Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched "No Greater Law" last night and I was blown away that the legislature kept the law giving a religious exemption for child abuse. I then did a little more research and found a news article about a couple who belong to the religious group discussed in the movie being convicted of molesting their four daughters.
I know that some so called 'documentaries' are not totally accurate and distort facts to make issues sound worse than they are, but wow...if this religious sect is that bad, that they are allowing all these kids to die and ignoring child abuse, why hasn't the legislature done anything about it?
If any of you are familiar with this, do you know why the legislature still hasn't done anything to amend the law that protects this group, or was the whole thing overblown? I'm not passing judgment on this, I'm just curious about it. I contacted the only person I know who lives in Idaho but she lives in another part of the state and said she hadn't followed it and had no opinion either way.
A movie can trigger an interest in a historical moment; however, you then need to research for accuracy. Some can be very close to being accurate, most are not; especially in the past 10-15 years. Like already stated, film makers today all have a personal agenda very few have a historical agenda.
Since when has anything coming out of Hollywood been accurate? Every filmmaker has an agenda.
You don't learn history by watching movies.
I think I made it clear that I don't take everything labeled a documentary at face value, I'm not naive about that. I was trying to get some insight from people who might know more about this than I do about this religious group and whether or not these children died because the parents failed to get medical care for them.
A movie can trigger an interest in a historical moment; however, you then need to research for accuracy. Some can be very close to being accurate, most are not; especially in the past 10-15 years. Like already stated, film makers today all have a personal agenda very few have a historical agenda.
That's why I posted this..I would love to get some insight from locals. I did research after I watched this and that's how I found out about a couple from this same sect being convicted of child abuse after their four daughters reported what had happened to them. Aside from that I read that there was a second attempt at repealing or modifying the religious exemption law but from everything I've read the law is still on the books.
I haven't seen the doc, but Idaho has always been an extremely tolerant state when it comes to religion.
That may be due to how many people here belong to controversial faiths.
The LDS comprise around 1/3 (my very rough guess) of our population, and we have lots of others here that are smaller in communities that are scattered all over a lightly populated state.
At the same time, Idaho has the oldest Synagogue in the intermountain west, a sizable number of the Amish faiths, and all kinds of other faiths who have lived here for many generations. We have a pretty large number of long-time residents of Japanese heritage here, and they have their own houses of non-Christian worship, along with lots of Native-Americans who still practice their tribal faiths.
My state is extremely libertarian and always has been. It's a way of life as much as it is political.
From the very first settlers, anyone who lives here has to have a do-it-yourself attitude to get through life, because our wilderness is everywhere, and in extremes.
People are so few that survival often depends on the individual when there's no group around to help someone out.
Independence is a life essential Old Mother Idaho; if you can't survive on your own, She'll kill you in a heartbeat if She wants to.
That tends to breed an attitude of tolerance. A neighbor's religion might be strange, but when his family are the only ones around, human company becomes a matter of taking what you get. A family can have a harsh faith, but can still quick to come to the aid of another and be good neighbors.
Our libertarianism isn't all-conservative either. People of all political persuasions have it, so we all have a tendency toward live and let live here.
But it does tend to breed a sense of caution into us, and a reluctance to change something that isn't affecting us.
We also have really a lot of local government; Idaho has 44 counties that serve a population of less than 2 million.
That means the folks who belong to those faiths have some strong representation in our state government.
It also means those folks can rule a county's government, and Coroners, Sheriffs and Prosecutors are all county officers. They're the ones who determine criminality in deaths.
So passing any law that is even mildly restrictive to any religious faith here is always going to be close to impossible to pass. If restriction can happen to one, it could happen to all.
None of them want imposition from another. In part, this is how Idahoans keep things peaceful between us.
I haven't seen the doc, but Idaho has always been an extremely tolerant state when it comes to religion.
That may be due to how many people here belong to controversial faiths.
The LDS comprise around 1/3 (my very rough guess) of our population, and we have lots of others here that are smaller in communities that are scattered all over a lightly populated state.
At the same time, Idaho has the oldest Synagogue in the intermountain west, a sizable number of the Amish faiths, and all kinds of other faiths who have lived here for many generations. We have a pretty large number of long-time residents of Japanese heritage here, and they have their own houses of non-Christian worship, along with lots of Native-Americans who still practice their tribal faiths.
My state is extremely libertarian and always has been. It's a way of life as much as it is political.
From the very first settlers, anyone who lives here has to have a do-it-yourself attitude to get through life, because our wilderness is everywhere, and in extremes.
People are so few that survival often depends on the individual when there's no group around to help someone out.
Independence is a life essential Old Mother Idaho; if you can't survive on your own, She'll kill you in a heartbeat if She wants to.
That tends to breed an attitude of tolerance. A neighbor's religion might be strange, but when his family are the only ones around, human company becomes a matter of taking what you get. A family can have a harsh faith, but can still quick to come to the aid of another and be good neighbors.
Our libertarianism isn't all-conservative either. People of all political persuasions have it, so we all have a tendency toward live and let live here.
But it does tend to breed a sense of caution into us, and a reluctance to change something that isn't affecting us.
We also have really a lot of local government; Idaho has 44 counties that serve a population of less than 2 million.
That means the folks who belong to those faiths have some strong representation in our state government.
It also means those folks can rule a county's government, and Coroners, Sheriffs and Prosecutors are all county officers. They're the ones who determine criminality in deaths.
So passing any law that is even mildly restrictive to any religious faith here is always going to be close to impossible to pass. If restriction can happen to one, it could happen to all.
None of them want imposition from another. In part, this is how Idahoans keep things peaceful between us.
This is a good thing. They say people are social animals so eventually they may come together when the need arises. The less restriction the better off it can be.
This is a good thing. They say people are social animals so eventually they may come together when the need arises. The less restriction the better off it can be.
I guess it is, as it helps us keep the peace.
But it does allow the conditions that were in the documentary to arise.
I know several couples who attend faiths I find extreme and home-school their kids, and often avoid seeing a doctor, but none of that makes them bad parents or child abusers.
In most respects, they are the same loving parents that are the same as mainstream folks. If a child needs medical care badly, the parents will get it for them.
It's important to keep in mind how small some of these little cults are. They always lose a lot of members too. The folks who are attracted to them all tend to be loners who have a general dislike of our everyday culture.
Since they're all non-joiners, I tend to think that when they do join a group, their beliefs tend to intensify as they pick up new ideas from other members. With no opposing ideas within a group, the beliefs tend to thicken over time like a watery stew that stays on a hot stove all day.
But it does allow the conditions that were in the documentary to arise.
I know several couples who attend faiths I find extreme and home-school their kids, and often avoid seeing a doctor, but none of that makes them bad parents or child abusers.
In most respects, they are the same loving parents that are the same as mainstream folks. If a child needs medical care badly, the parents will get it for them.
It's important to keep in mind how small some of these little cults are. They always lose a lot of members too. The folks who are attracted to them all tend to be loners who have a general dislike of our everyday culture.
Since they're all non-joiners, I tend to think that when they do join a group, their beliefs tend to intensify as they pick up new ideas from other members. With no opposing ideas within a group, the beliefs tend to thicken over time like a watery stew that stays on a hot stove all day.
Thanks for sharing your insights on this I'm struggling with this trying to figure out if there isn't a way that these people could be forced to take the kids to a doctor when they are dying while at the same time respecting peoples rights to practice their religion any way they want. This particular cult "Followers of Christ" caused Oregon to change their religious exemption law. I understand leaving people alone to practice their faith and I agree with that but I was creeped out by what these people did and more than a little shocked that the legislature didn't find some way to protect the kids without messing with people's religious rights.
Things that involve children dying or being injured or molested really bothers me a lot. The Gabriel Fernandez case in California is another one, a little boy allowed by CPS to stay with his abusers while they tortured and starved him, and ultimately killed him https://booth.law/gabriel-fernandez-death/ And of course in that case California didn't do a damn thing to make CPS more accountable which is just a tragedy.
I didn't realize how important non-interference in religious practices were to the Idaho legislature and presumably the people of Ohio that it would extends to protecting a cult that causes injury or death to children. I'm still having a problem getting my arms around that but your post and nowhereman427's helped put that in perspective - my thanks to both of you.
It is a strange thing to consider for sure. But here, in a lightly populated state that has far more tiny villages than cities, and our large cities are all so small that they would be towns, not cities, in other states, a community that is financially stable and has a unified population can have more political power than is apparent.
Idaho has 44 counties. That's a ridiculously high number for a population that is now at it's highest ever at only 1.75 million.
That means there is a very high number of county seats that only have populations of only 2000 people or thereabouts. And most of those counties are quite large, so that means the county's population is scattered over a lot of area.
So a very small town that's a county seat can have electoral powers that can punch way above its weight in the state legislature.
Every one of those counties send Representatives, Senators, and other state officials to Boise. So a small county can have enough representation to block passage of bills that could force them to do anything with their kids they don't want to do.
There are enough independent-minded other representatives here that can back them up if needed in votes that are close in bill passage when political positions are shared even if religious beliefs are not.
No bill, no law. No law, and there's nothing outside law enforcement can do if the local law enforcement can't or won't do it first.
In a place where the only law that exists is likely to be fellow believers, it makes it all very hard for the State to make a religious belief a criminal offense.
Actually, it's just as hard in some circumstances in big states as well.
Think of Jim Jones, who lived in the San Francisco area, or David Koresh in Waco.
California and Texas were just as paralyzed in their state efforts to control those groups as it is in Idaho.
It's also the reason why the towns the Fundamentalist LDS, Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona, were built. Both were entirely populated by radical religionists who practice polygamy, and did so openly for generations. In open defiance of state laws and their mother religion.
Since they totally controlled the local politics, there was nothing Utah could do until the rest of the state became so alarmed and appalled by their offenses the state Legislature became unified in creating laws that allowed the state to take action.
Even then, it took Federal offenses to ultimately do the FLDS in, as Arizona never made the same laws.
Back in 1954, when Utah first tried to take apart the FLDS, the residents of Hildale simply moved across the state line for protection. It was only a jump across Short Creek. Only the slowest got busted.
That action only made the FLDS more alert. When Utah made a second go of it 50 years later, the FLDS decamped and moved to Texas in a month's time, where they remained intact for years before Texas, Utah, and the Feds all moved against them in a coordinated effort at once. Each state couldn't do it alone.
And even then, after the central organization of the church was destroyed, remnants moved back to Hildale. They simply re-occupied the old town.
Utah is keeping a very watchful eye on them, and the FLDS no longer have the control of the law they once had, but as long as they stay peaceful and cause no complaints coming from within, there's nothing Utah can do any farther to impede them.
They also built other new communities in N. Dakota,B.C., Canada, next to the Idaho border, started a little town in Idaho, and some other places and re-formed. Splintered, but still present. And still adhering to their religious beliefs.
Trying to coordinate 2 nations will be harder than 2 states for sure. I expect the FLDS will carry on for a very long time to come. They'll just avoid their past mistakes and keep things quiet. That's all they'll need to do.
Last edited by banjomike; 07-01-2020 at 12:53 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a good thing. They say people are social animals so eventually they may come together when the need arises. The less restriction the better off it can be.
