Perhaps you should ask the women in those sects what they think and then report on it? They seam to be the only people who's opinion no one wants to hear.

Michelle, I will join the clothing optional sect if you do first. As to whether groundhogs are divine prophets, haven't you ever seen groundhog day? If they could predict the weather and have a day named after them (the same as Jesus, who has Christmas) then why shouldn't they be worshipped. They make a great stew too.

But as far as opening up another thread on Religion, well the blogs.tnr.com/.../is-it-ok-to-deny-journalists-communion.aspx

thread has something like 80 comments, so I think I will pass on starting one here.

Cthulhu,

The likely response a FLDS woman would have for a media inquiry would sound like this:

"Keep it sweet."

This is lingo for "I was brought up believing that the Devil will bring hellfire and the gnashing of teeth upon my soul and my family's soul if I tell anyone about my elder's raping of me."

Outsiders should listen to what FLDS women say about their own lifestyles. Cthulhu's right about that. Assuming they're brainwashed without hearing them out is disrespectful. But at the same time, critics of this kind of polygamy shouldn't have to defer completely to what the women themselves say about it. Critics should be able to ask questions about how much exposure they've had, growing up, to alternative ways of life and perspectives. If they're completely prevented from interacting with or learning about outsiders, and are drilled from day one to think that outsiders are threatening agents of satan, well, it would put the FLDS women's words in a different light.

As to why the LDS church doesn't speak out more forcefully against the harmful effects of FLDS teachings, they probably don't want to start throwing rocks at other people's windows. I'm not saying LDS teachings are harmful in the same ways or to the same extent as FLDS views on marriage. But the LDS does teach that marriage and procreation in this world are necessary preconditions of salvation. I.e. you won't get to be with your family in eternity if you don't marry and make babies. It might seem like an innocuous teaching, but it has some devastating effects on kids who grow up in the LDS community but who, for a host of deep-seated reasons (including, for example, being gay),  do not choose to organize their lives around getting married or bringing kids into the world. I've known a number of LDS people who have suffered a lot as a result of this teaching.

And as for bizarro-ness, it probably shouldn't be a measure by which we morally weigh other people's beliefs. No religion would come through such an evaluation unscathed. For example, I'm a lapsed Catholic, but even so, I've never been able to get my mind around the ritual of ingesting what you believe is literally Christ's body or blood. To me, this seems every bit as bizarre as, for example, the LDS belief that men who make it to the highest level of heaven get their very own planet, and they get to decide whether to invite their earthly wives to join them there -- or the FLDS belief that god wants women to share their husbands with "sister-wives."

It's weird to see Michelle Cottle taking such a strong stand condemning religions for their practices, after she wrote this:

blogs.tnr.com/.../wwjd-about-vaccines.aspx

In that post, she said it should be absolutely accepted to not give your kids vaccines, as long as you don't send them to public schools.

So what's Michelle Cottle's position exactly? What's the distinction?

Blackie, do you work out? If not, don't join the clothing optional sect.  Here in America, (ha, ha, ha) we don't cotton to half-naked, latter-day (no pun intended??) Henry VIIIs roaming our beaches in too small Speedos scaring the children and scandalizing the hot babes. Leave that Euro-trash stuff for the French Riviera.  :-)

tec, if you read what I said carefully, I said I would do it after Michelle joined. I don't think we have to worry she will anytime soon.

I would rather be naked then wear a speedo. Good lord talk about confining and ugly.

There's a difference between criticizing beliefs and criticizing actions.  I don't care what beliefs FLDS members have, but I do care if they are abusing children.  I'm guessing that since the Mormons were themselves viewed as a cult in the not-too-distant past, they aren't eager to start bashing the beliefs of other groups.

Maybe we should also listen to the women who succeeded in escaping from the FLDS. They tell some pretty disturbing stories about being coerced into marriages with men much older than them.

>  I don't care what beliefs FLDS members have, but I do care if they are abusing children.

Because it's so obviously true that ALL FLDS members abuse children, and ONLY FLDS members abuse children, whereas no mothers and fathers of catholic & protestant children ever do?

Please pull the wool from your eyes, folks, and ask yourself what -really- went down out there.  I don't know all the details, but I can for shure look at the faces of those little children that were shown on TV, and see plain as day that it is NOT the case that they were living in hell before, and rejoicing aftterwards at having been taken out of it.  The faces of those children who were being forcibly taken away to live in foster homes, were the faces of children who had been happy before, only to wake up and find themselves thrown into hell, by the actions of a bunch of self-righteous, "my bible-is-older-than-yours" bullies.

I'm not FLDS, I am certainly no friend of the FLDS, and I'm certainly no fan of the practice of polygamy.  But I firmly believe that the wrong that was done to these people, grossly outweighs anything that may (or more likely may not) have been righted through these actions.

zaiquiri,

I didn't say that all FLDS members abuse children or that only FLDS members abuse children.  That's precisely the point.  *If* people are abusing children, they should be condemned, regardless of their religious affiliation.  It's the action that's relevant.

Religion is not some immutable characteristic like race or gender or sexual orientation, and is therefore not subject to "bigotry" as that term is generally understood.  Religion is a lifestyle choice and whatever bizarre practices a given "faith" may prescribe are fair game for criticism.

I thnk fiind the rule when society has a right to intervene in religous  practices if when the culture/religoin treats its members as means and not ends.  As autonomous individuals.

Children,who have little basis for  sensing their autonomony, especially need protection from "mind-forged chains" of extreme social practices.

An idea after Kant.

csmiller: The problem with your position is that is off-the-scales rational.  "Religion as 'lifestyle' choice?" Can't be. The adherents "recieved" the spirit. Thus, reason goes out the window. Of course, all believers aren't like that. Some are confident in their beliefs and realize that it may have defects, so are willing to entertain challenges to their faith.  They  viiew challenges as opportunities to make their faith stronger.  Others. . .Well, you know.

"An idea after Kant."

And about as readable as Kant.