Noo, my entire comment is based on the premise that child abuse was known by a lot of people to be taking place – under the secrecy and idea of religious freedom. Where in this country should sex with minors just be “ok” according to some guy (claiming himself a prophet) be above that child’s, or woman’s or man’s constitutional right NOT to be abused?
The precedence of “well all the woman have been taught one way therefore dont know the measure of their constitutional rights or even that they are being abused”, is NOT a defense. It is only further abuse. And abuse allowed to take place in the name of religious freedom.
Should the morals that protect children from sex with adults be forfeited due to the sole discretion of adults who decide to form a religion? Or do you not see the difference in the emotional maturity and developement, as do pervailing socialogists, physchologists, et al in the medical field between a 14 girl and 50 year old men?
We already have a culture of the sexual slavery of minors in countries throughout the world that operate without the veil of religion. Why should the veil of religion protect that which would be criminal behaviour otherwise.
I think this case really opens wide the long standing tradition of protecting abusers who commit abuse on anyone from minors, to women, to other men under such a religious veil, to be looked at closely and perhaps even the throwing out such protection when it is a direct affront to the constitutional concept…”your freedom to practice whatever the hell you want ends where it directly affects my freedom of self-determination” i.e., not being forced to marry an old fart when i am 13 and would rather have a childhood than be a breeder.
Get it?
Probably not.
