i am hearing some really disturbing arguments in defense of the flds compound and it’s practices. the arguments seem to revolve around:
1) “freedom from religious persecution”—as if our first amendment’s purpose was to allow for ~any~ behaviour under a guise of religion.
The Belief-Conduct Distinction—While the Court has consistently affirmed that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, protection for religiously motivated conduct has waxed and waned over the years. The Free Exercise Clause ‘’embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.’’
thus, you’ve the right to believe whatever loony thing you want to believe. acting on those beliefs is an entirely different matter. the state CAN and WILL step in if you are breaking the law.
2) “individual liberty”—this strikes me as extremely bizarre, as the children and women of this compound have had NO liberty whatsoever. they aren’t given a choice. it is not ~choice~ when you are told that if you go against the wishes of the prophet, you are worthy of death.
3) saudi arabia do it, it’s a ~cultural~ issue. —why people consistently want to turn us into places like saudi arabia, i cannot imagine. and again, you are back to there being no liberty, no real choice for these women and children.
to see people defend the likes of warren jeffs is more disturbing and offensive than i can even say. i question the motives of those who have. there must be serious issues there.
for more information on the flds:


![[Texas
Execution Watch Counter]](http://www.texasmoratorium.org/rgraphics/Txflag.gif)


