and Jake. They all look rather subdued, as one would expect now that your wife clan and children farm has been taken away from you and you could very well be in a lot of trouble, and they appear to be sitting in some sort of a log cabin, the official dwelling structure of the FLDS.

Then the questions begin and so does the enlightenment. These guys are clearly not the sharpest tools in the polygamist's shed. They give brief answers that sound rehearsed and tend to be non-responsive to the specific question they are asked. If you've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, I'd ask these guys if they're interested before you talk to anyone else. You might save yourself a lot of time.

They're first asked how many children they've cranked out over at Camp FLDS. They all answered with the number of children and the range of their ages. The whole thing seemed a bit robotic, even for robots. But it IS very telling and does explain how weird little societal offshoots like this one can continue to grow. I'm sure it's not real difficult to convince a bunch of Rulon's out there that being a polygamist on a closed compound in Texas is the life for you!

But then Edson gives us plenty of insight with a little diatribe that would have caused any attorney representing him to have a heart attack. Eldon stated, "I think they have a very false perception of the way we live. Because we're quite closed mouthed, they assume a lot of things that aren't there." (Well, I don't know that we assume that because they're "quite closed mouthed". I think we "assume a lot of things" because they're polygamists and they marry underage girls and have sex with them. And that seems like a perfectly reasonable basis upon which to begin to "assume" things.)

The reporter, just to clarify Edson's statement asked, "So are you saying that older men do not marry adolescent girls in your compound?" And Edson, just to clarify his statement, responded, " I didn't say that at all. (insert attorney heart attack here) But I think that people have a false concept of what our religion is all about. To say that they are sexually abused and that people here are...they haven't found anything, to my knowledge, that proves that, but I think that overall they look at us as if we are immoral people. And in our own make up, that is the very most important part of our religion is to be morally clean. You know, I have a hard time standing here and being a criminal when I had no idea that I'm a criminal. I've always strived to be an upright man and my children, my family, everyone that I know love me. And I love them."

Edson struck me as completely brainwashed, yet slowly becoming aware of the situation he's placed himself in and is now afraid for his future. Seems appropriate.

The reporter's next insightful question consisted of, "If an adolescent did have sex with an older man, you would consider that abuse?" Rulon took that question and although he tried to answer authoritatively, he came across as if he was Forrest Gump and had just read the pocket version of "So You Want To Be A Lawyer." He said, "The state...of Texas has defined it as that. I would simply say, if you had a teenage girl that chose to go that way could you force her to do otherwise? No, you could not. We are not a people of force. We are a people of free agency and peace. Yet we do not teach our children to have sexual conduct before they are of age. We do not teach them that. We teach them the contrary." By making sure he was clear about the "state of Texas" and it's definition of abuse, it sure did come across that it wasn't HIS defintion of abuse.

The reporter asked them if they have reconsidered what they have been doing. You know, given the whole, taking 416 children away from the compound ordeal. Forrest Rulon takes this question. "Yes. Many of us, perhaps, were not even aware of such a law. But, yes, we have been made very aware in the last two weeks and we have, we do reconsider. Yes. We teach our children to abide the law." Oh, are you kidding me?!

You teach your children to abide the law?? If that was the case, I guess I would expect you to KNOW the law then, Rulon! Wouldn't that be your responsibility, seeing as how you're the one claiming to be the law-abiding instructor there? Shouldn't you KNOW what the laws ARE so you can teach them correctly to the children? One would think that would be the case. But you guys, well, you just weren't aware.

Well, since they weren't aware of such a law, I guess that changes everything, right? No harm, no foul? Um, no. Not quite. Spare me. You knew it wasn't OK and instead of NOT doing it, you just holed up on your little compound there and figured that the rest of the world would just leave you alone so you could do whatever you wanted to believe that you could do. And if you're ever confronted, just pretend you weren't aware. (And really, trying to come across as being "unaware" will probably be just like second nature for you guys. I doubt that "pretending" will play much of a part at all in that.)

Sphere: Related Content