[Vision2020] Burn Down the FLDS Church

[Paul Rumelhart]

If you think I'm defending the rape of children, then you are not 
understanding the points I am trying to make.  And you are coming 
dangerously close to being irresponsible yourself, accusing me of 
supporting such an idea in a public forum in which I'm using my real 
name in my hometown in which I grew up.

Try toning down the rhetoric a notch, take a deep breath, and stop 
letting your emotions run your life.

I was hoping to converse about the religious angle here, but I guess 
that's not to be.

Now, I don't think they should have taken all the children based on the 
tip that one child may have been in danger, which appears now to have 
been fabricated.  That's all I'm saying on this subject lest you accuse 
me next of buggering baby seals or knocking old ladies over the head and 
stealing their pension checks.

Paul

Donovan Arnold wrote:
> Paul,
>  
> I never thought you would ever defend the rape of children, but I 
> guess you can convince yourself of anything being right if you want.
>  
> The law was followed, and there was lots of evidence to take the 
> children away, a justified act.
>  
> If a vulnerable adult, or a child tells me that they are being abused, 
> I am required by law to report it to authorities. If the authorities 
> believe there is any "'reasonable chance" a child is in danger, they 
> are required to move that child to safety until they can determine it 
> is safe. That is the law, and a law that is to error on the side of 
> safety of the child and victim. If someone is lying, we return the 
> child and prosecute the person who knowingly filed a false report. 
> That is what keeps the state from willy nilly taking children away 
> from their parents, there must be a complaint, and evidence.
>  
> There are signs that a person is being abused, their behavior, their 
> attitude, their answers to questions, and there are also physical 
> signs, such a bruises, marks, and of course, pregnancy is a big clue 
> someone is having sex.
>  
> Our system is designed to first, protect the child, then investigate, 
> then return the child if it is safe. It does not follow to leave a 
> child or abuser with a rapist to be raped repeatedly until a full 
> length of a trial completes to ensure all the rights of perpetrator 
> are followed. That is reckless endangerment of the child, and ignores 
> the rights of the child.
>  
> Let me point out the fact, that first and foremost, they are already 
> violating the state and federal law, because they are practicing 
> polygamy. So the police had every legal right, just because of that, 
> to enter the compound.
>  
> The state is exercising due discretion in taking these children away, 
> as it is not something they do lightly, or very often. But if you 
> strongly believe that a child could be in danger, and their is 
> evidence, or witness testimony indicates so, you are required, by law, 
> to act.
>  
> I don't buy this is a legitimate religion. And even if it was, that is 
> no excuse to be violating the rights of children, or violating federal 
> and state laws. You cannot violate federal and state law just because 
> you don't believe it is wrong, especially when it harms others.
>  
> The reason they took all the children, is because the children live 
> communally, and thus all the children are in danger, because they are 
> all in the same environment, with the same adults watching them, and 
> not willing (or able) to report crimes against children to federal 
> authorities.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Donovan
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> */Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>/* wrote:
>
>     Donovan Arnold wrote:
>     > Paul,
>     >
>     > If you don't understand what is wrong with 50 year old men raping
>     > their 13 or 14 year old cousins and forcing them to have their
>     > children, while the community watches and says nothing, or praises
>     > it, then you seriously need to consider reexamining your core
>     values!
>     > It is so wrong on so many different levels.
>
>     My core values are just fine. I was just trying to draw a distinction
>     between the two concepts, not advocate for their use.
>
>     >
>     > The purpose of the law, Paul, is to protect the innocent from being
>     > victims, not to shelter criminals from prosecution of the law or to
>     > excuse them from justice. Any rights they may have lost in the
>     > protection of these children, is far out-weighted by the rights
>     they
>     > violated of little girls they violated. Obviously, since there
>     was in
>     > fact horrendous crimes being committed, their information was
>     correct.
>     > The state has a moral obligation to prevent children from being
>     raped
>     > or being forced into sexual contact with others, especially their
>     > relatives.
>
>     Preventing the innocent from becoming victims only works if you have
>     some sort of magical ability to know the guilt or innocence of
>     someone
>     without evidence. I don't have such an ability, I don't know of many
>     who do. So we're stuck with the legal process. The fact that they
>     were
>     right in this case does not justify their actions. If the state
>     has the
>     moral obligation to prevent children from being raped, then they'd
>     better take all of them away from their parents, since you never know
>     who might be a parent at risk for illegal behavior.
>
>     >
>     > No adult in the facility, all of which knew the children where
>     being
>     > violated and victimized, are innocent. They are required by law to
>     > report sexual and violent acts against children. If they saw a
>     14 year
>     > old pregnant, and married to their cousin, 3 times or more their
>     age,
>     > they know there is abuse and neglect, they didn't report it,
>     they are
>     > criminals. They are not fit to be guardians or parents of these
>     children.
>
>     The point I'm trying to make is that the children should not have
>     been
>     taken away without a reasonable amount of evidence which I haven't
>     seen
>     that they had. For the system to work, you have to abide by it's
>     rules.
>
>     You are trying to paint this as a commune of sadists intent upon
>     deflowering young girls because of their overwhelming desire to do
>     evil
>     or something. There is another aspect to this that I don't see being
>     voiced much. These people, for the most part, believed that what they
>     were doing was justified biblically, and extra-biblically. It's not
>     that different culturally than some Middle Eastern countries that
>     marry
>     their daughters off when they are young, or who arrange marriages.
>     It's
>     not that different than what went on in this country a hundred
>     years ago
>     in some places.
>
>     So why did they take all the children away? If it was a massive
>     apartment complex in Suburbia somewhere, do you think they would have
>     busted down everybody's door and taken all the kids away if one of
>     the
>     parents that lived in the complex had potentially abused their
>     child? I
>     doubt it. They did it here solely because of their professed
>     religious
>     beliefs. It appears to me that they were horrified by this idea, and
>     acted outside the constraints of the law because of it. To me, that's
>     not right.
>
>     Paul
>
>     >
>     > Best Regards,
>     >
>     > Donovan
>     >
>     > */Paul Rumelhart /* wrote:
>     >
>     > You're misinterpreting our defense of the rule of law and the
>     > potential
>     > innocence of the accused as support for these people or as some
>     > kind of
>     > statement that they were known to be innocent.
>     >
>     > "Take them away because they might have been abused" doesn't cut it.
>     > Coming in and removing all the children was heavy-handed and
>     > trampled on
>     > these people's rights (in my opinion). That doesn't mean that I
>     think
>     > some of them might not be guilty.
>     >
>     > I'm sure I'm not going to make new friends bringing this up, but
>     what
>     > the heck. I think it needs to be said. While 14 is too young,
>     why the
>     > huge moral outrage over marriage to or impregnating of a young woman
>     > that is 17 years old, assuming it was consensual, of course? You
>     have
>     > to draw the line somewhere, but on the day before their 18th
>     birthday
>     > they are verboten on penalty of having your whole world destroyed,
>     > and
>     > on the next day they are fair game? I'm not advocating having sex
>     > with
>     > 17 year olds, but I think we as a country need to draw a line
>     between
>     > young adult and actual child in our outrage in these incidents.
>     > People
>     > treat a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old as if he or
>     she had
>     > had sex with a 6 year old. There is a huge difference in severity,
>     > wouldn't you say? Ephebophilia and pedophilia are different things.
>     > Both are against the law, and it's up to your individual morals to
>     > determine where the lines should be drawn, but they should (in my
>     > opinion) be dealt with with different sentences.
>     >
>     > Paul
>     >
>     > Donovan Arnold wrote:
>     > > For those of you that were so outspoken to protect the rights of
>     > these
>     > > cultists, testing has now shown that most of the girls between
>     > 14 and
>     > > 17 years old have been forced to mother children or are currently
>     > > pregnant.
>     > >
>     > > http://www.idahostatesman.com/apusnews/story/364568.html
>     > >
>     > > The police were absolutely right in removing these children from a
>     > > harmful and destructive lifestyle. I hope they place all these
>     > > children into new loving homes and burn down these child
>     > abuser's so
>     > > called church after placing them all in jail for a long, long
>     > time. .
>     > >
>     > > Best Regards,
>     > >
>     > > Donovan
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
>     > Mobile. Try
>     > > it now.
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > >
>     > > =======================================================
>     > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>     > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>     > > http://www.fsr.net
>     > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>     > > =======================================================
>     >
>     >
>     > =======================================================
>     > List services made available by First Step Internet,
>     > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>     > http://www.fsr.net
>     > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>     > =======================================================
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
>     Mobile. Try
>     > it now.
>     >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
> it now. 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20>