I see on the news that Texas authorities have raided the compound of a polygamist cult, removing the women and children. Evidently, last week one of the children called the police and claimed they were being sexually abused.  

As someone who has libertarian leanings, I think the government would do better just to leave polygamists alone. In my mind, Polygamy isn't any more immoral than a man who starts a family, divorces his wife, and then starts another family.

That said, in general there is tremendous abuse in these cults, and at some point the state has to step in and remove the children (mostly young females) who are being forced into marriages and sexually abused.

It is also a well known fact that there are many other such compounds scattered all throughout the Southwest. Jon Krakauer documents one such compound in Arizona, in his book Under the Banner of Heaven.

I guess I wonder why these compounds are allowed to exist. I understand the administrative nightmare of tearing apart families. But at some point aren't we just endorsing child abuse. We seem to permit these cults to exist as long as they function far from the rest of society and operate under the guise of religious freedoms.  

Monday, March 31, was the deadline for certain pastors to submit information to Senator Chuck Grassley (R) regarding Grassley's investigation into their financial practices.

As a follow up, NPR did a short piece with a Professor of Religion from the Unversity of Rochestor on the "Prosperity Gospel".

It is a fairly well balanced segment, explaining the belief of the prosperity doctrine and how that belief has potentially run afoul of certain tax laws.  The professor ends the segment by calling Prosperity Doctrine churches "corporations". She concludes that when a corporation pretends to be a non-profit it can get into trouble.

Lastly, here is a good article listing where all the pastors stand in their complaince with the investigation.

We recently received this email from a reader:

Do either of you know anything about Frank withdrawing his membership from MFI? Would that mean he'd be withdrawing his church as well? (If so, no doubt it has something to do with Bob MacGregor being Mr. Iverson's choice for the next MFI top dog.)

If Frank is withdrawing completely, I wonder if he's starting something of his own to replace it?

Can any of you verify this statement? Or is it just a rumor? If true, I think it's probably one of the few decisions by Frank that I actually commend. MFI is a pretty useless organization.

Did anyone see that TV special last week on the National Geographic Channel, called “The Testosterone Factor?”  

It was extremely interesting to say the least.

I, for one, have never bought too much into of this sort of thing, and am usually suspicious, by nature, of scientists and their “findings” anyway, due to their a prioris and extreme bias.

But this time it was different, at least to me.

They showed how scientists/researchers have done tests in regard to patterns of behavior-prediction, based upon testosterone levels in both animals and humans.  

The challenge was to study the effects of testosterone apart from preconceived or societal-/environmentally-induced reactions. 

They put optical scanners on human, male and female infants, and then monitored their respective reactions to side-by-side pictures of so-called “masculine images” (trucks), and “feminine images” (dolls). The tests showed that the male babies’ eyes were first drawn to the masculine-oriented images, while the female babies’ eyes were first drawn to the feminine images. The majority of their ensuing attention also followed this pattern. 

They tried this with male and female monkeys. When trucks and dolls were placed in the cages, all the male monkeys gathered around — and began to handle — the truck, while all the female monkeys gathered around and handled the doll.  

Also, they observed similar findings in fish. When “alpha male” fish were removed from their aquariums tanks, the previously subordinate/passive fish immediately began to produce more testosterone and soon became dominant. The color of the fish even began to change, and grow more colorful — all within just a few minutes of the removal of the alpha fish. Amazing. 

Then, they put these men inside of MRI monitors and were able to scan, and then show, how their levels of testosterone fluctuated based upon reading visual conversations which manifested either threatening or non-threatening scenarios. When the guys read "threatening" material, their collective testosterone levels immediately (and of course, subconsciously) shot up drastically.

Men who were owners of their own companies were found to have higher testosterone levels than men who were "merely" employees, and that men who were blue-collar workers had higher testosterone levels on average than males who were white-collar workers. (Did I mention I am a blue-collar worker?)

They ended up concluding that heightened testosterone levels could perhaps explain differing social strata, and what we observe as drive and ambition — the entrepreneurial mindset if you will — as well as pre-determined patterns of dominant/aggressive behavior.    

I’m not sure what all this means, or its ramifications. Nor less yet what it has to do with this blog. 

I just have the vague feeling it may help to elucidate some of the previously unexplained, erratic behavior patterns in my youth.  

Or, even current ones.

-joe

P.S. This post is proof positive that cat needs to get back to posting, ASAP.