The Constitution is the Constitution, anti-Muslims please read

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you anti-Muslim bigots trying to pretend that it's just about ground zero?

The opposition to new mosques being built is nationwide.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first and fourteenth amendments give the right to freedom of expression,etc but nowhere does it give Muslims the right to preach the destruction of the US or other nations, nor does it give the right to preaching of murder and violence to groups or individuals.

The US already ruled on this in 1969:

Background Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to come and cover a KKK rally in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[1] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "*******," "Jews" and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute - enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare - proscribed "advocat[ing] .. . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.
The rather cursory way in which the Ohio courts dismissed Brandenburg's constitutional arguments is unsurprising in light of the state of First Amendment law in the pre-Brandenburg era. Although Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), had overturned the convictions of mid-level Communist Party members in language that seemed suggestive of a broader view of freedom of expression rights than had been accorded them in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), all Yates purported to do was construe a federal statute, the Smith Act. Thus, Dennis' reading of the First Amendment remained in force: advocacy of law violation, even as an abstract doctrine, could be punished under law consistent with the free speech clause.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus the opening post of this topic fails, on US law terms at least.

Where does that ruling determine that banning the building and usage of mosques by people of the Islamic faith is constitutional?

 

[ConHog]

Why are you anti-Muslim bigots trying to pretend that it's just about ground zero?

The opposition to new mosques being built is nationwide.

And I gave you a perfectly rational explanation yesterday , which you totally ignored because you didn't want to hear it.

 

[hipeter924]

The first and fourteenth amendments give the right to freedom of expression,etc but nowhere does it give Muslims the right to preach the destruction of the US or other nations, nor does it give the right to preaching of murder and violence to groups or individuals.

The US already ruled on this in 1969:

Background Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to come and cover a KKK rally in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[1] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "*******," "Jews" and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute - enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare - proscribed "advocat[ing] .. . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, the Ohio First District Court of Appeal affirmed Brandenburg's conviction, rejecting his claim that the statute violated his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed his appeal without opinion.
The rather cursory way in which the Ohio courts dismissed Brandenburg's constitutional arguments is unsurprising in light of the state of First Amendment law in the pre-Brandenburg era. Although Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), had overturned the convictions of mid-level Communist Party members in language that seemed suggestive of a broader view of freedom of expression rights than had been accorded them in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), all Yates purported to do was construe a federal statute, the Smith Act. Thus, Dennis' reading of the First Amendment remained in force: advocacy of law violation, even as an abstract doctrine, could be punished under law consistent with the free speech clause.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus the opening post of this topic fails, on US law terms at least.

Where does that ruling determine that banning the building and usage of mosques by people of the Islamic faith is constitutional?

I am not against Muslims building mosques, even at ground zero.

But putting a Mosque near ground zero I said in another topic here will remind Americans about what Muslims did to America on 9/11. Rather than 'creating tolerance' for Muslims it will create only distrust and disgust towards Muslims.

 

[OmarDaGreat]

The first and fourteenth amendments give the right to freedom of expression,etc but nowhere does it give Muslims the right to preach the destruction of the US or other nations, nor does it give the right to preaching of murder and violence to groups or individuals.

The US already ruled on this in 1969:

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus the opening post of this topic fails, on US law terms at least.

Where does that ruling determine that banning the building and usage of mosques by people of the Islamic faith is constitutional?

I am not against Muslims building mosques, even at ground zero.

But putting a Mosque near ground zero I said in another topic here will remind Americans about what Muslims did to America on 9/11. Rather than 'creating tolerance' for Muslims it will create only distrust and disgust towards Muslims.

Um...I think that Americans are already reminded about what happened on 9/11, they don't need a mosque to reinforce that.

but...if they do forget, they can awaysl call Rudy Giuliani, he says "9/11" so much it could be considered tourettes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you anti-Muslim bigots trying to pretend that it's just about ground zero?

The opposition to new mosques being built is nationwide.

And I gave you a perfectly rational explanation yesterday , which you totally ignored because you didn't want to hear it.

First we kept hearing that this was just a proximity issue, now we're finding out that the opposition to mosques being built is nationwide.

 

[Granny]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You monkeys need to quit playing the "Constitutional Patriot" act when you want to bash and disparage Obama while simultaneously ignoring and disregarding the Constitution when it comes to spreading your hate and ignorance about the religions of others you don't like. The Constitution is not a respecter of religions in that it does not favor any one religion over the other and neither does it deny the freedom of religion and right to peaceably assemble. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ and do not believe in Islam and will never do so, but those Muslims do have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and peaceable freedom of assembly so you dumb monkeys need to quit with the protests and spreading ignorance.

Your calls on the government to stop Muslims from building mosques is un-Constitutional so you apes need to stop it.

Is this Amendment applicable to Christians as well? And Jews? There are those in America who think Christianity should be completely eradicated - Bibles, churches, schools - and the Jews and their Synagogs and schools as well. In what way are the athiests, the Lefties, and other non-believers not acting in violation of the Constitution?

As to this mosque - no one is denying Islamics the right to practice their religion or to build their mosque - just asking that they build the thing way Uptown somewhere - not at a location that is so emotionally revered as Ground Zero. No one is in violation of the Constitution on this explosive issue.

Islam is a streetgang masquerading as a religion.
Islam calls for the death of all non members.

No, it doesn't. Only non-members in a given region- same as Judaism.

JBeukema is right on this. You are wrong. Muslims believe death should come upon ANYONE who is not a Muslim. Jews do not have a death wish for anyone who doesn't practice Judaism.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

mr ******: try not hacking people's quotes to lie about what they said

You though it necessary to challenge my statement

Islam is a streetgang masquerading as a religion.
Islam calls for the death of all non members.

With

No, it doesn't. Only non-members in a given region- same as Judaism.

Which doesnt really make sense So I address the pertinent lie .

No, it doesn't.

Which I did here
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2597760-post8.html

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You monkeys need to quit playing the "Constitutional Patriot" act when you want to bash and disparage Obama while simultaneously ignoring and disregarding the Constitution when it comes to spreading your hate and ignorance about the religions of others you don't like. The Constitution is not a respecter of religions in that it does not favor any one religion over the other and neither does it deny the freedom of religion and right to peaceably assemble. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ and do not believe in Islam and will never do so, but those Muslims do have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and peaceable freedom of assembly so you dumb monkeys need to quit with the protests and spreading ignorance.

Your calls on the government to stop Muslims from building mosques is un-Constitutional so you apes need to stop it.

Just out of curiosity, would you approve of a neo-Nazi group building a monument to Hitler 500 feet down the road from Auschwitz?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Islam is a streetgang masquerading as a religion.
Islam calls for the death of all non members.

No, it doesn't. Only non-members in a given region- same as Judaism.

JBeukema is right on this. You are wrong. Muslims believe death should come upon ANYONE who is not a Muslim. Jews do not have a death wish for anyone who doesn't practice Judaism.

How is that medication working this AM Granny?
Get your dosage adjusted.

 

[ConHog]

Why are you anti-Muslim bigots trying to pretend that it's just about ground zero?

The opposition to new mosques being built is nationwide.

And I gave you a perfectly rational explanation yesterday , which you totally ignored because you didn't want to hear it.

First we kept hearing that this was just a proximity issue, now we're finding out that the opposition to mosques being built is nationwide.

And as I said yesterday. Yes some fools truly want mosques to be outlawed anywhere, just as some fools truly want the one built near ground zero; but if the fools who are clamoring for the Cordoba House would slow their roll for just one second , take a breath, and stop being trying to be so damned PC and accept and admit that yes in THIS case a mosque is insensitive at best, and taunting at worst, then many people would no doubt back off their fervor to outlaw Islam and mosques altogether. I truly doubt that Mr Fitnah represents the average American. However , as usual, the people on the left attempt to back people into a corner and then acted surprised when they over react.

it boils down to a few jackasses who don't want to compromise at all, and in THIS case that falls squarely on the left and you people who refuse to admit that when 80% of America is offended by something it is insensitive to do it anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of yalls attitude that the average American doesn't matter as long as we appear to be PC. **** PC, it's time that Americans stood up for each other and said enough..... And don't give me "these Muslims are Americans to", because they clearly do NOT put their country first, they don't even pretend to. I have no doubt in my mind that you have not read What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West or you would exactly understand where the people who want this mosque built are coming from.

 

[Kalam]

And I gave you a perfectly rational explanation yesterday , which you totally ignored because you didn't want to hear it.

First we kept hearing that this was just a proximity issue, now we're finding out that the opposition to mosques being built is nationwide.

And as I said yesterday. Yes some fools truly want mosques to be outlawed anywhere, just as some fools truly want the one built near ground zero; but if the fools who are clamoring for the Cordoba House would slow their roll for just one second , take a breath, and stop being trying to be so damned PC and accept and admit that yes in THIS case a mosque is insensitive at best, and taunting at worst, then many people would no doubt back off their fervor to outlaw Islam and mosques altogether. I truly doubt that Mr Fitnah represents the average American. However , as usual, the people on the left attempt to back people into a corner and then acted surprised when they over react.

it boils down to a few jackasses who don't want to compromise at all, and in THIS case that falls squarely on the left and you people who refuse to admit that when 80% of America is offended by something it is insensitive to do it anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of yalls attitude that the average American doesn't matter as long as we appear to be PC. **** PC, it's time that Americans stood up for each other and said enough..... And don't give me "these Muslims are Americans to", because they clearly do NOT put their country first, they don't even pretend to. I have no doubt in my mind that you have not read What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West or you would exactly understand where the people who want this mosque built are coming from.

I thought political correctness involved catering to the feelings of others to avoid offending them. In what universe is opposing something because it's "insensitive" not considered PC?

 

[ConHog]

First we kept hearing that this was just a proximity issue, now we're finding out that the opposition to mosques being built is nationwide.

And as I said yesterday. Yes some fools truly want mosques to be outlawed anywhere, just as some fools truly want the one built near ground zero; but if the fools who are clamoring for the Cordoba House would slow their roll for just one second , take a breath, and stop being trying to be so damned PC and accept and admit that yes in THIS case a mosque is insensitive at best, and taunting at worst, then many people would no doubt back off their fervor to outlaw Islam and mosques altogether. I truly doubt that Mr Fitnah represents the average American. However , as usual, the people on the left attempt to back people into a corner and then acted surprised when they over react.

it boils down to a few jackasses who don't want to compromise at all, and in THIS case that falls squarely on the left and you people who refuse to admit that when 80% of America is offended by something it is insensitive to do it anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of yalls attitude that the average American doesn't matter as long as we appear to be PC. **** PC, it's time that Americans stood up for each other and said enough..... And don't give me "these Muslims are Americans to", because they clearly do NOT put their country first, they don't even pretend to. I have no doubt in my mind that you have not read What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West or you would exactly understand where the people who want this mosque built are coming from.

I thought political correctness involved catering to the feelings of others to avoid offending them. In what universe is opposing something because it's "insensitive" not considered PC?

In THIS case, being politically correct means , apparently, caving into the Muslims who want to build this mosque. it is considered politically INCORRECT to oppose it. Those who do are labeled as bigoted monsters who wish to destroy the COTUS.

******* pathetic

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, it doesn't. Only non-members in a given region- same as Judaism.

JBeukema is right on this. You are wrong. Muslims believe death should come upon ANYONE who is not a Muslim. Jews do not have a death wish for anyone who doesn't practice Judaism.

How is that medication working this AM Granny?
Get your dosage adjusted.

The question is still pending.

 

[Shogun]

First we kept hearing that this was just a proximity issue, now we're finding out that the opposition to mosques being built is nationwide.

And as I said yesterday. Yes some fools truly want mosques to be outlawed anywhere, just as some fools truly want the one built near ground zero; but if the fools who are clamoring for the Cordoba House would slow their roll for just one second , take a breath, and stop being trying to be so damned PC and accept and admit that yes in THIS case a mosque is insensitive at best, and taunting at worst, then many people would no doubt back off their fervor to outlaw Islam and mosques altogether. I truly doubt that Mr Fitnah represents the average American. However , as usual, the people on the left attempt to back people into a corner and then acted surprised when they over react.

it boils down to a few jackasses who don't want to compromise at all, and in THIS case that falls squarely on the left and you people who refuse to admit that when 80% of America is offended by something it is insensitive to do it anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of yalls attitude that the average American doesn't matter as long as we appear to be PC. **** PC, it's time that Americans stood up for each other and said enough..... And don't give me "these Muslims are Americans to", because they clearly do NOT put their country first, they don't even pretend to. I have no doubt in my mind that you have not read What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West or you would exactly understand where the people who want this mosque built are coming from.

I thought political correctness involved catering to the feelings of others to avoid offending them. In what universe is opposing something because it's "insensitive" not considered PC?

no shit. what these jackasses forget, ironically, is that it's politically correct to pretend that offending christians and like minded assholes trumps private ownership and the prerogative to do on your land what you want. If this were about monsanto cutting down trees and strip mining a forest these dumb bastards would be hopping on a different foot. As it is, their bigotry is hardly masked by this hilariously ironic appeal for sensitivity.

 

[Shogun]

And as I said yesterday. Yes some fools truly want mosques to be outlawed anywhere, just as some fools truly want the one built near ground zero; but if the fools who are clamoring for the Cordoba House would slow their roll for just one second , take a breath, and stop being trying to be so damned PC and accept and admit that yes in THIS case a mosque is insensitive at best, and taunting at worst, then many people would no doubt back off their fervor to outlaw Islam and mosques altogether. I truly doubt that Mr Fitnah represents the average American. However , as usual, the people on the left attempt to back people into a corner and then acted surprised when they over react.

it boils down to a few jackasses who don't want to compromise at all, and in THIS case that falls squarely on the left and you people who refuse to admit that when 80% of America is offended by something it is insensitive to do it anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of yalls attitude that the average American doesn't matter as long as we appear to be PC. **** PC, it's time that Americans stood up for each other and said enough..... And don't give me "these Muslims are Americans to", because they clearly do NOT put their country first, they don't even pretend to. I have no doubt in my mind that you have not read What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West or you would exactly understand where the people who want this mosque built are coming from.

I thought political correctness involved catering to the feelings of others to avoid offending them. In what universe is opposing something because it's "insensitive" not considered PC?

In THIS case, being politically correct means , apparently, caving into the Muslims who want to build this mosque. it is considered politically INCORRECT to oppose it. Those who do are labeled as bigoted monsters who wish to destroy the COTUS.

******* pathetic

still wrong, asshole. It's not a matter of caving into anyone as it is their property. End of story. You have nothing to add besides the EMOTIONAL RANTINGS of an asshole simiply opposed to the construction for religious reasons. You have no legal backing, nothing in the way of logic outside of crying foul, and again, were this about eminent domain you silly fuckers would be crying about Obama taking away your land. You know it. I know it. and you can just ******* deal with the outcome of this mosque. End of story.

 

[OmarDaGreat]

And as I said yesterday. Yes some fools truly want mosques to be outlawed anywhere, just as some fools truly want the one built near ground zero; but if the fools who are clamoring for the Cordoba House would slow their roll for just one second , take a breath, and stop being trying to be so damned PC and accept and admit that yes in THIS case a mosque is insensitive at best, and taunting at worst, then many people would no doubt back off their fervor to outlaw Islam and mosques altogether. I truly doubt that Mr Fitnah represents the average American. However , as usual, the people on the left attempt to back people into a corner and then acted surprised when they over react.

it boils down to a few jackasses who don't want to compromise at all, and in THIS case that falls squarely on the left and you people who refuse to admit that when 80% of America is offended by something it is insensitive to do it anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm getting sick of yalls attitude that the average American doesn't matter as long as we appear to be PC. **** PC, it's time that Americans stood up for each other and said enough..... And don't give me "these Muslims are Americans to", because they clearly do NOT put their country first, they don't even pretend to. I have no doubt in my mind that you have not read What's Right with Islam: a New Vision for Muslims and the West or you would exactly understand where the people who want this mosque built are coming from.

I thought political correctness involved catering to the feelings of others to avoid offending them. In what universe is opposing something because it's "insensitive" not considered PC?

no shit. what these jackasses forget, ironically, is that it's politically correct to pretend that offending christians and like minded assholes trumps private ownership and the prerogative to do on your land what you want. If this were about monsanto cutting down trees and strip mining a forest these dumb bastards would be hopping on a different foot. As it is, their bigotry is hardly masked by this hilariously ironic appeal for sensitivity.

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Yeah, that's not at all what the Cons are on this issue. We should ALL strive for the tolerance of the Conservatives

And Cons have the nerve to say how Liberals think with their emotions are refuse to be rational...oh the irony.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You monkeys need to quit playing the "Constitutional Patriot" act when you want to bash and disparage Obama while simultaneously ignoring and disregarding the Constitution when it comes to spreading your hate and ignorance about the religions of others you don't like. The Constitution is not a respecter of religions in that it does not favor any one religion over the other and neither does it deny the freedom of religion and right to peaceably assemble. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ and do not believe in Islam and will never do so, but those Muslims do have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and peaceable freedom of assembly so you dumb monkeys need to quit with the protests and spreading ignorance.

Your calls on the government to stop Muslims from building mosques is un-Constitutional so you apes need to stop it.

A religion is free to practice in the US so long as it does not violate criminal or civil law. Those calling to prevent a Mosque from being built have no legal standing UNLESS they convince the local zoning board to not zone for religious structures in an area.

Islam walks a fine line. Our Constitution is not a death pact. If Islam practices traitorous acts, incites murder and unrest or advocates for a repel of Democratic Government, those acts are illegal. And some are Unconstitutional.

While one has a protected right to worship their own religion, that is ONLY true so long as that worship doe not advocate braking the law, mass murder or a repel of Democratic Government ( Republican type).

Treason is also a no go. Any person no matter their religious beliefs that does these things will be arrested and charged. Any RELIGION that does these things will not be a protected religion.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, I think we should conduct a little experiment... why don't we bomb Mecca while thousands of muslims have gathered there, and then waltz in and demand they let us build a massive Christian church right on top of our handy work.

I wonder how receptive the muslims would be to that idea?

You kidding? They'll kill you if you show up with a Bible in your suitcase. I love the idea that we must tolerate a bunch who tolerate nothing but blind obediance to their dogma.

 

[Shogun]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You monkeys need to quit playing the "Constitutional Patriot" act when you want to bash and disparage Obama while simultaneously ignoring and disregarding the Constitution when it comes to spreading your hate and ignorance about the religions of others you don't like. The Constitution is not a respecter of religions in that it does not favor any one religion over the other and neither does it deny the freedom of religion and right to peaceably assemble. I am a Christian and member of the church of Christ and do not believe in Islam and will never do so, but those Muslims do have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and peaceable freedom of assembly so you dumb monkeys need to quit with the protests and spreading ignorance.

Your calls on the government to stop Muslims from building mosques is un-Constitutional so you apes need to stop it.

A religion is free to practice in the US so long as it does not violate criminal or civil law. Those calling to prevent a Mosque from being built have no legal standing UNLESS they convince the local zoning board to not zone for religious structures in an area.

Islam walks a fine line. Our Constitution is not a death pact. If Islam practices traitorous acts, incites murder and unrest or advocates for a repel of Democratic Government, those acts are illegal. And some are Unconstitutional.

While one has a protected right to worship their own religion, that is ONLY true so long as that worship doe not advocate braking the law, mass murder or a repel of Democratic Government ( Republican type).

Treason is also a no go. Any person no matter their religious beliefs that does these things will be arrested and charged. Any RELIGION that does these things will not be a protected religion.

oh man shut the **** up. By YOUR standards we'd be out arresting ever Michigan Militia member who identifies with libertarianism and actively opines about overthrowing the US gov.


you silly fuckers crack me up. ESPECIALLY someone whose very own religion must clarify daily that they are not, in fact, of the same sect of mormons that like to line up preteen wives like bowling pins.