As you know right now the FBI is on a manhunt for Warren Jeffs, Who runs a church who believes in polygamy. The church is the FLDS. The news has went ahead and started calling this guy the next Jim Jones of David Koresh. You can read more about him here. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4629320 Now none of this bothers me, as all of you know I think religion is one of the biggest jokes there is. But I also do not mind people doing what they do as long as they leave me the hell alone. After all this is a America and we are suppose to have the freedom of religion. Now anytime someone does not like a religion in our government we define it as a cult dig shit up on it and find a way to crush it. Even if it is a cult they should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as it is in the name of religion. After all that is what the fathers of this country wanted. Now my other point, They are saying this man says that God has spoken with him and has given him a mission or some such shit as to what too do with his people. So they start talking about how crazy that is and all. But how many times has Bush came out and said the same thing? I mean he is the President and he has said the same thing about Iraq and now Iran. Come on now why is it ok for him and not someone else. Why is he not raked over the coals and called crazy. Anyway I found the whole thing pointless.
Do you mean that these whackos should be free to abuse their teeny brides just because its in america. ( That being the middle segment of america clled the united states ( of america )). "Sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree. I traveled the world and the seven seas. Everybody is looking for someone. Some of them want to abuse you. Some of them want to be abused." Eurythmics. ( Ofcourse the seventh sea is the calm sea of death as we all know. The necrotically sublime will appreciate that. In that context. "Prophet-power as mentioned, seems a form of magickal ( ritualistic ) coercion. Maybe even vampiric dependancy. The men in black are right to take his ass down. Fumdamentalists $%^&?>
All that is right in my back yard. Its funny to see them in local stores. The women aren't allowed to look at men in the eyes, and they are always in flocks. In restaruants its always one guy and seven ladies. They get pissed when if stared at. You go to their town though and they won't sell ya gas. There's a lot of resentment for them too. Sons are hired out to contsruction and their paychecks go to their fathers. They're homes remain unfinished--leaving one wall un-sided, bare wood showing, to avoid paying taxes. I've never had a personal experience other than getting yelled at for staring in a restaraunt. I stood up and asked if he wanted to go outside and talk about it. He declined. The women who are born there and then get out (those who are caught trying to leave are often "Moved" to a new city, never to be seen again) have been in my experience, fucked up. Thus ends my longest post ever.
It's not though, because freedom of speech, freedom to associate and other freedoms are also on the bill. Now, if a "religion" denies its children (who never get to choose their membership) the right to free association, or the right to speak freely, where does that leave the Bill? Should the religion be prosecuted for breaching the Bill? Or would prosecuting it breach the Bill? Tricky shit, and certainly not a cut and dried, "end of story" kind of argument.
Which is why people need to be told what to do. Too much bullshit grey area that people just can't agree on. Then there's too many retards out there that always get to throw their two-cents in because of the right to vote.
The only way that could end is in a hail of bullets as the US Army closes in on you both and ... ... on second thoughts, that sounds like a great idea guys!
I don't know where you live, but I constantly hear Bush is crazy. Some of the other popular phrases uttered in conjunction with his name: idiot, moron, fool, ass, dickhead, stupid, joke, thief, liar, zealot, or war-criminal. I could have gone on much longer with that, but really I think everyone gets the point.
Everything has to be looked at in moderation. Obviously if someone’s religion meant that they had to pursue world annihilation then maybe freedom of religion would not apply. Once you identify the obvious then it’s simply shades of grey from there. From a constitutional perspective our founding fathers looked at freedom of religion as a freedom to choose which form of Christianity. ie Catholicism, Protestant ... And that the government would not require that its citizens adhere to a specific one in other words a theocracy. However it never did say that there is a separation of church and state. This is a common misconception propagated by the extreme left wing media. And the Democrats of course.
