DiscussMormonism.com

I think this raid is going to re-define what freedom of religion really is. The women keep bringing that up, and I think it will raise many questions.

One is, can a group plead the "FoR" if they have sheltered its adherents from most available knowledge outside their community? In other words, if the members have not had a chance to learn real world history, science, etc., and they say, testify, etc., that they are "happy" as they are, do we have the right (or responsibility) to try to "save" them from the cult?

Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

asbestosman wrote:Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

I'd like to know where you get the idea of "Freedom of Religion".

BishopRic wrote:

asbestosman wrote:Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:

BishopRic wrote:

asbestosman wrote:Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Every single sex ed program that I am aware of, no matter their position on abortion, teaches that abstinence is the best practice. This includes Planned Parenthood. Can you please give an example of a program that is " loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance", or were you just making that up?

John Larsen wrote:

wenglund wrote:

BishopRic wrote:

asbestosman wrote:Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Every single sex ed program that I am aware of, no matter their position on abortion, teaches that abstinence is the best practice. This includes Planned Parenthood. Can you please give an example of a program that is " loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance", or were you just making that up?

I think it helps to understand the evolution of the government-related sex ed programs. For years, the predominate form of sex ed was "safe sex", which, understandably, did not entail abstinence since the underlining philosophy was that teens will envariably have sex, and so abstinence was a moot issue. However, parents rose up in revolt and gave rise to "abstinence-only" sex education, which found its way into not a few public school systems. Because of the revolt, and to maintain public support, the "safe sex" programs very reluctantly gave way to "comprehensive sex education" programs, which merely make a pretence at teaching abstinence. For a good article on this, see the heritage Foundations: What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:

John Larsen wrote:

wenglund wrote:

BishopRic wrote:

asbestosman wrote:Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Every single sex ed program that I am aware of, no matter their position on abortion, teaches that abstinence is the best practice. This includes Planned Parenthood. Can you please give an example of a program that is " loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance", or were you just making that up?

I think it helps to understand the evolution of the government-related sex ed programs. For years, the predominate form of sex ed was "safe sex", which, understandably, did not entail abstinence since the underlining philosophy was that teens will envariably have sex, and so abstinence was a moot issue. However, parents rose up in revolt and gave rise to "abstinence-only" sex education, which found its way into not a few public school systems. Because of the revolt, and to maintain public support, the "safe sex" programs very reluctantly gave way to "comprehensive sex education" programs, which merely make a pretence at teaching abstinence. For a good article on this, see the heritage Foundations: What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You didn't answer my question. You made an over the top, and obviously false statement.

by the way you might want to check better sources than the Heritage Foundation.

John Larsen wrote:

wenglund wrote:

John Larsen wrote:

wenglund wrote:

BishopRic wrote:

asbestosman wrote:Freedom of religion apparently extends far enough to legally use what is otherwise illegal drugs, but not far enough to allow for theft, rape, and murder.

I'm not sure that anyone has a right or responsibility to save someone from being sheltered. If I want to play games instead of watch the news, I don't think it's your business to make me hear about the world. That said, I'm not particularly comfortable with people denying themselves of the great things from science and history. I just don't know about forcing someone to understand what is happening in the world.

Good points. This incident has made me think about how much "sheltering" should be legal. I think it's quite possible that the FLDS women in Texas might actually believe they are "happy," and even more enlightened, intelligent, etc., BECAUSE they are sheltered from the wickedness of the world. They may even be hearing right now for the first time that older men marrying young girls, impregnating them, controlling them in every way is wrong!

So again, how much forced isolationism is okay, as it relates to freedom of religion?

This is an area where I have defended the LDS church. Even though I was advised not to read or view certain material, I was never threatened (in a worldly way) at all. I studied, chose to leave, and never had a cross word said to me during the process. To me, this is a significant reason I don't consider the church a cult, as some others do. I think if there is forced censorship, it is most likely a cult.

Just some rambling thoughts....

The question of "sheltering" comes up in secular debates as well. The pro-abortion industry is adverse to informing young pregnant women about the significant psychological factors of abortions, and they are also loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance. Many liberal schools and adherents wish to "shelter" young and impressionable minds from the alures of conservative and capitalistic thought. Etc., etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Every single sex ed program that I am aware of, no matter their position on abortion, teaches that abstinence is the best practice. This includes Planned Parenthood. Can you please give an example of a program that is " loath to teaching such life-respecting contraceptive methods like abstinance", or were you just making that up?

I think it helps to understand the evolution of the government-related sex ed programs. For years, the predominate form of sex ed was "safe sex", which, understandably, did not entail abstinence since the underlining philosophy was that teens will envariably have sex, and so abstinence was a moot issue. However, parents rose up in revolt and gave rise to "abstinence-only" sex education, which found its way into not a few public school systems. Because of the revolt, and to maintain public support, the "safe sex" programs very reluctantly gave way to "comprehensive sex education" programs, which merely make a pretence at teaching abstinence. For a good article on this, see the heritage Foundations: What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You didn't answer my question. You made an over the top, and obviously false statement.

by the way you might want to check better sources than the Heritage Foundation.

I understand that is how you, in your binary and biased way of looking at things, have chosen to see it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion--evidence presented to the contrary notwithstanding.

By the way, are you aware that people can and will do things that they loath? In other words, sex ed programs can be set up which contain abstinence language that those designing and implementing the programs may be loath to present, but do so because of public pressure or other such things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-