Lies, dammed lies, and threats

photo © Adrian van Leen for openphoto.net CC:PublicDomain

In an earlier post I wondered who got to the Judge in the FLDS case. Turns out old Cassandra may have struck again

From CNN.com

Report: Judge in polygamy case threatened

Salt Lake City, Utah (AP): The home of a judge in Texas who ordered the removal of 440 children from a polygamist ranch is under guard after Utah and Arizona authorities warned of "enforcers" from the sect, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

Police assigned to Judge Barbara Walther's San Angelo, Texas, house were provided dossiers and photos of 16 men and women deemed a threat, the Deseret News said.

"There are many individuals who are willing to give up their life for the cause and you can never underestimate what a religious fanatic is capable of," said e-mails obtained from the Washington County sheriff's office through state public records law.

Can't say I blame her. Odds are she has a family of her own to worry about, and those religious types can carry a lot of threat.

Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City-based attorney for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, said law enforcement has nothing to worry about.

"Have they ever seen an act of intimidation or violence against law enforcement from the FLDS community at all, ever?" he told the newspaper. "Before they start spreading those kinds of rumors, they ought to be able to ID an example of them ever doing that in the past."

Rest of the story here

No, but whoever said it had to come from the FLDS community, even if that was the example they used in the first paragraph.

CD Host of the Church Discipline blog and Pastor Johnson of ReformedCatholicisim.com have been discussing and debating the concept of church discipline for a while now. What a lot of these patriocentric churches will do, near as I can tell, is try to ruin your life if you cross them. If you do something they don't agree with even if it has nothing to do with church. Like be the judge in a custody case when they think it was all about persecution of Christian Homeschoolers.

Let's just start with psychological coercion, shall we?

Let me clarify a few points:

------

Destroy your life

• Kick you and your family out of your church
• Tell you you and your family are cut off from your Deity and are condemned to hell
• Order everyone one in church not to speak to you
• Tell all the other churches in the area how bad you are and browbeat them into not letting you in
• Call your neighbors and tell them they are going to hell if they speak to you
• Ditto your boss
• Ditto your coworkers
• Ditto your spouse's boss and coworkers
  
• Ditto your children's teachers and schoolmates
• Ditto your extended family
• Ditto anyone in the next town you move to that fits into the above categories.

Reference CD Host up there, also Jen at JensGems, BatteredSheep.com, and don't be surprised if I add to this list.

(and anyone who thinks a Judge shouldn't/couldn't be this gullible, I ask you to read over Cindy Kunsman's excellent work on churches and mind control, found at undermuchgrace.com)

All of this is before any physical threats enter the mix.

Now I started out as a Catholic, spent my young adulthood as a Pagan, returned to the Catholic Church and now consider myself a UU/Freethinker, none of whom practice this bullcr*p. I've also spent my whole life living west of the mountains of the west, where bullcr*p like this rarely, if ever, goes on. I had no clue until the patriocentrics set off my inner Cassandra, what I call that little voice that tells me that there is something dangerous in that rhetoric, pay attention. It utterly amazes me that people would put up with that, but in a world with no other resources they would. In a world where your boss, everyone you know, and local law enforcement all attend the same two or three churches, and they all sip from the same font of opinion making, it could happen.

I look at it this way. Remember the red/blue county map from a previous election? This one? The redder the county the bigger the chance of this happening. And no, I'm not going into the political connection here. It's just a handy map. I will only say I've spent my entire life in completely blue counties up till now, as have all my friends, and as involved as we have been in religion and politics, we didn't have a clue. Now I'm in a purely purple state, and we do have one of those churches out here with a remarkable amount of political pull. I could see them causing someone a great deal of harm and trouble.

Anyone else seeing a pattern to Pre-WW II German here? Perhaps the communist USSR? Or is that just me?

-----

Now, about the Patriocentrists/those who share their baggage thinking this was all about persecution of Christian Homeschoolers. Isn't it painfully obvious they were trying to protect children from abuse?

Apparently not:

Stacy MacDonald, of Passionate Housewives fame, on the subject:

Court Rules Texas Acted Improperly in seizing FLDS children
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Old enough? Says who?
Dangerous Cult or Dangerous Precedent?

Now, like everyone, Stacy has a right to her opinion. But her and her husband are leaders in patriocentric circles, and I believe her posts, and the comments to her post, are clear examples of the stand that group is taking on the subject. That being that the FLDS was persecuted for:

• Being Christian
• Homeschooling
• Dressing modestly
• Avoiding the media
• Living a healthy, simple lifestyle

and that anyone else who follows this pattern is next. The CPS is coming for your children if you live this way.

It's not just Stacy, let anyone think I'm picking on her. It's also Deputy Headmistress at The Common Room has been carrying the main banner for this. She has too many posts to link to. They also have their own website going, The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society. Here's an example:

"The “Midlothian Plan” to separate the Mother’s from the children was made prior to any announced “Decision” made by the Gestapo concerning the determination of abuse. Buses ordered, storm troopers at the ready, the Salvation Army location arranged, even the back up site where the children would be ripped away from their Mother’s arms was arranged PRIOR to April 14th when the deportation was to begin on the gestapo’s Final Solution to the problem. The Governor’s office made all these plans with the possibility that the “Judge” would return them home for lack of evidence 3 days later? Do you want to buy a bridge?"

From my reading on these writings, and others which I will add as I find them, this is their stand on the subject. They have clearly stated it publicly.

-----

So, put those two together and tell me what kind of conclusions you come up with? Yep, I don't blame the Judge for being afraid. Not one little bit.

Now, go look at that map again and tell me we're one country.

My heart aches for those little girls, for all the girls under patriocentricity, who may never know what it is to be free.

I think I might have finally figured it out

photo © Chris Koutros for openphoto.net CC:Attribution-ShareAlike

The discussion over at True Womanhood has finally worn down on the subject of Catholic vs. Christian, so I'll put this here instead.

The question was something about "Do Catholics believe in justification through works or justification by grace?". As I understand it, it depends on how you define "works". If you mean:

• Having to ask God to save you, forgive your sins, for grace
• Having to make an honest effort to live a good life using Christ as an example, including healing the sick, feeding the poor, and so on
• Understanding that when you screw up (we always do, we're human and imperfect/sinners) you must ask for forgiveness and attempt to fix your mistakes.
• Take part in the Church if at all possible, including sacraments.
• Share the word of God whenever possible.

and so on, then yes, those are works and you're expected to at least try to do them. Yes, I would say in that case it is a two-way street, God is loving and generous and will save and give grace to all who come to him BUT you must come to him and then attempt to live a good life following the example set by his son.

14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James 2:14-26 KJV

I guess that's why it frosts my cookies when I hear certain Christians saying things like"I'm a sinner, nothing but a snow covered dung-heap" and then "I was born-again, I don't need to do WORKS", and then they go out and treat their fellow man horribly. It's almost as if they believe that if you perform one good Christian act you're trying to save yourself, but it's perfectly acceptable and even preferable to go out and commit sin after sin after sin to prove how horrible and undeserving you are. Thereby making God feel all the better about Himself because He saved someone as horrible as you.

(You know, if God really is like that, I don't think I could follow that God either. A God who can only feel, well, Godly in comparison to others, by tearing them down, by making them that low? I'd rather a God who encouraged you to grow as a person over your life, to better yourself and the world around you, to make the most of your time here.

Back to the post)

justification

Main Entry:

jus·ti·fi·ca·tion

Pronunciation:

\ˌjəs-tə-fə-ˈkā-shən\

Function:

noun

Date:

14th century

1: the act, process, or state of being justified by God
2 a: the act or an instance of justifying : vindication b: something that justifies
3: the process or result of justifying lines of text

justify

Main Entry:

jus·ti·fy

Pronunciation:

\ˈjəs-tə-ˌfī\

Function:

verb

Inflected Form(s):

jus·ti·fied; jus·ti·fy·ing

Etymology:

Middle English justifien, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French justifier, from Late Latin justificare, from Latin justus

Date:

14th century

transitive verb

1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1): to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2): to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property

2 aarchaic : to administer justice to barchaic : absolve

c: to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation

Now I believe the Lord will regard and treat as righteous of salvation all those who come to Him, but He will also judge. I believe He expects us to at least attempt to follow the example set by His Son while He was here on earth. I do not believe he meant "Christians" to use His grace to prove or show not even attempting to try is just, right or reasonable. Or to give Him a chance to feel better about Himself by lowering yourself. That falls under a different heading:

Self-Justification

Main Entry:

self–jus·ti·fi·ca·tion

Pronunciation:

\ˌself-ˌjəs-tə-fə-ˈkā-shən\

Function:

noun

Date:

circa 1775

: the act or an instance of making excuses for oneself

Which would be more like saving yourself, wouldn't it?

Anyway, that's why I'm a Roman Catholic if I'm anything. I hope that helps.

-----

Kelly over at Visits to Candyland put up a link to a page full of articles on the subject. I freely admit I haven't read a one. But you can find it here.

On not being surprised

Image found at the Wikipedia Commons

So CNN is reporting on the ongoing issues down at the FLDS ranch. I find it telling that the Judge sent the children back just days before the DNA test results came back. I wonder who got to her. That, to me, indicates the level of religious control in parts of this country.

I find it even more telling that only 36 of the fathers at that ranch submitted themselves for DNA testing. To me that means that 36 of the men can stand there before God and man and say they never raped or abused anyone, and they have no reason to be afraid. Those men deserve their children back. Period

The rest...no.

No.

No because even if the mother is now and adult, if her children were born before she was 18, or perhaps 16 with the paperwork from her parents allowing her to marry, and you were over 16 or 18 or whatever the age is in Texas, and you fathered her children, you just committed statutory rape. The child in question just became the proof. Yes, even if the mother is now of legal age. And while I'm sure someone is going to say that giving up your DNA for testing is in violation of the 5th amendment, I don't think you can be trusted not to go spreading your DNA where it shouldn't be.

To me these men just admitted they raped little girls, and they are now afraid of being caught. Period.

Now, how much do you want to bet that these criminals break the law again, and violate a court order, and take these girls off to another country, where they can keep raping them?

All I can do is pray for the protection of their hearts and minds and souls. And pray for justice on those who would hand millstones around the children's necks.

The FLDS, and the patriocentrists who supported them.

Granted I'm still deciding on who to pray to, because a Lord who would allow this, who is praised by these people, who would give those women child after child while those who would love and cherish those children, who would keep them safe and teach them discernment and love, are given trial after trial, be it medical or legal, is not a Lord I can follow.

/rant

I got nuthin

Apparently Candy over at her blog (No, I'm not linking. But I will link to Elena's) has written a lengthly reply to a comment made by someone named Anne C.

Now, I routinely sign my name Annie C., but I haven't posted there in I don't know how long. So either it's something that's been sitting in comment moderation for so long I forgot, or it's not me.

Odds are it's not me, but you never know.

For the record, I think canned salmon is a healthier choice myself. Most places the fresh you get is actually farmed, and loaded with antibiotics, as well as being less nutrient dense. I just can't stand the taste personally. If you live near a Trader Joe's, though, their flash frozen seafood is usually excellent.

Oh, and as an insiders tip, regardless of the label, the best quality has a little bean pot symbol as part of the code stamped into the top. Friends, known for their quality control.

UPDATE: Looks like she was referring to one of her in-laws. Yep, definitely not me.

Why are children now treated as sex objects?

This is a letter I wrote in response to an article on Salon.com. It's my reply, and I'm cross posting it here.

Maybe because the people who are running the show, making and marketing the trends, are Baby Boomers who have spent their entire lives chasing and sexualizing youth and who believe that every moral value is "relative"

Dressing up little girls like hookers, encouraging tweens to express their sexuality, telling teens they need to say no but look like temptresses is...wrong.

Yes. Wrong.

Period.

I'm making a moral judgment. You can too, it's not that hard once you stop trying to make relative knots with your tongue.

That picture of Miley Cyrus doesn't reflect her sexuality, unless she designed the shot and talked a friend into taking it. It reflects Annie Leibovitz's sexuality, this is what a 59 year old woman considers hot. Or perhaps it reflects Graydon Carter's sexuality, he's the 59 year old editor of Vanity Fair. It has nothing to do with Miley's sexuality, she didn't come up with the idea, she just did what her parent's were told to do.

The Bratz dolls were approved in 2000 by Isaac Larianm, the then head of Micro-Games America Entertainment. Born in 1954 according to Wikipedia. This is what a 54 year old man thinks is hot.

This has nothing to do with any girl or young woman expressing their sexuality, that will happen of its own accord and in it's own time for everyone. This is Baby Boomers trying to chase the sexuality of their youth by making teen-agers into their own perverted fantasies.

Baby Boomers, guess what, you're old. No matter how much you market to a bunch of teens and tweens, no matter how much you encourage them to be whores they are never going to be into you. You have outgrown them. Not only is it *still* illegal for a 50 year old to chase a 14 year old, it is also immoral. Sexualizing children is wrong,period, moral judgement passed. No amount of rationalizing is going to change that ever.

And any Gen X or Gen Y parent, and everyone I know, is not going to let you do it. They are not going to encourage their daughters to act the whore for your amusement. They are not going to watch your TV show, they are not going to buy your magazine, they are not going to wear your clothes, they are not going to listen to your music. The more you push your prurient fantasies the more we are going to turn you off, the more your profits will shrink.

Your choice.

On sources of information

photo © Lee for openphoto.net CC:Attribution-ShareAlike


It's a funny thing I've noticed lately. I've been in contact with a number of women who oppose the Patriocentric teachings. I've followed their blogs, listened to their podcasts, conversed with them over e-mail. Now, I'm a Catholic, which means I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, and while I believe that one can't earn their way into heaven, I also believe that faith without active work in the world is dead, or perhaps not there at all. These are point on which we can, and do I belive, agree to disagree.

What bothers me is when these women talk intelligently and sincerely about how the Patriocentric leaders use mind control techniques to control people, and how they reject them, and yet when another leader/teacher tells them something they still seem to accept it with no further examination. I'm not saying all teachers are wrong, or all teachers are right, but when you use a word in a way that only has meaning to an in group, that's a thought-stopping cliche regardless of the source. Or, as Cindy Kunsman, one of the very wise women I've found on my wanderings puts it:

"Patriarchy and the Family Integrated Church crowd often use connotation and neologism to communicate a concept without all the negative connotation, but they get their ideas across. How do they do that? This is a response that I posted elsewhere online in response to a comment of the use of the term "non-normative" as a term that is understood to be "sin." Likewise, in a positive sense, the word "Biblical" is also used to connotate anything that is unquestionably good. Here is the response that I gave, basically as a demonstration of how Cialdini's "weapons of influence" can be used against us in religious or worship settings and how neologism and connotation play into this subtle form of manipulation."

- Found on the Under Much Grace blog

So, as I understand it, they use the term "non-normative", usually in terms of behavior or ideas, to mean something bad or sinful. That way they can say "Well, I never said it was a sin, as the Bible defines sin, now, did I" We hear "non-normative" and think "not normal = bad". Same thing with "biblical". Biblical usually equalls good, the right thing to do, right? Everyone wants to be good and do the right thing, right? So they can say, "I never said that was the only way to be, I never said something else was wrong, now, did I"? It's as if "Biblical" and "Non-Normative" are inside catch phrases, they mean one thing to the in-crowd, officially, but are key words for "right" and "wrong" to the rest of us. Ask them what they mean, and they'll give you their definition, but it doesn't match the rest of the world. The idea, as I understand it, is they they are doing this deliberately, as a means of control.

My opinion, more than likely from growing up in the center of a triangle composed of three military bases and three language and intelligence school, and having once followed a religion where words and definitions mattered in a huge way, if someone is snowing you with the definitions, odds are they're manipulating the data as well, to try to influence your decision making. If someone starts pulling the "X really means Y, but instead of saying Y we're going to say X and say it means Z when pressed, just to mess with control you." stop trusting anything that comes out of their mouth. Double check every fact against a non-affiliated source. If it's a political party, find a neutral source. If it's a university, find a different one. If it's a church, find a non-church related source.

Yes, a non-church source. The way they all share data and information from the same writers these days you have to go outside the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist faith. The only way to double check is to go to another faith or a secular source.

Now, let me address a term I've heard bandied about quite often. "Romanist". It's bandied about certain religious circles, usually opposing the word Protestant. When pressed for the definition of Romanist, at one point I got this definition:

the Romanist concept holds that salvation must be kept or earned or merited through works of some type

Now, from everything I've read, that's a pretty good summation of what the term Romanist is supposed to mean. As opposed to the Protestant concept which holds that:

"Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God"

Which is from the Westminister Confession, and near as I can figure means that you get salvation simply as a gift from God, nothing you do influences it, you need only ask and believe.

I have no clue which is right, none of us will know until after we die. I'm not writing this to push one view over the other. I'm writing this to say that these people are using the term "Romanist" as a thought-stopping cliche.

To the rest of the world, "Romanist" is a pejorative:

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online

Main Entry: Ro·man·ist
Pronunciation: \-nist\
Function: noun
Date: 1523

1often offensive : roman catholic
2: a specialist in the language, culture, or law of ancient Rome

— Romanist or Ro·man·is·tic \ˌrō-mə-ˈnis-tik\ adjective

From the Free Online Dictionary

Ro·man·ist (rm-nst)

n.

1. Offensive One who professes Roman Catholicism.

2. A student of or authority on ancient Roman law, culture, and institutions.

From Wikipedia

Romanism

(Redirected from Romanist)

The words Romanism and Romanist are used in three different contexts.

Contents

1 Roman Catholicism 1.1 See also 2 Classics 3 Flemish school of painters

Roman Catholicism

Romanism was a word used as a derogatory term for Roman Catholicism in the past when anti-Catholicism was more common in the United States and the United Kingdom. It is still used, though rarely, by anti-Catholics.

See also

• Anti-Catholicism
• Papist
• Popery
• Popish Plot

But, but, Romanist just means believing in salvation through works, instead of salvation through faith alone, it's not something bad. Yes, and Non-Normative just means doing aganist the norm, instead of in the normal manner. It's not something bad.

I contend that "Romanist" is being used as a thought-stopping cliche, meant to mean something bad. And that is a source is using a thought-stopping cliche, you need to start double checking their facts, because you can no longer trust them not to spin them to manipulate your decisions. Period. Even if you spent a lot of money on that class.

Now why am I ranting about this now?

Because this crossed one of my all-time favorite blogs:

This is probably veering off topic, but someone here mentioned the Artemis Cult (I think) in an earlier comment and it sparked me to study it. The funny thing about the Artemis Cult (which was huge in Ephesus during 1+2 Timothy and Acts 19) is that it was very focused not only on sex, but on fertility, with the God Artemis or to the Romans, Diana, and the pagans worshipped her for her blessing of fertility. She also would arbitrarily kill a women in childbirth or the child, so there was a culture of fear with the pagans.

I didn't say that, but I'm not attributing the quote because I think the person who made it is honestly mistaken, and I don't want to send any mess her way.

Now, I've studied a lot of various religions in my time. For a number of years I made a special study of the Aretmis Cult. I've never found that, anywhere. It was focused on sex and on fertility, yes, but I never, ever read anywhere that they sacrificed children, or babied from the womb. I've been looking all night and I can't find a single non-I hope the source of that quote shares her sources, I do. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that it came from the same Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist source as the people who use the term "Romanist". And that they made it up as propaganda, as a form of control.

People who will used one form of thought manipulation will use others. Double check them before you put your faith in them. Double check them with sources that have nothing to gain from your allegiance, be it money or labor or even the energy that comes from having followers. God gave you a brain, use it.

Enough said

It's my comment, I want to repeate it

photo © Michael Jastremski for openphoto.net CC:Attribution-ShareAlike


And maybe clarify a little, now that it's scrolled off the first page of ThatMom's blog.

Speaking of ThatMom's blog and podcasts, her The Patriarchy & Patriocentricity Series, "The Book We Wish Someone Would Write" with Corrie Marnett and Spiritual Abuse with Dr. Cindy Kunsman, all **Excellent** listening. I highly recommend both her sites and those series most of all. Granted she's Evangelical and a Complimentarian, I believe, and I'm an Egalitarian Catholic/UU, so I don't agree with everything, but good is good even when you disagree.

Now, on to my comment about the FLDS raid down in Texas

------

I read on CNN that they had found 31 underage girls who were pregnant or who had give birth since the raid.

In Texas law, as I understand it, if an underage girl has a baby who was fathered by an overage man, it’s an automatic rape. Period.

Now, back when I worked for CPS, granted a good decade or more ago, you took all the children from an abusive home because of the risk that without the oldest child there to abuse, the abuser would start on another one.

So, in this case, problem #1, if they choose girls 13 and above in “Spiritual Marriage”, and CPS takes all the girls 13-18, what is to stop them from declaring that the Lord wants them to now marry girls over age 10? Or 8? Or 6? I don’t know what their cut off point would be, no one does. You can say you’re making an assumption that they would go after younger girls, and you would be right. But what if you decided the other way, left the younger girls behind, and were wrong? Would you honestly leave a 12 year old in a house where a 13 year old was raped, with the rapist?

And if you say “Well, they wouldn’t marry a toddler, the ones under, say, 6 are all right”, fine. Do you come back and take that child on their 6th birthday, or 8th, or 10th, or 13th? Do you take the risk that the whole cult will move to another state or even another country, where you can’t stop them from raping those children as soon as they are deemed old enough? You know the odds are high, there’s a pregnant 13 year old in front of you and no boys anywhere close to her age range in sight.

Problem #2, you can say it’s just a few families, say the families of those 31 girls. The other families might well be fine. But those children are LYING about which family they belong to. They might not even know for certain which family they belong to. So how do you know which to take and which to leave behind?

Problem #3, in a large, communal living situation like that, how can you separate out the good families from the perverts? From what I was seeing in the videos on CNN they’ve been living almost in dormitories, not in separate family homes. So how do you know a child left behind is going to stay in a safe situation?

No, you do exactly what Texas has done. You take all the children, so no one can be raped or hurt while you’re investigating. You run DNA tests to find out who the criminals are (again, overage father/underage mother = rape) and who belongs to which family. Then when you can break it into family units, you go to each and figure out what to do from there.

If you don’t and another child gets raped, then you are as much at fault as the criminal, because you didn’t protect a child at risk.

------

I want to add, in response to some people asking "Why didn't they take the fathers, the criminals, and leave the children with their mother's. The answer is, for a few reasons.

1) Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus (IPA: /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command] that you have the body) ^[1] is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek reliefunlawful detention from

of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or, if not, the person should be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.

From Wikipedia

Which means, I believe, in practice, that you have 48 hours to state that you have proof that that person committed a crime or they get to go home. it takes longer than that to run a DNA test on a baby, especially one that hasn't been born yet. So, after 48 hours they can go home, pack up the children, and leave the country. Yes, it's illegal. Guess what, people break the law all the time. Yes, it would mean leaving the country. These people consider themselves members of this church before they consider themselves citizens, I don't think that would matter to them much. And no, if we can't stop thousands of people illegally coming north across the border, how are we going to stop a few hundred going south?

The point it, without proof to keep them in jail, without knowing who specifically the abusers are, removing the men would not meet the goal of keeping the children safe. It sucks, but there it is.

Point 2) Women abuse too. How do you know all those Mothers are safe?

Oh, and for those asking why they don't pick on the Amish, because they are also agrarian, homeschool in a way, Christian, marry young and dress and act funny...my understanding is that you can't marry in the Amish faith until you're an adult church member, and you can't be an adult church member until you're a legal adult in that state. Two eighteen years olds does not equal a thirteen year old and a sixtyish senior citizen. So it's apples to oranges there.

She was so fluffy

Mental note...

More here...

Another annoying craft ad

Is she 13 or is she 30? You tell me.

Is it that doing crafts makes you childlike, or childish? Or that only children should be doing crafts? Crafts and adult women do not mix?

Why can't we have an adult doing adult level work? And not a grandmother either. The people who make these ads need to wander over to the craft section of the nearest Barnes & Noble, look at the age and sophistication of the new crop of authors, and get with the program.

Most of them started as bloggers, and are women I think are in their 30's and 40's. You know, Gen X. Here are a few examples of what I mean

http://www.masondixonknitting.com/
http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/
http://www.knitty.com
http://rosylittlethings.typepad.com/
http://yarnstorm.blogs.com/
http://www.etsy.com/
http://angrychicken.typepad.com
http://sixandahalfstitches.typepad.com/
http://www.anniemodesitt.com/
http://www.cupcakeblog.com/

I could keep going and going and going...

The point being, if you want Gen X money, stop treating creative women like nana's or toddlers. And lay off the stickers and construction paper already, half the store is waaaay too much.