more disquieting thoughts
- Thread starter angie j
- Start date
To get some insight into the FLDS Church I would recommend reading the book Under The Banner Of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. He chronicles the history of the Morman religion from its beginnings to present day (actually 2003). It is a fascinating and heartbreaking book. After reading this book I am convinced the Texas authorities are doing the right thing.
NewfDad
Member
Personal opinion here, note the warning
I don't really care about what the press says on this one, people need to be more discerning about what the media says. The core issue here is consent. Children are not considered competent to give legal consent, whether it be a religious issue or a non-religious issue. A child can't consent to surgery, only their guardian can. Even as a guardian (or parent) there are limits to what you can commit a child to. I can't commit my son to be a monk in a monestary for the rest of his life (however tempting it might be sometimes). I can't put his money in an investment that he can't unwind once he is at the age of majority. The state has the duty to ensure that children aren't commited to things for life by their guardians, without regard to religious beliefs. So when the state steps in and makes children get certain medical care it is because the state is charged with maintaining their ultimate interest (in a physical sense without regard to their parents religion as it is impermissible to make a state decision in that context). You are the guardian of your children, not their owner, and as such you can only make decisions when they not contrary to the childs longterm best physical interest. In the case of the children in this case they were married and impregnated before they could legally consent. Regardless of what the parents believe they cannot by proxy consent to this type of decision. In the end this is a case where the rights of the children where violated to fit the beliefs of their guardians. This isn't a doctrinal thing to me. If the parents want to be polygomous and there are appropriate legal structures to protect the rights of the involved persons, hey go ahead (though watching those laws get developed is going to be entertaining). The children however cannot be committed to that belief. It is because of this that I support the childrent being taken away from their parents as I feel the actions and lack of actions cause a reasonable person to believe that the childrens right will not be respected. As always IMHO.
ART
I don't really care about what the press says on this one, people need to be more discerning about what the media says. The core issue here is consent. Children are not considered competent to give legal consent, whether it be a religious issue or a non-religious issue. A child can't consent to surgery, only their guardian can. Even as a guardian (or parent) there are limits to what you can commit a child to. I can't commit my son to be a monk in a monestary for the rest of his life (however tempting it might be sometimes). I can't put his money in an investment that he can't unwind once he is at the age of majority. The state has the duty to ensure that children aren't commited to things for life by their guardians, without regard to religious beliefs. So when the state steps in and makes children get certain medical care it is because the state is charged with maintaining their ultimate interest (in a physical sense without regard to their parents religion as it is impermissible to make a state decision in that context). You are the guardian of your children, not their owner, and as such you can only make decisions when they not contrary to the childs longterm best physical interest. In the case of the children in this case they were married and impregnated before they could legally consent. Regardless of what the parents believe they cannot by proxy consent to this type of decision. In the end this is a case where the rights of the children where violated to fit the beliefs of their guardians. This isn't a doctrinal thing to me. If the parents want to be polygomous and there are appropriate legal structures to protect the rights of the involved persons, hey go ahead (though watching those laws get developed is going to be entertaining). The children however cannot be committed to that belief. It is because of this that I support the childrent being taken away from their parents as I feel the actions and lack of actions cause a reasonable person to believe that the childrens right will not be respected. As always IMHO.
ART
drulzelot
New member
Damn.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. I've heard the children were extremely well behaved and polite. That is so not natural....<VBG>
Donna (who is now hoarse from "speaking loudly" to a rock-filled brick wall disguised as my teenage son's face.)
Nasus
New member
I can't put his money in an investment that he can't unwind once he is at the age of majority.
His money ? well if he earned it yes it is his.. if u gifted it, well u can do as u like.. not allowing him to get it until lets say 35.. or even set up a trust giving him a set amount each year or month or even daily.
A family member set up a trust for his daughter.. the trust said she could not have the money until she was married 10 years to the same man.. smart move ,she was divorced within 4 years and a second marriage lasted 7.. at this rate she might never see the money but then the X's won't get it either.. there is only so much a man will put up with even for some big bucks LOL.
His money ? well if he earned it yes it is his.. if u gifted it, well u can do as u like.. not allowing him to get it until lets say 35.. or even set up a trust giving him a set amount each year or month or even daily.
A family member set up a trust for his daughter.. the trust said she could not have the money until she was married 10 years to the same man.. smart move ,she was divorced within 4 years and a second marriage lasted 7.. at this rate she might never see the money but then the X's won't get it either.. there is only so much a man will put up with even for some big bucks LOL.
angie j
New member
I have been pondering 'thoughts' here.... and, althought I've appologised for using the Catholic Church as an example of ALL Organized Religious groups... It seems to still be biting me from behind.
So I asked myself ...."Why"? Why did I choose that example. The most obvious answer is that I just didn't 'think' conciously, about being impartial (although I didn't intend to be exclusive either). The reason I said, "Catholic Church" is that it has the longest History ... after True Christianity.....
When I say, "true" Christianity it is in refrence to the fact that in Jesus days and thereafter, Christs followers were named "Christians"...not Catholics, not Lutherians, not Protestants, etc...
I wonder what Jesus would say, about the divisions now long held, within His following? What He would think when we argue about a "sect" of Christianity, rather than simply promote his teachings lovingly? In reality God doesn't care what sect of Christianity we belong to: Romans 2:14, "For whenever people of the nations... do by nature the things of the law...these people ..are the very ones to demonstrate.. the law to be written in their hearts..."..:28, "For he is not a Jew on the outside..His circumcision is that of the heart, by spirit, and not by a written code."
Wether we are (What's this group called again?), Catholic, Protostant, Jews, Jehovahs Witness or non-denominational... being a part of an organization is only a path towards learning information about God. Remember all you Christians... of the multitudes that escaped Egypt... how many entered the promised land? 2 I think... the majority wandered their lives in the wilderness and were forbidden to enter....
I doesn't matter who you are walking with.... it matters HOW you allow your concience to be led and directed. It's your "actions" that will show if you are a Christian or not.
Angie J
So I asked myself ...."Why"? Why did I choose that example. The most obvious answer is that I just didn't 'think' conciously, about being impartial (although I didn't intend to be exclusive either). The reason I said, "Catholic Church" is that it has the longest History ... after True Christianity.....
When I say, "true" Christianity it is in refrence to the fact that in Jesus days and thereafter, Christs followers were named "Christians"...not Catholics, not Lutherians, not Protestants, etc...
I wonder what Jesus would say, about the divisions now long held, within His following? What He would think when we argue about a "sect" of Christianity, rather than simply promote his teachings lovingly? In reality God doesn't care what sect of Christianity we belong to: Romans 2:14, "For whenever people of the nations... do by nature the things of the law...these people ..are the very ones to demonstrate.. the law to be written in their hearts..."..:28, "For he is not a Jew on the outside..His circumcision is that of the heart, by spirit, and not by a written code."
Wether we are (What's this group called again?), Catholic, Protostant, Jews, Jehovahs Witness or non-denominational... being a part of an organization is only a path towards learning information about God. Remember all you Christians... of the multitudes that escaped Egypt... how many entered the promised land? 2 I think... the majority wandered their lives in the wilderness and were forbidden to enter....
I doesn't matter who you are walking with.... it matters HOW you allow your concience to be led and directed. It's your "actions" that will show if you are a Christian or not.
Angie J
NewfDad
Member
Once the money is gifted technically you can't change where it is, the child when reaching adulthood can take action. For example If I put a trust together the money is the trust's until it is disbursed. Once disbursed it is technically theirs to do with. A financial advisor I know of gives the advice that you put NOTHING in the childs name until adulthood or you are ready for them to have it.
ART
ART