Can there be justice with media hype?

I know I am not the first person to consider this particular subject, it has been addressed, but because of so many recent cases, where the media has swooped in, many times giving either shaky preliminary information, or simply editorializing rather than actually reporting facts, It is my opinion that this issue should be readdressed.

We all want the news, we want to be able to make informed opinions regarding the facts that the new media has the responsibility to provide us; but what can we do when that responsibility is abused, and becomes, instead, hype for high ratings.

I am going to once again focus on the media attention given to the raid at the FLDS compound, simply because I believe that the media has been very irresponsible in its reporting. So irresponsible, that, in my opinion, it could actually hurt the case, and if children have been systematically abused, the actions of both the media and CPS officials could very well result in these children being put back in a possibly harmful environment.

So what exactly makes this story such a hot topic? Could it be because of the practice of polygamy? Or is it the religious aspect that makes for good 'print' that created a feeding frenzy? Could it be that with so many children taken away from families without obvious or documented abuse, that CPS leaked information, in order to turn public opinion to the 'weird religious beliefs' rather than the authority they had to make such a sweeping raid?

It does concern me that the hype started almost immediately. The media, offered snippets of their 'investigation' that when later found to be incorrect, the original reporting media glossed over the errors, or completely ignored them.

Case in point, the first reports claimed that dozens of girls as young as 13 were pregnant....that nearly 60% of young girls taken from the ranch, were forced into marriage and forced to become pregnant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

Now, the reports are very different, and CPS had to admit that they were simply wrong, but after what damage?

Of course the excuse is that those from the ranch would not be 'honest' but how does that justify the leaks to the media? How did these leaks benefit those in custody, or those accused? And of those accused, how would such leaks ensure a fair trial?

But what made this story so much more interesting than the other raid in Texas that has brought not even a slight interest in the main media:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/13/national/main4094446.shtml

The House of Yahweh Is said to be even a 'darker sect' than FLDS, as this group also has weapons, and is preparing for the nuclear baby that will destroy the earth, leaving only those that are believers alive, further the allegations of child abuse, child labor, polygamy, including the deaths of two sect members, one a seven year old boy, the other a pregnant woman during child birth.

So where is the media blitz on this group? Isn't the recorded deaths of two people a bit more 'proof' than the latter case?

I can't help but wonder if it is because the 'traditions' of the FDLS is more unique to what we are used to, the prairie dresses, the uniformed hairstyles, they stick out more than the House of Yahweh followers and therefore make for better fodder in the media. I have yet to see a report on Nancy Grace that does not mention their style of dress; which makes me wonder if the media is not more interested in the way the people 'look' than the possible crimes perpetrated.

Of course the house of Yahweh, denies polygamy, while the FLDS admits that they believe in the principle, because of the 'prophet' as well as the writings of the Old Testament of the Bible.

The house of Yahweh, also has an offical website:

http://www.yisraylhawkins.com/

Unlike the FLDS, the house of Yahweh is hiding in plain sight, and obviously doing a wonderful job of it.

So back once again to the FLDS, and the reasoning of CPS to leak information to the media. Was it for justice and protection of the children? Or was it for justification and protection of those that perhaps rushed to judgement, and felt that once the public saw just how 'odd' the beliefs were, they would support the action, and not question the validity of it?

If one thing history has taught us, it is easy to distrust those that are different, to set those that are out of the norm of societies culture in another catagory of due process, and that is justice lost.

Same Sex Marriage: Equal Rights vs. Religion & ICK Factor

Here is a shocker, I have been reading the boards regarding this issue, and as expected, at least for me, it boils down to just two issues:

Religion and the dreaded, ICK FACTOR.


Well, Religion is moot. My Religion has no problem with Homosexuals, so since my religion is just as protected as any other, according to the United States Constitution, this entire premises cancels out.

Now, as far as the ICK factor, I find it completely ICKY when some old guy marries some young woman, or when some old woman marries a young guy, or when a short fat guy marries a willowy gorgeous woman, or when a gross hag marries some Fabio knock-off, or when two trolls that look like they just slithered off the set of 'The Hill's have Eyes' Marry......and even plan to reproduce...ICK
So, should my ICK factor be considered when the application for marriage licenses are given?

Of course not.

But I do have a solution:

IF you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, don't. If you don't want to attend the wedding that is same gender, then don't. If you don't want to consider them married, then don't.
If you don't want to attend churches that preform same gender marriages, then don't.

Yeah see, that is what freedom and equality is all about, and isn't that what this is really about? Isn't the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness really what we are talking about?

But another important 'DON'T' is don't take the rights away from those that want the very thing you want, to marry and make a LEGAL commitment to the person they love.

So to those that find this so horrible, you are free in our system to refer to it as you wish, but long ago, we have learned that 'separate but equal' is not viable, but because this great country of ours also offers freedom of speech, and expression, you have the RIGHT to refer to same sex/gender marriage as a civil union, but under the LAW, they are married and have all the benefits, pros, cons, ups, downs, sickness and health, all the things that make a
MARRIAGE.

California Court makes progress for equal rights.

Well, it happened, and I was very happily surprised that a four to three decision reversed the ban on same sex marriage, opening the door for same sex couples to marry in the state of California, thirty days from the date of the ruling.

I have been of course discussing this decision on the internet and am rather shocked to see the same tired arguments against this basic human right, and when I say tired arguments, I am actually saying the same old religious opposition that some use to validate discrimination.

It really is not shocking that religion is the corner stone of the opposition, religion has been used throughout history to validate and justify evil doing for centuries, and before someone starts smacking their computer screen, no I am not referring to just the Christian religion, I am referring to any and all that use their beliefs and their religious teachings to stifle the basic rights that every human being should be entitled.

That is the issue, regarding this subject, it is equality. Equality in law, equality in protection under the law, so while some say to compare this ruling to other rulings regarding equality is fallacy, I of course disagree; just as I disagree that the other commonality in this rulings and those of the past, religion, or the twisting of religion was used as a spring board to justify the denying civil rights to those that are not in the majority.

When women wanted the vote, it was heresy, because by definition a woman was a second class citizen, and if married the property of her husband, her opinion regarding voting issues, was of course moot, as her husband would vote, and his vote as the head of the family would naturally speak for his spouse.

Numbers:


30:12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
30:13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.

Inter-racial marriage was a crime, yes a crime that could make you subject to arrest, those that supported that the races should not 'breed' again took this from the Bible to justify the fighting this right of marriage:

Numbers:

25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
(25:6-9) And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

So when it is said this issue is unlike the other issues that have been submitted to a vote, and then over turned by the courts, I submit, that since the same basic argument is offered in all these issues of civil rights, they are all branches that grow from the same tree.

I know some of you are thinking, that if in the start I stated not just Christian faith, but took examples only from the Bible, I am picking on Christians, this is not the case, however, in our country regarding these issue, it is the Christian faith that has opposed, far more so than any other religious sect, and perhaps just as importantly have had the membership and the power to use that particular faith as a political tool.