SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/3/2005 1:25:38 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
DOMINIONISM

The Corner
Stanley Kurtz

Chris Hedges, author of the Harper’s Magazine cover story I talked about in “Scary Stuff," appeared recently on “On Point,” a radio show out of Boston’s public radio station WBUR. You can listen to the interview here ( onpointradio.org ).

The fundamental problem with Hedges’ approach was on display throughout. Hedges calls any conservative Christian with an interest in political action a “Dominionist.” This bogus move allows Hedges to connect all the wild dystopian fantasies of true Dominionists (e.g. capital punishment for moral crimes, the overthrow of the constitution and its replacement by a theocracy) with any Christian who supports the appointment of conservative judges.

This radio show invited an actual Dominionist on the program, who promptly gummed up the works for Hedges by disavowing any connection with the activities of mainstream evangelicals. Hedges spent the rest of the program trying to explain why this sort of doctrinal difference really doesn’t matter–why all conservative Christians are in fact “Dominionists.” And as Hedges kept trying to tar mainstream evangelicals with the Dominionist label, he continued to link them to the plans of Dominionists in the proper sense–like the idea of execution moral criminals. I’d say this was the worst sort of guilt by association, but it’s almost crazier than that. After all, real Dominionists seem to disavow any association with mainstream evangelicals.


nationalreview.com

nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/3/2005 2:52:14 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Is It All That Difficult To Figure Out How Religious Voters Think?

By John Hawkins on Religion
Right Wing News

Every so often in the mainsteam media, you'll run across a story written by a liberal reporter pondering the profound mystery of conservatives. What makes them tick? Why are they so uncivilized? Are they really taking orders from Rush Limbaugh? In short, conservatives are treated as these baffling creatures that are impossible for the "normal" person to understand.

Well, now that the Democrats have decided that it's important to attract more religious voters, they've begun the same process with Christians and it's really fascinating to watch liberals who are largely hostile to religious people try to figure out how they think.

Read some of the details from this story in the Washington Times and you'll see what I mean:


<<<

"The 58-year-old man stepped to the microphone and spoke like a zealous Christian anxious to learn about carrying the Gospel to nonbelievers.

"We're trying to understand these people. How do we reach out to them?" asked Wayne Reagan, 58, a retired Housing Authority official.

... Mr. Reagan, who is not religious, attended a conference Friday and Saturday at the City College of New York, called "Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right." The event was sponsored by the New York Open Center, a holistic learning center, and by the People for the American Way Foundation.

...The conference on the religious right was conceived six months ago by Open Center co-founder Ralph White, who heard a discussion of "dominionism" on a political talk show. He didn't know the meaning of the word, which refers to the belief -- based on Genesis 1:26 and other biblical texts -- that Christians should extend God's sovereignty over the political sphere.

....Some at the conference expressed hostility toward Christian conservatives. One attendee said during a question-and-answer period that she thought the Christian conservative movement is the embodiment of the Antichrist. Joan Bokaer, founder of TheocracyWatch, said conservative politicians have manipulated Christians to vote for them since the mid-1960s.

... Jeffrey Sharlett, who runs a daily report on religion in the press called the Revealer, said liberals should be in, but not of, the Christian conservative movement.

"Instead of railing against the Christian right," he said, liberals should be "going out and talking to them and writing stories about your experience with them."
>>>

Is this really rocket science? Is it really so hard to figure out why someone who's religious might see Republicans as better representing their interests than Democrats who have these bizarre conspiracy theories about "dominionism" and "theocracies" -- and who have to be trotted out?

Let me just take a few moments to explain a few things to these puzzled liberals.

To begin with, if you think religious people are unsophisticated, gullible rubes and you're repulsed by them, it generally comes through loud and clear, whether you try to hide it or not. While there are a few of those type on the right, mostly libertarians, the overwhelming majority of them are on the left. Remember the "Jesusland" meme that the left was going on and on about right after the 2004 elections? People don't forget that sort of thing.

Furthermore, it's not enough to toss out a few religious verses at election time, when you go into a black church, or when you show up for a campaign stop down South. People have got to believe that you're the real deal, not just making a shallow political pitch. So if you're not a politician who has talked about religion enough to cheese off the anti-religious zealots (like Bush when he said Jesus was his favorite philosopher), you probably should shoot for that. It'll give you a little street cred and keep people from questioning your sincerity.

Last but not last, you can talk about Jesus all day, every day (Are you listening, Howard Dean?), but if you love the ACLU, think the Boy Scouts are a hate group, and support gay marriage, you're going to have trouble connecting with a lot of religious voters.

Summing it all up: If you want the support of religious voters, all you need to do is:

1) Like religious people.

2) Come across as genuinely religious, not as just using religion for political gain.

3) Support positions that are important to religious people.

Is that really so difficult to figure out?


Hat tip to Right Thinking Girl for the story.

rightwingnews.com

washingtontimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/4/2005 2:31:58 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
AN MSM REPORTER DEFENDS EVANGELICALS

By Michelle Malkin
May 04, 2005 09:36 AM

Check this out: John McCandlish Phillips, former reporter for the New York Times, defends evangelicals against the MSM's hysterical fear-mongering, in the Washington Post of all places:

<<<

I have been looking at myself, and millions of my brethren, fellow evangelicals along with traditional Catholics, in a ghastly arcade mirror lately -- courtesy of this newspaper and the New York Times. Readers have been assured, among other dreadful things, that we are living in "a theocracy" and that this theocratic federal state has reached the dire level of -- hold your breath -- a "jihad."

In more than 50 years of direct engagement in and observation of the major news media I have never encountered anything remotely like the fear and loathing lavished on us by opinion mongers in these world-class newspapers in the past 40 days. If I had a $5 bill for every time the word "frightening" and its close lexicographical kin have appeared in the Times and The Post, with an accusatory finger pointed at the Christian right, I could take my stack to the stock market.

I come at this with an insider/outsider vantage and with real affection for many of those engaged in this enterprise. When the Times put me on its reporting staff, I was the only evangelical Christian among some 275 news and editorial employees, and certainly the only one who kept a leather-bound Bible on his desk.
>>>

Great read.


michellemalkin.com

washingtonpost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/4/2005 5:02:54 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A must-read about MSM religion coverage

Rathergate.com

We do not live in a theocracy. Our society allows us to worship (or not) as we please. There are no “religious police” enforcing orthodoxy or beating women who walk outside without a male escort.

If you get your information exclusively from the MSM, this may be news to you. But an author and former New York Times reporter scolds the MSM in the Washington Post (of all places!) for their irresponsible fear-mongering over the Christian right (how dare they vote and participate in politics!).

An excerpt from “When Columnists Cry ‘Jihad’” by John McCandlish Phillips:

<<<

In more than 50 years of direct engagement in and observation of the major news media I have never encountered anything remotely like the fear and loathing lavished on us by opinion mongers in these world-class newspapers in the past 40 days. If I had a $5 bill for every time the word “frightening” and its close lexicographical kin have appeared in the Times and The Post, with an accusatory finger pointed at the Christian right, I could take my stack to the stock market.
>>>

Take the time to read the whole thing.


rathergate.com

washingtonpost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/5/2005 1:52:19 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right

Secular liberals show open contempt for traditionalists.

BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the "religious right"? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right.


One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn't the same as the oft-heard complaint of "anti-Christian bigotry," which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.

For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, "conservative" judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means.

In the past three elections, the religious right has helped to elect a conservative Republican president and a bigger, and increasingly conservative, Republican Senate majority. This should make it possible to move the courts in a conservative direction. But Senate Democrats, taking their cue from liberal interest groups, have responded by subverting the democratic process, using the filibuster to impose an unprecedented supermajority requirement on the confirmation of judges.

That's what prompted Christian conservatives to organize "Justice Sunday," last month's antifilibuster rally, at a church in Kentucky. After following long-established rules for at least a quarter-century, they can hardly be faulted for objecting when their opponents answer their success by effectively changing those rules.

This procedural high-handedness is of a piece with the arrogant attitude the secular left takes toward the religious right.
Last week a Boston Globe columnist wrote that what he called "right-wing crackpots--excuse me, 'people of faith' " were promoting "knuckle-dragging judges." This contempt expresses itself in more refined ways as well, such as the idea that social conservatism is a form of "working class" false consciousness. Thomas Frank advanced this argument in last year's bestseller, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

Liberal politicians have picked up the theme. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, in a January op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, mused on a postelection visit he made to Alabama, wondering why people from that state "say 'yes' when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures of their own children."

Assuming for the sake of argument that Democratic economic policies really are better (or at least more politically attractive) than Republican ones, why don't politicians like Mr. Feingold adopt conservative positions on social issues so as to win over the voters whose economic interests they claim to care so much about? The answer seems obvious: Mr. Feingold would not support, say, the Human Life Amendment or the Federal Marriage Amendment because to do so would be against his principles. It's not that he sees the issues as unimportant, but that he does not respect the views of those who disagree. His views are thoughtful and enlightened; theirs are, as Mr. Frank describes them, a mindless "backlash."

This attitude is politically self-defeating, for voters know when politicians are insulting their intelligence. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, recently framed the abortion debate in this way: "What we want to debate is who gets to choose: Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?" He also vowed that "we're going to use Terri Schiavo," promising to produce "an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay, saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?' " Many voters who aren't pro-life absolutists have misgivings about abortion on demand and about the death of Terri Schiavo. By refusing to acknowledge the possibility of thoughtful disagreement or ambivalence, Mr. Dean is giving these moderates an excellent reason to vote Republican.

Curiously, while secular liberals underestimate the intellectual seriousness of the religious right, they also overestimate its uniformity and ambition. The hysterical talk about an incipient "theocracy"--as if that is what America was before 1963, when the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools--is either utterly cynical or staggeringly naive.

Last week an article in The Nation, a left-wing weekly, described the motley collection of religious figures who gathered for Justice Sunday. A black minister stood next to a preacher with a six-degrees-of-separation connection to the Ku Klux Klan. A Catholic shared the stage with a Baptist theologian who had described Roman Catholicism as "a false church."

These folks may not be your cup of tea, but this was a highly ecumenical group, united on some issues of morality and politics but deeply divided on matters of faith. The thought that they could ever agree enough to impose a theocracy is laughable.

And the religious right includes not only Christians of various stripes but also Orthodox Jews and even conservative Muslims. Far from the sectarian movement its foes portray, it is in truth a manifestation of the religious pluralism that makes America great. Therein lies its strength.


Mr. Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com.

opinionjournal.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/5/2005 9:03:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Saving our republic from the theocrats

Power Line

Christopher Hitchens writing in the Wall Street Journal, wants to "save the Republic from shallow, demagogic sectarians." He's referring to elements of the Christian right. However, he neglects to provide much evidence that these elements pose any threat to the Republic (I don't count as evidence Barry Goldwater's annoyance, at the end of his career, with lobbying by the Moral Majority).

In fact, the only evidence Hitchens offers is the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. However, he fails to show that this policy is the product of religious views about the sinfulness of homosexuality, as opposed to the military's view that the policy makes for a better functioning military.

Of course, some people do rely on religious teachings to justify their view that openly gay individuals should not be permitted to serve in the military. How does Hitchens propose to deal with that? Surely, he's not advocating that this view be silenced. More likely, he believes that policy makers have an obligation to ignore it. But Hitchens writes as moralistically as any pundit. His views of what is moral don't stem from Christianity (nor do mine), but they must be rooted in some core values and beliefs. On what grounds does he contend that policy makers should consider moral judgments founded in his belief system but ignore on principle those grounded in fundamentalist Christianity?

Our secular society traditionally has permitted, and been willing to consider, arguments founded on nearly all belief systems. However, in the aftermath of the 2004 election, our elites are concerned that the values of Christian fundamentalists are doing too well in our market place of ideas. They are alarmed even though religious values are serving more as a brake on cultural reform than a vehicle for overturning the left's past advances. That's considered reason enough to try to shut them out of the debate.

James Taranto develops some of these themes in explaining why he's "rooting for the religious right." He emphasizes that the religious right has acted "in good civic-minded" fashion. Indeed, it can be argued that religious conservatives have demanded less from the Republican party than the left demands from the Democrats.


powerlineblog.com

opinionjournal.com

opinionjournal.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/7/2005 7:11:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Betsy's Page

J. C. Watts reminds us of the hypocrisy of those who criticize religious conservatives for making appeals in churches but who said nothing about Jesse Jackson's campaign for president from pulpits across the country.

betsyspage.blogspot.com


Democrats a little 'shifty'


By J.C. WATTS

When I visit the sunshine state of Florida, I love to walk the beach and watch the sand shift in the water and wind. Watching Democrat leaders lately, it occurs to me that the bedrock values of these leaders are as shifty as that Florida sand.

Remember the 1988 presidential race? Sen. Bob Dole and a Christian broadcaster named Pat Robertson, who was oft criticized for mixing religion and politics, challenged Vice President Bush. Somehow, somewhere, it has been determined that people of faith - specifically conservative people of faith - are to sit back and quietly and subserviently accept whatever policies are thrust upon them.

That same year, future Vice President Al Gore, Gov. Michael Dukakis, Congressman Dick Gephardt, Sen. Paul Simon and the Rev. Jesse Jackson competed for the Democrat nomination.

Rev. Jackson was not oft criticized for mixing religion and politics
. Forget the fact that he delivered campaign speeches on Sunday mornings in pulpits all across the country, and registered new voters in those same churches. The media watchdogs turned a blind eye to this abuse of the pulpit.

I was reminded of all this over the past couple of weeks as I witnessed all the hullabaloo over Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's involvement in Justice Sunday.

Justice Sunday was a national satellite rally in support of President Bush's right to have his judicial nominees afforded a simple up-or-down vote by the ever-obstructionist minority in the United States Senate. Senator Frist joined Chuck Colson, James Dobson and other conservative leaders in the event, which was beamed to churches and homes across the country.

Hypocrisy aboundeth.

Those same Democrats and media sympathizers looked the other way and even offered aid and comfort to Rev. Jackson's political machine as it electioneered and registered voters in houses of worship in 1988 - snubbing the spirit, if not the intent, of the tax-free status of churches.

Senator Frist simply exercised his constitutional right of free speech to generate support for a constitutional process. He did not ask for votes, or encourage anyone to inject themselves into politics.

Meanwhile, for daring to state his concerns in front of thousands of Christians nationwide, Colorado's freshman U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar called Dobson the "anti-Christ" on a Colorado Springs television station.

It doesn't get any lower than that. Forget the fact that Salazar - who was elected just last November - said in his campaign that he favored giving qualified judicial nominees up-or-down votes. Since taking office in January, he has submitted to the iron will of Patrick Leahy and Teddy Kennedy to defend the minority party's tactics in abusing the Senate filibuster to deny those nominees such a vote on the Senate floor. If I'm a Colorado voter, I'm wondering what position he'll reverse field on next.

But it's not just the freshman from Colorado.

In 1995, nine Democrats currently serving in the U.S. Senate suggested ending all filibusters. The "Fili-Busters" have apparently had a road to Damascus conversion since attaining the minority status they worked so hard to achieve. Sens. Lieberman, Kerry, Boxer, Kennedy, Harkin, Lautenberg, Sarbanes and Bingaman supported a proposal that would have cut off the filibuster with a simple majority.

In fact, only Democrats supported that proposal 10 years ago. How quickly they forget.

I'm guessing Senator Kennedy forgot what he said in 1995 about the very tactic he boldly defends today. To refresh his memory and yours, the paragon of Democrat virtue said, "Senators who feel strongly about the issue of fairness should vote for cloture, even if they intend to vote against the nomination itself. It is wrong to filibuster this nomination ..." If the senator cares to dispute that quote, he might want to revise the June 21, 1995 Congressional Record.

But it gets even better. Two years later, Senator Barbara Boxer boldly proclaimed, "According to the U.S. Constitution, the president nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor."

She might want to check the May 14, 1997 Congressional Record before she chokes on those words today. Sen. Boxer was correct in 1997. When a Democrat or Republican president nominates a qualified judge, they deserve an up-or-down vote.

Where is the consistency? When it comes to what suits them today, whether it be the rights of people of faith, or the role of Senate procedure, today's minority party is as steady as the shifting sands of a Florida beach.


Watts writes twice monthly for the Pahrump Valley Times. Watts is chairman of J.C. Watts Companies, a business consulting group. He is former chairman of the Republican Conference of the U.S. House, where he served as an Oklahoma representative from 1995 to 2002. His email address is JCWatts01@JCWatts.com.

pahrumpvalleytimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)5/17/2005 2:12:21 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Liberal Fundamentalism

Who are the intolerant extremists?

Monday, May 16, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

(Editor's note: The editorial appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13, 1984.)

We have been following the extensive theological commentary in the press on the subject of politics and religion in the current presidential campaign. It might not otherwise have occurred to us that so many editorialists and columnists harbored so many deep, pent-up opinions on religious worship, voluntary school prayer or Christian fundamentalism.

What we have been looking for but have so far missed in this great awakening of religious writing is a short sermon on the subject of liberal fundamentalism. And so in the spirit of Samuel Johnson, who once wrote homilies for his church pastor so as not to fall asleep during Sunday services, we would like to offer a few thoughts on what has been far and away the most messianic religion in America the past two decades--liberal politics.

American liberalism has traditionally derived much of its energy from a volatile mixture of emotion and moral superiority. The liberal belief that one's policies would on balance accomplish something indisputably good generally made opposing arguments about shortcomings, costs or unintended consequences unpersuasive. Nonetheless, politics during the presidencies of Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower was waged mainly as politics and not as a kind of religious political crusade. Somehow that changed during the Kennedy presidency.

Mr. Kennedy used the force of his personality to infuse his supporters with a sense of transcendent mission--the New Frontier.
The emotions this movement inspired coincided with the one deeply moral political phenomenon that postwar America has experienced--Martin Luther King's civil-rights movement. The Rev. King's multiracial civil-rights marches and their role in overturning de jure and de facto segregation in the U.S. were a political and moral achievement.

In retrospect, it's clear that the moral clarity of the early civil-rights movement was a political epiphany for many white liberals. Some have since returned to traditional, private lives; others have become neoconservatives. But many active liberals carried along their newly found moral certitude and quasi-religious fervor into nearly every major public-policy issue that has come along in the past 15 years. The result has been liberal fundamentalism.

The Vietnam anti-war movement, the environmental movement, the disarmament and nuclear-freeze movements, the anti-nuclear-power movement, consumerism, the Third World movement, the limits-to-growth movement. These have been the really active faiths in contemporary America. Their adherents attended the anti-war march on Washington in 1970, locking arms and once again singing "We Shall Overcome." They characterized the leader of their own country at the time as demonic. More recently, they have held vigils outside nuclear power plants, singing and holding lighted candles, while their lawyers filed injunctions in friendly courtrooms. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups transformed "the wilderness" into a vast, pantheistic shrine, which they and fellow believers must defend against the depredations of conservative developers. America's Roman Catholic bishops denounced nuclear war and became revered figures in the nuclear-freeze movement (but when they denounce abortion, they are reviled).

Not surprisingly, this evangelical liberalism produced a response. Conservative groups--both secular and religious--were created, and they quite obviously make the political success of their adversaries more difficult. Liberals don't like that. So now, suddenly, we find all these politicians and columnists who are afraid someone might want to impose a particular point of view on them. "There is a long and unhappy history of intolerance which still flourishes at the extremist fringe of American politics," says Ted Kennedy, a fundamentalist liberal preacher from eastern Massachusetts. Indeed there is. It greeted U.S. soldiers returning to California from Vietnam with spit. It has characterized people who work in the auto, drug and nuclear-power businesses as criminally amoral. It turned the investigations of Anne Gorsuch, Les Lenkowsky and Ed Meese into inquisitions.

If some liberals are now afraid that certain Christian fundamentalists will reintroduce new forms of intolerance and excessive religious zeal into American political life, perhaps we should concede the possibility that they know what they're talking about. But they might also meditate on the current election and why there has been an apparent rightward shift in political sentiment in the U.S. It could be that a great many voters have taken a good look at the fundamentalists on the religious right and the fundamentalists on the political left and made up their own minds about which pose the greater threat to their own private and public values.


opinionjournal.com



To: Sully- who wrote (9900)6/14/2005 4:30:22 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Polygamist Cult Abandons Young Boys To Eliminate Competition

By Captain Ed on Religion
Captain's Quarters

The Guardian reports on a strange story coming out of the American Southwest that has not received much coverage in the US. A cult of polygamists have apparently started to abandon their teenage sons on highways in Arizona and Utah, perhaps as many as 1,000 of them. The reason? To create an artificial shortage of mates for the teenage girls that the older men resolve through multiple marriages:

<<<

Many of these "Lost Boys", some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah, by the leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven.

The 10,000-strong FLDS, which broke away from the Mormon church in 1890 when the mainstream faith disavowed polygamy, believes a man must marry at least three women to go to heaven. The sect appeared to be in turmoil yesterday, after its assets were frozen last week and a warrant was issued in Arizona on Friday for the arrest of its autocratic leader, Warren Jeffs, for arranging a wedding between an underage girl and a 28-year-old man who was already married.

Mr Jeffs is also being sued by lawyers for six of the Lost Boys for conspiracy to purge surplus males from the community, and by his nephew, Brent Jeffs, who accuses him of sexual abuse.

Warren Jeffs' whereabouts yesterday were uncertain, but Utah officials said they believed he may be hiding in an FLDS compound near Eldorado, Texas, and they have contacted the Texan authorities.

Some have voiced concern that an attempt to corner the sect leader could provoke a tragedy like the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian sect in Waco, Texas.
>>>

Mainstream Mormons dread these stories, because although they long ago disavowed polygamy and excommunicated those who practice it, the cults that have formed in the century since then continue to claim membership in their church. As with any other group of people who have been cast out from their communities, they go underground to an extent and develop a sense of paranoia and of martyrdom that can easily create a volatile and violent situation. In the past, a few of these extended family groups have refused to go quietly when confronted by the law, and Jeffs apparently fits that mold.

Even though polygamy has been widely considered a fringe behavior, at least until lately, prosecutors and law enforcement have found it difficult to proceed against its practitioners. Some of the cults stockpile weapons, preparing for inevitable showdowns with police. In practice, polygamist communes and/or cults almost always involve some degree of coercion with progressively younger and interrelated girls, some as young as thirteen or fourteen who might wind up married to an uncle or cousin two or three times their age.

Now, of course, some have taken up their caue on a paleo-libertarian notion of free association. A&E ran a series of documentaries on the subject a few years ago, and noted that more people had asked whether government should involve itself in the living and sexual arrangements of consenting adults. The documentarians also showed that many of the girls who grow up in these polygamist communities get groomed for a life of sexual servitude starting at a very early age by fathers and uncles in order to make that consent much more forthcoming when the question arises.

Jeffs has run this particular FLDS sect, with chapters in Arizona, Utah, Texas, and even Canada for three years, since his father Rulon died and left him in charge. Jeffs rules by example; the 49-year-old leader has 56 known children by 40 wives. He has gone underground, last seen in Texas in January at his reclusive ranch. If he has holed himself up there, it might take a Waco-like siege to bring him out. Most of these leaders have an intense Messianic complex, very similar to David Koresh.

In this case, at least 400 and possibly 1,000 of the children and teens have been freed, although very traumatically. They wonder what they did to cause their community to shun them and keep them from heaven. They may find out soon that they have instead escaped from hell.

UPDATE: The LAT reports more from the point of view of the lost boys:

<<<

Abandoned by his family, faith and community, Gideon Barlow arrived here an orphan from another world. At first, he played the tough guy, aloof and hard. But when no one was watching, he would cry.

The freckle-faced 17-year-old said he was left to fend for himself last year after being forced out of Colorado City, Ariz., a town about 40 miles east of here, just over the state line.

"I couldn't see how my mom would let them do what they did to me," he said.

When he tried to visit her on Mother's Day, he said, she told him to stay away. When he begged to give her a present, she said she wanted nothing.

"I am dead to her now," he said. ...

His stated offenses: wearing short-sleeved shirts, listening to CDs and having a girlfriend. Other boys say they were booted out for going to movies, watching television and staying out past curfew. Some say they were sometimes given as little as two hours' notice before being driven to St. George or nearby Hurricane, Utah, and left like unwanted pets along the road.
>>>

Absolutely heartbreaking. Gideon has found a home with a generous mainstream Mormon couple who have opened their home to him, as have others, but the trauma continues nonetheless.

captainsquartersblog.com

latimes.com

guardian.co.uk