And yet no one gave a damn (& in fact they cheered) when this happened to the FLDS

[WolverineDG]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3760598


dg

[Berry Cool]

1. Of course. Because the two situations were so different, you know.

In this one, the cops were trying to bust someone for drugs. Which we all know is bad, because on DU, the smoking of marijuana is a sacrament, and there are plenty of people who really don't have much of a problem with the use of other drugs, either. (I recall actually reading a post once by someone who claimed that while he could control his crack use, he had problems controlling his marijuana use. Yep. He claimed he was fully capable of smoking crack only in wise and prudent moderation, but he was out of control when it came to marijuana.)

Drugs are fine with DU. What is NOT fine is following a religion that people on DU don't follow, especially if it claims to resemble anything based on the Bible or Christianity. In fact, with many DU'ers, following any religion at all is completely unacceptable and unjustified. Why believe in all that silly Sky-Daddy crap when you can allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster to touch you with his noodly appendage?

Make it a religion in which people wear unusual clothing, and women wear unusual hairstyles and live socially, sexually repressed lives, and look out Nellie.

On DU, drugs good; religion bad. Therefore, it's a sign of a fascist police state if the cops break into your home, kill your pets and hold you forcibly in your house because they are trying to bust you for drugs. But if the cops break into your home and take your children away from you on the flimsy assumption that you "might" be abusing them based on an anonymous phone call they got from someone about the religious group to which you belong, saying that underage girls are being sexually abused, well, that's fair game.

It's very similar to the hypocrisy surrounding when Republicans cheat on their wives (they're lowlife lousy scumbags) vs. when Dems do it (but he's such a good man, it's a private matter, it has nothing to do with what he is as a person) or when a fundie Christian who can afford it decides to spawn an enormous number of kids vs. when, say, a poor person on welfare decides to do it. You better not ctiticize the poor person on welfare who has a lot of kids, because if you do you're being classist and possibly even a racist eugenicist to imply that such a person should be expected to regulate his or her personal reproductive capacities. But it's open season on the fundie Christian, because for God's sake, haven't those people heard of birth control, and don't they know it's a vagina, not a clown car? Disgusting. :sarcasm:

Some people have a long way to go before they come face to face with their own inconsistency.