<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: American Reich</title>
	<atom:link href="http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/05/11/american-reich/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/05/11/american-reich/</link>
	<description>Some place between 40 and Death</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:30:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/05/11/american-reich/#comment-2944</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 21:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2624#comment-2944</guid>
		<description>The nephew of the prophet (is that what he is called?) was interviewed on ...Frontline or 60 minutes... I forget. He claimed to have been molested by his uncle, and that it wasn't a unique occurrence. It was all rather pathetic, and seemed opportunistic — at the moment, he's in his 20s or 30s and long ago left the community. 

Have you read, "Under the Banner of Heaven", John Krakauer? It's an interesting sect to say the least. 

Also, if you're into city planning and architecture, just for kicks Google Earth and view the compound. 

As with horse manure and flies; sociology 101 teaches that the majority determines what is considered normative behavior, and the state just enforces the norms of the day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The nephew of the prophet (is that what he is called?) was interviewed on &#8230;Frontline or 60 minutes&#8230; I forget. He claimed to have been molested by his uncle, and that it wasn&#8217;t a unique occurrence. It was all rather pathetic, and seemed opportunistic — at the moment, he&#8217;s in his 20s or 30s and long ago left the community. </p>
<p>Have you read, &#8220;Under the Banner of Heaven&#8221;, John Krakauer? It&#8217;s an interesting sect to say the least. </p>
<p>Also, if you&#8217;re into city planning and architecture, just for kicks Google Earth and view the compound. </p>
<p>As with horse manure and flies; sociology 101 teaches that the majority determines what is considered normative behavior, and the state just enforces the norms of the day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fr. Peter Preble</title>
		<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/05/11/american-reich/#comment-2939</link>
		<dc:creator>Fr. Peter Preble</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 12:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2624#comment-2939</guid>
		<description>You are spot on on this one!  I have been wondering all along when the Christians would speak up, oh wait a minutes your Mormons so your crazy, take the kids away.  Very typical of the American Christians.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are spot on on this one!  I have been wondering all along when the Christians would speak up, oh wait a minutes your Mormons so your crazy, take the kids away.  Very typical of the American Christians.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Huw</title>
		<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/05/11/american-reich/#comment-2938</link>
		<dc:creator>Huw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 12:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2624#comment-2938</guid>
		<description>100% agreement that religion is not a shield.    It's an important issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>100% agreement that religion is not a shield.    It&#8217;s an important issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fr. Ernesto</title>
		<link>http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/05/11/american-reich/#comment-2937</link>
		<dc:creator>Fr. Ernesto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 05:23:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2624#comment-2937</guid>
		<description>I have only seen one news show ask any questions about some of the discrepancies in this case.

1. There has been no accusation of abuse against the boys, why were they also taken and kept away from the parents?

2. The accusation of abuse against girls needs to be investigated, of course. But, given that there has been no accusation of abuse against pre-pubertal girls, why were they taken as well?

Society has drawn a line on the issue of what age a person must be in order to be able to give consent to a marriage. That law has apparently been violated more than once. It is seldom an easy issue to decide when the government should interfere and when it should not.

Having said that, it is clear in American jurisprudence that some limits may be set. Simply claiming a religion does not give you a right to your chosen behavior. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that groups that have no history (Tradition) of drug use in worship, may not claim a religious exemption from the law. But Native Americans may, indeed, use drugs during their worship in a fashion appropriate to their inherited Traditions.

Nevertheless, This investigation has acted in inappropriate ways. By now the case is so tainted that it will be a wonder if a truly "blind" justice finally emerges.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have only seen one news show ask any questions about some of the discrepancies in this case.</p>
<p>1. There has been no accusation of abuse against the boys, why were they also taken and kept away from the parents?</p>
<p>2. The accusation of abuse against girls needs to be investigated, of course. But, given that there has been no accusation of abuse against pre-pubertal girls, why were they taken as well?</p>
<p>Society has drawn a line on the issue of what age a person must be in order to be able to give consent to a marriage. That law has apparently been violated more than once. It is seldom an easy issue to decide when the government should interfere and when it should not.</p>
<p>Having said that, it is clear in American jurisprudence that some limits may be set. Simply claiming a religion does not give you a right to your chosen behavior. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that groups that have no history (Tradition) of drug use in worship, may not claim a religious exemption from the law. But Native Americans may, indeed, use drugs during their worship in a fashion appropriate to their inherited Traditions.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, This investigation has acted in inappropriate ways. By now the case is so tainted that it will be a wonder if a truly &#8220;blind&#8221; justice finally emerges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
