Through the Looking Glass
Ah, the upside down world of the apologists. Where getting your cheek swabbed with a Qtip is a horrible indignity, but being assigned as a concubine to two men before you are 17 is an honorable religious ritual.
This is a great comment in its simplicity and its truth. It captures in one sentence the unreality we’ve witnessed from the FLDS and supporters since the April ’08 Rescue.
See, for instance, Hugh’s post from July 2008: Texas Nazis Terrorize Child in Broad Daylight or Kurt’s post about Texas “terrorizing children” in reference to a 2 year old having her cheek swabbed ….at her own home, in her mother’s arms. Terrorizing? Really? Heaven forbid the child ever has her teeth brushed or a dental exam.
On the other hand, after listening to a week of testimony and considering evidence admitted at a trial where Raymond Jessop was very competently represented, 12 people unanimously decided that Raymond had sexually assaulted a child.
By age 16 Janet had been passed from brother to brother as a child sex object and impregnated by a man more than twice her age… who, incidentally, already had several other wives. Evidence was presented that 16 year old Janet was denied medical treatment in childbirth for three days just so Raymond could get away with raping this child. Even the child abuse proponents are not denying that Ray impregnated a 16 year old who was not his legal wife. No one is claiming that Janet fell in love with Raymond and entered a sexual relationship as an expression of her love, or that a long courtship led to an illicit sexual encounter, or that Janet voluntarily chose Raymond to be her second “husband.” At the time of the Rescue, she and her baby hadnt even seen Ray for a year and a half. Why? Because Warren said so.
None of the child abuse supporters seem bothered in the slightest that Janet was first “married” to Ernie at age 15 or that she was not allowed an education or that she was taken from her parents’ home and placed in “marriage” at age 15 or that her father was banished and contact with him was forbidden — and that she suffered depression over the abrupt loss of her father to the whims of the cult leader.
No, the child abuse proponents argue stridently that Janet is not a victim — Janet chose each and every one of those circumstances and she’s happy. Nope, there’s nothing coercive or oppressive (not to mention illegal) about Janet’s wholesome and fulfilling existence. She’s satisfied with her cult life and could leave if she wanted to, just walk out the door with her three year old child. Who wouldn’t choose such bliss?
All I can say is, thank Heavenly Father Raymond didn’t swab Janet’s underage cheek.