I suppose aaronburro is also in favor of Sharia. It's not like it was invented 2 years ago.

8/6/2011 9:49:30 AM

It's fairly simple why this should not be a protected right. It is not necessary for the function of his religion. Christians are called to follow the law of the land, as long as it does not demand something against the gospel. I would say that sexually abusing children is neither following the law of the land or following the gospel. Now, he can claim whatever he wants, but if your going to protect his "rights" to conjure doctrine out of the air, then why wouldn't you also allow someone else who is equally crazy to go around murdering people because he claims it is part of his religion. Why not let Muslims run around killing infidels for Jihad, isn't that part of their religious right (I'm fairly certain this is not supported by the Koran)?

There were times when Christians did not follow the law of the land, but that was when they were either being forced to believe something (Emperor worship or the Catholic church) or they were told to sacrifice to idols. However, this is because these things were strictly prohibited in the gospel. Just because this guy conjures scripture, or takes it from Joseph Smith I guess does not mean he gets to throw wind to the laws of the land. He has misrepresented Christ and God, and done damage to the appearance of the Church on Earth, of which he was never even a part.

8/6/2011 10:21:17 AM

So it's only LeonIsPro's special interpretation of the Bible that's valid and protected if it is counter to secular law?

8/6/2011 11:01:16 AM

Quote :

"So it's only LeonIsPro's special interpretation of the Bible that's valid and protected if it is counter to secular law?"

How can you even make this claim? I am saying that the old Church was not protected under secular law, and I'm not interpreting anything, you can either look in some history books or actually read scripture to see exactly why the saints were persecuted. I'm saying that Christians are called to follow the law of the land unless it goes against the gospel. To be quite frank I do not care if it is no longer protected by secular law, it will not change my beliefs in anyway, nor will I worship any man or graven image.


Do you ever read what I post or do you just make claims to attempt to incite my anger?

8/6/2011 11:09:37 AM

Quote :

"It's fairly simple why this should not be a protected right. It is not necessary for the function of his religion... Why not let Muslims run around killing infidels for Jihad, isn't that part of their religious right (I'm fairly certain this is not supported by the Koran)?"

This is the scary part. You and aaronburro are basically saying that anything some dudes wrote about a few thousand years ago should be protected. The corollary is that anything some mad man writes about now should be protected under the law in a few more thousand years.... that in the year 4000, any actions based in scientology, mormonism, or nazism are your right. That is absolute madness.

8/6/2011 2:26:29 PM

List of wolfwebbers that are ok with child rape:

pryderi
aaronburro

am I missing anyone?

8/6/2011 2:55:22 PM

I don't think anyone is ok with rape or sex with a child. Don't try to twist what they are saying. I could make up a rule that says a 20 year old is a child and charge people with sexual assault but what gives that validity?

8/6/2011 3:10:11 PM

That would make no sense in the context of either biology (puberty rarely lasts until 20 years; at 12 years it has barely started) or in the context of current laws which make children dependent on their parents until they are legal adults.

Sure, there is grey area. But 11-12 years old ain't it.

[Edited on August 6, 2011 at 3:35 PM. Reason : asfasdfasd]

8/6/2011 3:33:50 PM

Really? Why can't people under 25 rent cars? There is plenty of science that suggests the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25.

You are also under the assumption that sex is only for baby making. Why isn't having sex with a 60 year old woman illegal?

Puberty begins around age 8-9 and menarche is complete by age 11-12.

Quote :

"or in the context of current laws which make children dependent on their parents until they are legal adults."

what if parents agree

[Edited on August 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM. Reason : parents]

8/6/2011 3:42:20 PM

Quote :

"List of wolfwebbers that are ok with child rape: pryderi aaronburro am I missing anyone?"

The E Man?

8/6/2011 4:28:01 PM

Quote :

"I don't think anyone is ok with rape or sex with a child. "

8/6/2011 4:38:50 PM

BTW, for those against the verdict, I don't see what it has to do with whether the religion is old or 2 years old? Can't new 'prophets' come today, tomorrow, or after a few years, and form new religions? Who is the government to decide what's a religion and what's not? Certain actions are prohibited by law, whether said actions are part of some religion or not, it does not matter.

Also for those against the verdict because it is their religious right to have sex with 12 year olds, what if the religion said have sex with 8 year olds? 5 year olds? Where would YOU draw the line and say "OK, at this X age, it shouldn't be protected anymore"?

SERIOUS ANSWERS PLEASE from those against the verdict.

8/6/2011 4:39:41 PM

Quote :

"How can you even make this claim? I am saying that the old Church was not protected under secular law, and I'm not interpreting anything, you can either look in some history books or actually read scripture to see exactly why the saints were persecuted. I'm saying that Christians are called to follow the law of the land unless it goes against the gospel. To be quite frank I do not care if it is no longer protected by secular law, it will not change my beliefs in anyway, nor will I worship any man or graven image. Do you ever read what I post or do you just make claims to attempt to incite my anger? "

The first words out of your mouth in this thread were a challenge to his actions being scriptually supported and multiple times you've reiterated this point. But there obviously is no consensus on what is scriptually supported, hence why there are thousands of denominations of Christianity. You say that Christians are called to follow the law of the land unless it goes against the gospel, but Chrisitans can't even agree on what goes against the gospel.

I submit that none of your interpretations, nor anyone's of any religion matter; Warren Jeff's interpretation of his mystical and unproven literature is just as valid as yours, that is to say not valid in the least. Until you can prove that your God is real, that your mystical book is the actual truth, it doesn't even belong in a conversation about how people should act, and especially not in a conversation about what should be exempted from law.

8/6/2011 5:55:30 PM

Quote :

"The E Man: These kids are not forced and no physical harm is done. They are actually "lucky" to be chosen for sex with the prophet and are continually asked how they feel and if they are ok during the process (heard it on the video). This is only a matter of social construct and this culture bumping heads with the governments idea of pretending teenagers are kids for the sake of further educating them to build a more educated, first world society. Its a sticky wicket though."

"Not forced"? A lot of children between the ages of 5 and 10 who are sexually abused by family members (immediate or extended) are "not forced" (and not physically harmed either). They are told to perform certain acts and they comply because they don't know anything and/or they think they have to because their father/uncle/older cousin/gfather is telling them, so they have to obey.

So if the Jeffs situation is OK with you, so should be what I described.

You are fucking sick if you think that is OK.

[Edited on August 6, 2011 at 6:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2011 6:49:46 PM

I'm not saying the Jeffs situation is ok because I agree with the verdict for different reasons than you but what you described is obviously terrible. Those kids are not old enough to have sexual desires and sexual preference so it is obvious abuse. After puberty, young "kids" reach an age in which they have sexual desires and preferences.

8/6/2011 7:38:33 PM

Quote :

"After puberty, young "kids" reach an age in which they have sexual desires and preferences."

In that case, let THEM (the "kids" as you put it) act out on their sexual desires and preferences without any coercion of any kind. You are saying they weren't forced, but they were instructed by a much older father figure (or even worse, a "prophet") to perform certain acts because it is their duty and the Godly thing to do. You think your average 12 year old who has grown up in that community would resist or say no or ask if she has a choice?

Of course they would comply, under a stated or implied threat of being thrown out of the community etc.

That is definitely coercion no matter which way you look at it.

So as I said, let THEM act out on their desires under their own volition. And we all know that in such a conservative community, it would be nearly impossible to find, say, a 16 year old girl who likes a similarly-aged boy in her community, to act on her sexual desires. So to say that 12-14 year old girls are acting on their sexual desires by sleeping with a 55 year old man under their own volition is an affront to everything logical, true, and good in this world.

[However, if a 14 year old girl did want to act on her desires by sleeping with a 16 or 18 year old boy in that community, I would have no problem with that, even though under the law it would be still illegal. But at least we would know that she was acting freely without any coercion (unless an element of coercion was obvious).]

8/6/2011 7:53:20 PM

You don't think theres a 12 year old that wants to have sex with harrison ford after watching cowboys and aliens?

Quote :

"n that case, let THEM (the "kids" as you put it) act out on their sexual desires and preferences without any coercion of any kind. You are saying they weren't forced, but they were instructed by a much older father figure (or even worse, a "prophet") to perform certain acts because it is their duty and the Godly thing to do. You think your average 12 year old who has grown up in that community would resist or say no or ask if she has a choice? "

You are on to something. This is exactly why I agree with the verdict. Its not the having sex that was the problem. Its making him a prophet that was the problem. You have virtually admitted it would be ok for a 12 year old to decide to have sex with a 55 year old if there was no coercion.

8/6/2011 8:15:30 PM

Quote :

"You don't think theres a 12 year old that wants to have sex with harrison ford after watching cowboys and aliens?"

Yes, there are, but I never said there weren't any. This is what I meant:

Quote :

"So to say that 12-14 year old girls [in that community] are acting on their sexual desires by sleeping with a 55 year old man under their own volition is an affront to everything logical, true, and good in this world."

But yes, there are girls like that in the world.

Quote :

"You have virtually admitted it would be ok for a 12 year old to decide to have sex with a 55 year old if there was no coercion."

Well, that's something that the country would have to decide. But as stated elsewhere, it would still have to be with parental consent. If there is no coercion, then yes, I have no problem with it, as long as it is not just a free for all have free sex with whoever you want. No parents in the world would want their 12 year old daughters having free sex with 40 or 55 year old men (aside from maybe some primitive/native cultures in some jungles around the world). But, there *are* millions of parents in the world who would be OK with their 12 yo daughter marrying a much older guy. If the country decides that it is OK for a much older guy to marry a 12 year old girl under the dual conditions of absolutely no coercion and parental consent, then yeah, I have no problem with that. Y'all can change your laws if you want.

Having said that, marriages do happen between 12 yo girls and 55 year old guys in many Arab/Muslim/African/South Asian countries. However, I have never heard of a case where there was no coercion of some kind. They always happen in the poorer regions, and usually involve some kind of deals:

* settling disputes
* reciprocal exchange marriages b/w 2 families (you take our daughter for your son and give us your daughter for our son)
* settling debts
* fathers getting money in return for giving their daughters away

etc.

Living in an Arab country, I hear of such cases frequently, and it always boils my blood. The girls never have any say. It is sad and terrible. Their lives are destroyed, and the circle of poverty and illiteracy, especially among females, continues.

See, the thing is, marrying 12 year old girls is only done by extremely conservative societies, and as a necessary consequence of that, the girls never have any say nor do they know what to expect in marriage or even know what sex is. So, even if marrying 12 year olds was made legal in Western countries, I doubt there would take place any marriages, because in a free advanced educated society, no 12 year old girl wants to marry a 55 year old dude.

In conclusion

1) Marriage is OK (with parental consent), but they always happen under coercion, so it is moot
2) Free sex would not receive parental approval, so again, it is moot.

So now, I do wonder, where were the fathers and mothers of these girls? I haven't read the details... did they even have any choice, or they also had to go along with their girls being selected because the "prophet" wanted it? That's terrible... do these parents not have any backbones? So what if they had said no and were then kicked out of the community? They would rather give their daughters to be raped than be kicked out of the community? Sad sad sad. Well I guess in some cases, the father of such girls were also having sex with 12 year old daughters of other fathers... disgusting.

8/6/2011 9:05:21 PM

BTW, if you are so interested in this, I suggest you look at Yemen. A significant portion of girls there are married off before reaching 15, something like a third. And it is usually never to like a 20 year old or something, usually a 30, 40 or 50 year old.

And none of those monsters make sweet love to those little girls, they all violently rape them and end up immensely harming them in the process, both physically and mentally.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=yemen+child+marriage

First few results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_ompypIwBM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7711554.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7579616.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/middleeast/29marriage.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/child-marriage-story-in-yemen-finds-a-way-to-get-even-more-disturbing.html (bled to death after violent sex )
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/yemen-islamists-fight-law_n_187943.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/04/yemen-fierce-opposition-to-child-marriage-ban-persists-among-conservatives.html
http://middleeast.about.com/b/2008/04/17/yemeni-girl-8-buys-her-way-out-of-marriage.htm
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/30/yemens_child_bride_backlash

It is a horrifying reality, and as I said, no 12 year old wants to marry at all, let alone a 40 year old, and no parents would agree to their 12 year old daughter having free sex with older men.

Hence, the outlawing of the act.

8/6/2011 9:27:10 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/texas.polygamist.jeffs/

Quote :

"Brent Jeffs, 28, told jurors that his uncle raped him when he was 5 years old."

Quote :

"Several also cried during the niece's testimony, in which she described an incident that allegedly occurred between her and Jeffs when she was 7 years old."

Hey Bryan Burroughs, you're a fucking piece of shit for thinking this is ok.

8/6/2011 11:29:19 PM

^ Wow

That's just too fucking sick. I don't see any difference between that and this message_topic.aspx?topic=616457

If he had limited himself to 12 and 15 year olds, I could MAYBE see it as being part of the religion... but 5 and 7 year old BOYS and girls? He is just a common child molester and rapist like any other ones, except that he calls himself a "prophet" and is the leader of some group. I hope he is fucking torn to shreds in the most violent manner by somebody, anybody, in jail or out.

Quote :

""I am God. Cease. Do not present my holy ways as a thing of naught," the self-proclaimed prophet said before he left court Friday. "Hear my warning as a full awakening. Let my holy way be of freedom.""

Fuck you you wretched barbaric beast, you are the furthest from God among any and all others who claim to be religious, including OBL and suicide bombers who have killed thousands.

8/7/2011 12:08:45 AM

How come he hasn't been indicted for those 2 cases of child molestation (his nephew and niece)???

He has only been charged with and convicted of 2 counts of abusing a 12 yo and a 15 yo. What about the 5 yo and 7 yo? If those things happened, isn't it the state's responsibility to charge him with those crimes as well? I don't get it....

8/7/2011 1:26:31 AM

Quote :

"That you'd think our laws would protect such heinous actions in the name of religion is sickening."

Why is it sickening to simply look at a law and say what it says about something? I'm certainly not arguing that it should be this way.

Quote :

"I would say that sexually abusing children is neither following the law of the land or following the gospel."

You are making the fatal assumption that Jeffs and his cult are following the gospel.

Quote :

"then why wouldn't you also allow someone else who is equally crazy to go around murdering people because he claims it is part of his religion."

Generally because it will involve people outside of his religion, for one, more than likely, and 2, he probably doesn't have any legitimate basis for such an act (legitimacy of religion notwithstanding)

Quote :

"List of wolfwebbers that are ok with child rape:"

beautiful strawman!

Quote :

"BTW, for those against the verdict, I don't see what it has to do with whether the religion is old or 2 years old? Can't new 'prophets' come today, tomorrow, or after a few years, and form new religions?"

You have a point, and someone else already made the complaint about why does an older religion get more status. I'd say that the age of a religion gives it some legitimacy as far as the gov't is concerned, as well as to me. It means that the actions supposedly requested by the religion weren't made up on the spot to excuse criminal behavior of today. Where it would be more of a gray area is when someone makes a new claim for an existing religion, a "prophet" as you would say.

Quote :

"Until you can prove that your God is real, that your mystical book is the actual truth, it doesn't even belong in a conversation about how people should act, and especially not in a conversation about what should be exempted from law."

That's all fine and dandy, except for this thing we have called "the 1st amendment," which makes us have to consider what should be exempted from law on a religious basis. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALALALALA doesn't change that.

Quote :

"Hey Bryan Burroughs, you're a fucking piece of shit for thinking this is ok."

Hey BobbyDigital, keep putting words in my mouth. It makes you look really intelligent!

8/7/2011 1:44:43 AM

Quote :

"He has only been charged with and convicted of 2 counts of abusing a 12 yo and a 15 yo. What about the 5 yo and 7 yo? If those things happened, isn't it the state's responsibility to charge him with those crimes as well? I don't get it...."

is there a statute of limitations? either way it doesnt matter because he is facing life.

8/7/2011 1:54:01 AM

i think some of that is being used in the sentencing phase, which is out-fucking-rageous. How can you use shit that he hasn't been convicted of to determine what his punishment should be?

8/7/2011 1:56:19 AM

Pastafarian is a legit religion as well.

The Church of the Flying Spegetti Monster is making huge strides towards government recognition!

Pastafarianism is now recognized in the US military!

http://www.venganza.org/2011/07/fsm-in-the-military/

and recently a man won the right to wear his religious headgear in his DL photo in Australia.

http://www.venganza.org/2011/07/austrian-colander/

8/7/2011 10:11:34 AM

I'm still stunned that aaronburro would be OK with Sharia.

8/7/2011 10:30:38 AM

Why not? It's not like they make it up 2 years ago for convenience.

8/7/2011 11:09:12 AM

Quote :

"There were times when Christians did not follow the law of the land, but that was when they were either being forced to believe something (Emperor worship or the Catholic church) or they were told to sacrifice to idols. However, this is because these things were strictly prohibited in the gospel. Just because this guy conjures scripture, or takes it from Joseph Smith I guess does not mean he gets to throw wind to the laws of the land. He has misrepresented Christ and God, and done damage to the appearance of the Church on Earth, of which he was never even a part."

My entire claim is that it wasn't protected, nor does it need to be. You want to come kill me for worshiping Christ than come and do it. I don't need the protection of man for worship as surely as the saints before me did not need it.

8/7/2011 2:55:17 PM

AHA, this guy goes on fasts supposedly.

He's such a pervert he's willing to starve himself to look spiritual.

AHAHAH

8/7/2011 8:41:21 PM

That's what happens when you think you're saved by works.

8/7/2011 10:18:46 PM

I dunno.

He seems more like a pervert and con artist cult leader.

8/7/2011 10:55:20 PM

Quote :

"That's what happens when you think you're saved by works."

Meaning that raping children has no bearing on him being saved or not.

8/8/2011 7:45:17 AM

Quote :

" That's all fine and dandy, except for this thing we have called "the 1st amendment," which makes us have to consider what should be exempted from law on a religious basis. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALALALALA doesn't change that."

That's all fine and dandy, but the 1st Amendment doesn't protect your actions that harm others. Being an obtuse fuck doesn't change that.

8/8/2011 8:51:45 AM

CNN BREAKING NEWS: Polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs, convicted on two counts of sexual assault of a child, sentenced to life in prison

8/9/2011 12:39:50 PM

Guess who is going to be the wife now!

8/9/2011 1:25:30 PM

Let me reiterate that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it was "consensual" or not, but for you sick fucks claiming it was consensual, here ya go:

Quote :

""You have to know how to be sexually excited and to help each other ... and you have to be ready for the time I need your comfort," a man's voice says. "This is your mission. This is how you abide the law. At one point, the man says, "Take your clothes off. Do it right now," followed by the sounds of crying. "Just don't think about the pain; you're going to heaven," the man says."

8/9/2011 5:38:24 PM

^ dude, don't be such a party pooper...

Quote :

"The E Man: These kids are not forced and no physical harm is done. They are actually "lucky" to be chosen for sex with the prophet and are continually asked how they feel and if they are ok during the process (heard it on the video). This is only a matter of social construct and this culture bumping heads with the governments idea of pretending teenagers are kids for the sake of further educating them to build a more educated, first world society. Its a sticky wicket though."

and i will reiterate what i said earlier...

If he had limited himself to 12 and 15 year olds, I could MAYBE see it as being part of the religion... but 5 and 7 year old girls and BOYS? He is just a common child molester and rapist like any other ones, except that he calls himself a "prophet" and is the leader of some group. I hope he is fucking torn to shreds in the most violent manner by somebody, anybody, in jail or out.

8/9/2011 5:55:35 PM

^you can't quote me for a while ago and then reference evidence that just came out a few days ago to make me look like an idiot.

8/9/2011 5:58:41 PM

there was no evidence pointing in either direction (whether the actions were consensual or not), so how were you able to make this definite statement:

Quote :

"These kids are not forced and no physical harm is done."

and i have discussed before (with you) how it couldn't have been truly consensual (because he called himself a prophet and told them it was their duty) even if no direct element of coercion was found.

so it was obvious from the beginning that this couldn't be consensual.


[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2011 6:00:40 PM

^

8/9/2011 6:19:17 PM