You know what really gets me the most pissed off about the whole mess? It was a set up from the very beginning:
They changed the laws to make the lifestyle of those church members illegal. Lots of people obviously had it out for that church from the start. They just needed an excuse to gain access to the "compound" so they could start rounding them all up. I call shenanigans on the whole thing.
I agree mostly with this statement, though I admit I have not read all 11 pages of this post yet.
This subject came up on another message board. I suspected right away the call was a "hoax" to begin with, though I admit my suspicion was someone particularly busybody like in another church in the area (or group of individuals from the same church or neighborhood).
I have to agree with one of the things Ron Paul constantly reminds us and is well quoted by Thomas Jefferson:
Original Post by Thomas Jefferson
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
There are many cultures, religions, etc. in the world we as individuals will never understand and, as in this case, find to be distasteful or otherwise shameful. However, it is apparent these people believe strongly in their religion and I've yet to see any conclusive evidence of children being "neglected" or "abused". I happened to catch Nancy Grace this very evening where the "former" FLDS woman was talking about how psychologically abused these children were. When asked to give an example of the abuse all of her responses sounded very much like corporal punishment and other various punishments (some I might not agree with, but certainly wouldn't categorize as "abuse", else many parents should be put on trial). If there were more substantial abuse, I know it would have been milked for all it was worth. All they could do was play the same questions over and over and the same intro tape of the supposed "victim" over and over.
If you want to retain the rights you hold dear, you must grant the same rights to those you may not agree with.
Something important to consider, and it may have already been stated, is that given how hard it is today to raise a standard family of four (mom, dad +2 kids) do you think this "sect" would have continued to flourish as they did without additional "income" (yes, welfare) from the government? I think it is a more important point to ponder because had this way of life (polygamy) been sustainable and more beneficial than the more "mainstream" union of a single man to a single woman, wouldn't this practice of "marriage" have won out in the long run? Is this a clear example of "free-market" theory applied to marriage? (ok, that's for a LOL)
Though I am compelled to protect their rights as individuals to "pursue" their brand of happiness and live as they choose, I find considerable hypocrisy in their claims of wanting to be left alone. In the end, however, it is just yet another example of why welfare is such a bad thing. Not to say it is bad because I disagree so much with this particular sect, but rather because I should not be forced to help sustain the lifestyles of individuals with whom I completely disagree. No one should be forced to do that. Wasn't it the purpose of our constitution to guarantee this?
