FLDS case has a lot of different issues associated with it, isn't simple.

[uppityperson]

Freedom of religious choices. Societal's obligation to those unable to protect themselves adequately (mostly children and elderly but others fall into this group also). Freedom for parents to raise their children as they wish.

I very much do not like what FLDS promotes. Kicking out young men/boys, teen/preteen marriage, keeping women uneducated and in burqas (almost) etc etc etc. It strikes me much as the Taliban in Afghanistan. I see no "fun" in Fundamentalist groups like this one.

So long as people don't get hurt, laws aren't broken, and they do it willingly, people can be as fundamentalist as they wish, as much as it makes a nasty smell.

Then the questions become is it voluntary, is anyone hurt?

If there is abuse, religion is not a defense.

I can see parallels between removing all the kids from this sect and what happened to parents of friend who were part of the "remove those pagan indians from their homes, send them off to boarding school or give them away" generation. I can see fears of what this may mean for people in the future, if the way you raise your children is not "typical" or accepted as being within "normal" guidelines, will They be able to take them away (again thinking of Taliban and the increasing fundamentalism of USA and our gvt)?

The sheer numbers of people involved here and uncertainty as to biological heritage complicate things further. Then you get the issue of do you send kids with biologic mother or with the one that has been responsible for raising them (if there is one)?

And yes, CPS can and has fucked up in the past. Of course it has. But it also has done some good things, has helped some kids out of atrocious situations.

It does strike a lot of us in various different emotional ways. I am sure there are some posters here, like on other topics, that do not espouse open mindedness, that would like to have Fundamentalist groups like this continue on, for whatever reason. But there are also many of us who are affected deeply and emotionally by 1 or 2 or multiple factors in this complicated case, and those factors are not nec the same for each of us.

My heart goes out to those who suffer due to Fundamentalist crap.

[uppityperson]

1. 4o views, no replies, so am kicking for people suffering Fundamentalism everywhere.

[Beaverhausen]

2. You're right- it isn't simple

I've read a little about the history of the FLDS- including Under the Banner of Heaven - and know that the practices of this church are abusive to the women and men who are members.

I wish more people here would read up on this group- I doubt there would be any defending them if they knew the truth.

There are no easy answers here, especially when looking at how to integrate these children into normal society.

[uppityperson]

4. Taliban. USA's own Taliban. Exteme Fundamentalism.

They are free to do as they wish, so long as laws aren't broken. Which leads me to wonder what with the upsurge in general fundamentalism-ness in USA and USAnian gvt whether laws will be changed to allow further overall fundamentalism.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. I also find it interesting that the FLDS was given a $1.7 Million

Defense contract. Who in our government was behind that???

[senaca]

149. Pay or lack thereof might have helped them underbid competitors.

If and this is supposition, but should be looked into, they are employing underaged boys without pay, then this would be unfair wage/labor practice. All employees should be paid at least the minimum wage. It would be interesting to see if faith based money from the government was used also. This probably is not going to be answered, but it is a cuiosity.

[horseshoecrab]

150. sole source contracts

From a news story on McClatchy:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/33519.html

"A large portion of the awards were preferential no-bid or "sole source" contracts because of the company's classification as a small business, according to online databases that track federal government appropriations.

John Nielsen, who worked for the company when it was Western Precision in Hildale, said in a 2005 affidavit that he and other FLDS members were made to work for little or no wages, even as the company was bringing in lucrative government contracts and other work.

At the same time, $50,000 to $100,000 in company profits were going each month to FLDS "and/or" Jeffs, Nielsen said in the affidavit, filed as part of a civil lawsuit.

He said he and other sect members thought their working for free or for extremely low wages would bring them redemption. Instead, Nielsen said in the affidavit, he was found to be "wanting" by the sect's leadership, ordered off the property and separated from his five young children and his wife. She was "reassigned" to another man, becoming the fourth of his six wives."


horseshoecrab

[senaca]

152. Thanks for the article., n/t

[amandabeech]

62. A lot of the problem that the parents face comes from the allegations

that the parent (the mother, usually) or parents order daughters under the age of consent (I believe that's 17 in Texas) to submit to unwanted sex by men well over the age of consent.

If a girl under 17 (and that's what I think they are) actually wants to have sex with a 40-year-old guy and does, the guy has committed statutory rape because the law deems anyone under 17 as unable to consent to sex.

Forcing a 13, 14, 15, or 16 year old to have sex is generally considered abusive, dangerous behavior on the part of a parent, and failing to protect that daughter from others who are going to engage in that abuse will be treated the same.

Some states have a "young lovers" or "Romeo and Juliet" exemption by law or judicial opinion that waives the statute in cases in which the sex is consensual and one party is under the age of consent and the other over, but within 1 to 4 years older than the younger partner,depending on the state.
An example would be a sophomore dating a senior, when the senior is over the age of consent, say 17, and the sophomore is 15 with less than 3 years between them in a state with a 3-year "R&J" statute.

Any one of the men forcing himself on someone 17 or older would have be arrested on regular rape charges.

Also of interest would be dumping adolescent boys on the street. Parents or other guardians are now allowed to do that, either.

Proving all of this up will not be easy, however.

[LisaL]

103. But if that same daughter is 16 (used to be 14 until 2005)

and parents give her the permission to marry that same 40 year old man, then it's all perfectly legal and there is no child abuse.
I honestly am not sure how that makes sense.

[Kitty Herder]

115. Forced marriage is rape. And that's the issue here.

Not whether they had permission to marry, but whether they were forced.

Read about Elissa Wall, a truly brave woman.

[amandabeech]

151. That would depend on whether she was coerced or brainwashed,

and whether the man was already legally married to someone else.

My guess with this bunch would be that both those prohibited factors were true. The first would be difficult to prove unless the girl was placed outside the home. The second could be proved by doing a DNA match on the girl's child even if the girl wouldn't talk.

What I've read indicates that girls are "married off" when they are 13 or 14, and that 16-year-olds often have more than one child.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

3. "You're in America now..."

"...abide by our laws or get the heck out." Isn't that the way it goes?

What I don't understand: Why were 400+ children taken into protective custody because of one accusation? Shouldn't an investigation be underway before you further traumatize the victims?

[uppityperson]

5. when law enforcement sees child welfare issue, they must act.

They saw child welfare issues so acted.

Another example, more commonly found: If police visit a home because they have been called (even falsely) and told something they need to investigate, and notice 1 child with whip marks and massive bruises all over body, they will remove all the kids while they check and see what is going on.

[Wizard777]

77. The ninth amendment prevents CPS from using their right to investigate to deny or disparage

the rights of the "people." Rights such as due process. The ninth amendment prevents the concept of a greater right. People cannot be equal if their rights are not. Since this is part of the bill of rights. It also protects the people from a government that may feel they have a greater right. A principle of democracy is majority rule. But by the ninth. Not when that majority conspires (acts together)to deny or disparage rights of the individual.

[uppityperson]

Try this part of the law

http://patterico.com/2008/04/18/answers-to-texas-family-law-questions/

1. What is the state agency that has removed the children?

Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS)

2. What gave the Department the right to remove the children from the compound?

The Texas Family Code provides that DFPS can remove a child when it can show there is an immediate danger to the health or safety of a child or a child has been a victim of neglect or abuse and the continuation in the home would be contrary to a child’s welfare.

3. How can DFPS remove all of the children based upon the allegations of one child?

All children in a household may be removed if any child in that household has been a victim of neglect or abuse by a person in the household. (more)

[LisaL]

92. If they consider this whole compound as one household, should

they then keep all the children together rather than sending them to different sites as they plan to do?

[uppityperson]

98. What defines "mother"?

[Beaverhausen]

6. Google "Warren Jeffs" - then get back to me

they have been investigating this sect.

[kestrel91316]

24. The original phone call got them through the gate, that's all.

Once they were in there and saw with their own eyes at least 18 minor children obviously pregnant, that constituted prima facie evidence of child rape, from what I've gleaned from news reports (not bloggers' opinions). Then they went back for a SECOND search warrant, found more evidence of abuse, and went back for a third warrant, which uncovered even more abuse. That's how it works.

The children were taken into custody because of obvious evidence of a pervasive, systematic culture centered around child sexual abuse and physical abuse.

The investigation is proceeding. It's not a TV show. It won't all get resolved in a one-hour episode, like some people seem to expect. Child abuse and child custody processes are going on, in spite of the monumental task this presents. A very basic preliminary hearing about the evidence of abuse has been held, en masse due to a time constraint. Now the children each get their own case, their own individual hearings, etc.

This has all been in the newspapers. Salt Lake Tribune has had the best, most comprehensive coverage of one source that I have seen.
http://www.sltrib.com//ci_8989852?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com
The two journalists who wrote that article have been covering the story day by day. You can do a search for the stories at the top by entering "flds".

[roguevalley]

116. because in an imminent danger situation they have to. They don't

have the legal authority to make decisions about who to take and who not to. It is also logical to assume in a taliban city like this that if it is happening to one set of kids, it is happening to most or all. The law doesn't allow the enforcement teams to choose. They went in good faith on the information they had so the phone calls aren't relevant to the situation. As for trauma, living in a swill pit where you are forbidden even to smile is trauma. Getting out and having a chance to be able to be human is less so and they will be getting help as well. Those mothers that are talking can't even cry. they touch their eyes and they paused, they show small amounts of pain in their expression but they don't cry. they don't know how. they AREN'T ALLOWED. Good for texas for what they did. You should listen to the reporters and the investigator that have tried to figure this out and get help for years for these people. The families looking for their members who are not a part of this. There are graveyards full of dead children there. Someone wrote that they beat babies until they stop crying and hold them under faucets. They do this to 'break' them. These 'men' need to be hung by their balls.

[LisaL]

7. Native americans were not fundamentalists. Just different.

Australians used to remove aboriginal children from their parents.
Now they think that was a mistake.

[uppityperson]

8. I'm not saying NA were fundamentalists, but many kids, a generation, got removed from families.

Is that really what you got from what I wrote, that NA were fundamentalist? I suggest you re-read.

A generation of kids removed is the part that I find similar. Fears that FLDS will lose a generation of kids, and no, I do not think it is the same, but the fears are.

LDS I find more similar overall to Taliban.

[High Plains]

157. That already happened with the FLDS in 1953.

When Arizona and Utah authorities seized hundreds of their kids. How'd that work out? Oh, yeah, most of them ended up going back home. And they learned to fear and loathe the state.

[senaca]

158. Perhaps looking when the LDS converted from polygamy might lend answers.

I'm not talking about the methods used to get them to give up polygamy. The LDS did not lose it's primary culture/religion. How did the leader's of the church convince their large body of followers to give it up without the main being splintered? Maybe an answer may lie in asking the head of the LDS, maybe behind the scenes to step in and help redirect the women and children as part of the process,so that the the cycle of marrying children "spiritually" to older men can stop. Bring them back into the fold of the LDS. Maybe it's not an option, and it's too polyanna of an idea given the situation.

[uppityperson]

159. I wonder how much the regular LDS is involved.

Seems that most any group gets its Fundamentalists who restrict more and more and sometimes go off on their own. I assume the regular LDS has been involved, but, like other Fundamentalist offspring, perhaps the FLDS may have gone too far?

Reading that the contact some of the women and kids have had now with outsiders is the first time they've ever done so makes me wonder more.

[senaca]

164. LDS doesn't saction FLDS, but maybe could help in the end process.

I don't think anyone, but the heads of the LDS could help the women and children see that underage "spiritual marraige" is wrong and that Warren Jeffs is a false prophet. This would be incredibly hard but until it happens there will be more instances within the FLDS communities in which he heads. As I say it's probably a pie in the sky idea.

[Wizard777]

69. The Native Americans had a nature based value system.

[riderinthestorm]

9. These FLDS parents however are alleged to have committed criminal acts

Serious ones. All felonies. If the allegations are substantiated and the parents are convicted, yes their FLDS culture will be destroyed but that will be because of criminal behavior not because the state is trying to destroy Mormonism.

NA children were removed solely to destroy their culture, not because their parents were potential felons.

There's a difference and I can't see any parallels.

[LisaL]

10. You can't comprehend that laws by which native americans

lived by were different from the people who showed up and took their children away from them?

[uppityperson]

12. Misread so edit:Where does Rider say that?

Rider said cannot see parallels between removing kids TO DESTROY CULTURE and removing kids BECAUSE PARENTS WERE POTENTIAL FELONS.

[LisaL]

15. I have never said that native american cultures

and FLDS were the same.
So, don't put words into my mouth.
But as far as I understand it, at least in some tribes one man could have multiple wives.

[uppityperson]

19. I reread post #10. Off to edit #12, My reply to you...

Where did Rider say "You can't comprehend that laws by which native americans lived by were different from the people who showed up and took their children away from them?"

Rider said cannot see parallels between removing kids TO DESTROY CULTURE and removing kids BECAUSE PARENTS WERE POTENTIAL FELONS.

[LisaL]

25. There are people arguing that polygamy should be prosecuted.

Some native american tribes allowed multiple wives.
I don't know if polygamy is a felony or not, but if you live with your miltiple wives, and somebody else shows up who doesn't believe in having multiple wives and thinks it should be a crime, you can become a criminal.
Do you comprehend what I mean or not?

[uppityperson]

35. It is against the law here, now. So is statutory rape. If you don't like the laws, contact

your reps. Polygamy and statutory rape are illegal here now. Laws can be changed, but that is the law here now and as such, yes, should be prosecuted.

Just because somewhere at some time they may not have been, they are here and now.

If you want to change the law so they become legal, I suggest you contact your representatives.

[LisaL]

38. Well, I don't think native americans could have contacted their

reps if they didn't like the laws people who showed up in their country came up with.

[uppityperson]

45. Are you wanting to time travel back in time? Good luck with that.

I'm talking about here and now. Have no time, energy or enthusiasm to try to change the past. Good luck if you do.

[LisaL]

47. No, I don't want to travel back in time, but I don't want to repeat

mistakes done in the past.

[Wizard777]

73. Does the state have a compelling interest in prohibiting polygamy?

There are aspects of what is called morals law present in polygamy prohibition. passing moral laws is where the government treads upon the hallowed grounds of the church. Morality is the ability to or art of distinguishing good from evil. That immediately prompts the question of which bible do we use to enact these moral laws. If you legislatively require me to practice that moral code. Doesn't that require me to practice the State religion?

The Government does how ever have the ability to set an ethical code. Ethics is the ability to or art of distinguishing right from wrong. There are burden of proving the ethical code to be true and correct. That is done by scientific means. Not simply because God says so as it is with moral code. This where the health aspect of polygamy come into play. Such as consanguinity.

I'll also include this lil tid bid. A college once conducted a study to see if the Beach Boys claim of two girls for every boy was true. What they discovered was that it was more like 12 girls for every boy. When they figured in homosexuality and lesbianism. That reduced it to 6 girls for every boy. So what about the reproductive rights of those other 5 girls? Then you have more recent studies that indicate the Y chromosome is in danger. So that is not something that is really confined to polygamy. Even with monogamy the Y chromosome is in danger of being lost.

It is a complex issue indeed.

[uppityperson]

75. Moral "laws" are not just biblical. Are you seriously saying 6 times as many females as males?

Whew. Where did you pull that number from? And so we need polygamy because otherwise 5/6 females couldn't breed? The Y chromosome is in danger of being lost?

What. The. Fuck.?

[Wizard777]

81. Good and evil are concepts applied to divinity. Right and wrong are concepts applied to humanity.

It was a study I read back in the 80's done as a college project.

I was looking for the study and found good new for the Y chromosome. http://www.livescience.com/health/050901_ap_y_chromosome.html">This study says it's not going extinct.

But this merely forms theoretical pro and con positions.

[uppityperson]

83. So when I say "good dog" I'm acting as God?Proving you wrong "merely forms theoretical pro and con..

positions?

Maybe in your religion, but good, bad, evil apply to many things other than divinity. Are you using a random word generator?

[Occulus]

129. Bullshit n/t

[Richard Steele]

76. What's your compelling interest in continually defending these child-rapists?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[LanternWaste]

169. Can you cite the college study?

Can you cite the college study?

Additionally, your definition of Morality is wrong-- both in the Funk and Wagnell's sense and also in the sense of jurisprudence?

[treestar]

173. Depends. It could, because as long as there is no fault divorce

Family law issues would get overly complicated. How to determine what the marital property is and who should get alimony when - that could be very difficult to deal with.

If the state actually allowed plural marriage, it would have to deal with plural divorce.

It would also have to be gender neutral and allow women more than one husband. Then you have custody and parentage issues that could get very complex.

Polygamy just seems to be a practice that all societies had at the beginning, when everyone in the tribal group had to have a place, and in time to fall away as a practice. The Mormons don't even need it any more, because when they started, they had so many more women than men, it was the 19th century, and you have to give a place in society to those women.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Your lack of reading comprehension is showing.

You are so blinded.

NA children were taken to break the NA culture and society in order for the US to facilitate their land and resources thievery.

FLDS children are being taken to ensure that they are away from their alleged criminal parents while the case is investigated. This is not about breaking Mormon culture in order to perpetuate a big money grab.

[kestrel91316]

32. Our friend is rather desperately grasping at straws in an effort to

justify rampant child abuse. The justifications keep shifting, too.

[kestrel91316]

28. Last I heard, FLDS were subject to same laws of the US and the

individual states. You don't seriously mean to imply that they are magically exempt from those laws, do you?

Native Americans with their own NATIONS (which we invaded)..........FLDS...........I think most rational folks would see that comparison for the utter drivvel that it is.

[uppityperson]

14. A generation of kids removed is the part that I find similar. Fears that FLDS will lose a generation

A generation of kids removed is the part that I find similar. Fears that FLDS will lose a generation of kids, and no, I do not think it is the same since NA kids were removed to destroy the culture, but the fears or losing a generation are similar.

[riderinthestorm]

30. But see, I don't "fear" losing this generation of FLDS kids

not when their lifestyle looks to have been perpetuated on some pretty serious crimes.

In fact beyond the legalities and onto intangibles, I believe it's probably pretty imperative to break the cycle frankly. The children need to be educated, and they need to understand why that's important. They need to understand that the "outside world" isn't Satan and that living your life paranoid about anyone who is not FLDS isn't healthy etc. There are a whole host of issues that are tangential to this cult and "losing" this generation of FLDS kids "out" of this cult is a good thing imho.

In no way shape or form can I associate that kind of removal with the NA removals which were done for far more insidious and ugly reasons than trying to break religious brainwashing.

[uppityperson]

31. I don't fear that either, but can see how They might.

Removing NA was to break the culture, in my opinion to be able to grab the land and resources and break the culture and lives of those already here.

[SoCalDem]

41. FDLS needs to NOT exist.. lost generation or NOT

A cult that "thrives" due to welfare fraud, pedophilia, incest, banishment of male teenagers and subjugation of women has NO place here..

One can call ANYTHING a religion, but saying it does not necessarily make it so..

The women & children are the VICTIMS..

The men should be locked up..

Sign over the property & holdings to the women..hell..incorporate them if necessary.. turn those big ole white stone temples into schools.. Teach them how to live in THIS century..

The older women have probably had ENOUGH of men, and the younger ones are probably still able to have some of the damage un-done..

the only way to end it is to END it..

the men have to be removed from their "harems"..

[uppityperson]

49. I agree, was only saying the FEAR is the same, not allowing them to continue.

Taliban in America.

[Marrah_G]

136. .

:applause:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. I hate it that these children have been programmed to believe that sexual

abuse is part of the greater glory and that their mothers have little girl voices and vacant eyes. I don't know if the Constitution was violated in removing the children but I do hope that things can get sorted out and those children, I'm sure who are already psychologically damaged and emotionally damaged, go on to live better lives.

But as you pointed out -

I can see parallels between removing all the kids from this sect and what happened to parents of friend who were part of the "remove those pagan indians from their homes, send them off to boarding school or give them away" generation. I can see fears of what this may mean for people in the future, if the way you raise your children is not "typical" or accepted as being within "normal" guidelines, will They be able to take them away (again thinking of Taliban and the increasing fundamentalism of USA and our gvt)?

With some individual state laws being created with religious fervor (ie..the latest one where pregnant mothers must view sonograms before abortions), how soon will it be before Wiccan parents are deemed unfit or Hindus?

And what will happen when the state decides if you're a smoker, have a rottweiler dog, or perhaps go to McDonald's too often, that you are an abusive parent and come into your home and take away your children.

This is a very slippery slope.

I am so happy that at least for the time being that these children are safer, or at least I hope they are safer, but it makes me wonder in the future, how far the state will be able to go in regard to each of us as parents.

[riderinthestorm]

13. But these crimes aren't just associated with religion

Sorry but I don't buy this argument. The FLDS parents are alleged to have committed physical and sexual abuse, welfare fraud, child abandonment, and much more including perhaps even infanticide.

If prosecuting parents for committing these crimes is somehow leading us down some kind of "slippery slope" than I just think our priorities are fucked. It appears that some posters on DU are getting the religion angle mixed up. These people are alleged to have committed some really serious fucked up felonies. Keep your head screwed on straight - this is way beyond religion.

[uppityperson]

16. There is a difference and yes, this is way beyond religion.

Read post #4 for my fears on changing the laws of this country and allowing Fundamentalist behavior to become law. In that case, they could come for kids of those of us who do not agree with their abusive behavior.

[LisaL]

17. Most of these things aren't even been alleged by authorites, but

by DU members. It's absurd to claim infanticide is alleged, when from the testimony of the CPS worker and the shrink it came out that there were no signs of abuse against babies, any boys or pre-pubesent girls.
Jeez.

[uppityperson]

23. Which of these are only DU allegations?physical and sexual abuse, welfare fraud, child abandonment

I haven't read of infanticide, but which of those others are only DU allegations since I've read all those allegations by authorities in news articles?

[LisaL]

33. When did authorities allege that this particular sect (the one in

Texas, whose children were removed) engaged in welfare fraud? Or physical abuse of children and child abandoment?
What came out of the testimony is that there were no signs of abuse against babies, pre-pubescent girls or any boys.
What authorities allege against them is that they believed in teenage girls getting married.
Not that they killed their infants, beat the children up, waterboarded babies, or kicked children out on the street.

[uppityperson]

44. They kicked the boys out onto the street. Statutory raped the girls.

I think you need to read more news articles. Do a search on news for FLDS and start reading.

Here is 1 article to get you started, statutory rape:
http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/592943.html

Sect has kicked out some 2,000 teen boys
(clip)

Observers say the boys at the West Texas compound are believed to be favorites of Warren Jeffs, the so-called prophet of the FLDS even as he serves time in prison for arranging the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin....(more)

Here's another:http://www.redding.com/news/2008/apr/20/all-quiet-on-the-southwestern/

In recent years, sect members and their prophet, Warren Jeffs, were being investigated by authorities in the sister cities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., for allegedly marrying off girls as young as 13 to much older men with multiple wives. Women and girls who fled the sect -- and boys who'd been forced out or abandoned -- told stories of forced marriages, incest and abuse; some who left called the FLDS a destructive cult.

[LisaL]

46. Allegations against all of FLDS are not the allegations

about people at this particular ranch, whose children were removed.
The first link you provided even states that the boys in TX were not kicked on the street.
You can't blame people for what somebody else does.

[uppityperson]

53. Please take it to another thread rather than hijacking my thread about complexities.

I'm sure you can find one where the case itself is being discussed. thank you for your consideration.

[Wizard777]

95. In all fairness there are others doing that too.

The complexities can be discussed without ever mentioning the FLDS. If mention of the FLDS is allowed. The thread will lapse into the allegations.

[uppityperson]

96. True. As am I. Nothing fair here, and yes, continue.

waving my wand to allow you to continue

[Wizard777]

106. Well I think I have found a form to help reduce the complexities.

A metaphorical set of spectacles to view the complexities through. Help see the issues better. Currently known systems of order. That's the constitutional rights of children. I've started a thread on that. Please note the note if you go there.

[Marrah_G]

134. I was going to join in my friend, but....

I just can no longer stand reading the posts by a couple sick individuals that keep taking over these threads spewing their BS.

[riderinthestorm]

36. Referring to the alleged cemetery where children who were born deformed are buried

that's what I meant by the infanticide. Were they viable (even if deformed)? Were they boys (and thus not productive and eliminated)?

From the allegations, this cemetery exists and I'll go out on a limb and state that it's going to have some ugly secrets.

[LisaL]

39. Alleged cemetery that exists from the allegations? Whose allegations?

[riderinthestorm]

50. From former and ex members

You know what, you are deliberately, purposefully, willfully, determinedly trying to stay ignorant about the real facts of this case. For days now you have refused? ignored? skipped over? links and information that doesn't fit into your disgusting defense of the serious allegations that are being investigated. On this and many other threads, there are literally hundreds of links to the scope and nature and allegations of this case. Everytime anyone brings them to your attention you wander away and begin some other despicable tangent about it.

I'm not going to hijack this thread by uppityperson - whose point is something completely different - to go over the allegations again for you when it's increasingly clear that you are so completely unhinged that even your basic reading comprehension skills are now lacking.

[uppityperson]

54. Thank you rider. Trying to figure out how to deal with that here.

[kestrel91316]

42. So are you alleging that the women who have escaped from FLDS don't

actually exist? Are you alleging that the Lost Boys don't exist? That they have never told of any abuse? How about Bistline and his two books? He's a figment of our imaginations?

What about rape and child abandonment do you think is not abusive? And do you seriously expect waterboarding of infants and episodic food deprivation of girls to leave bruises?

These folks are expert abusers. They know how to physically abuse without leaving evidence, and they certainly know how to psychologically abuse.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. Please reread what I wrote. I never said that these crimes were just associated with religion

i said that these children were brainwashed into believing that it did. I also never said that prosecuting these parents were wrong. I never made a comment on it. If they committed the crimes that they allegedly committed, throw the whole frigging book at them!

When I talked about it being a slippery slope, I was commenting on the OPs statement, because it can open up a very new can of worms. Or in the case in the past, what was done with the children of Native Americans.

[Fumesucker]

26. If you smoke a joint after you put the kids to bed..

Rather than having a beer..

Does that make you an abusive parent?

Everyone on this board knows full well that pot is in no way any more harmful than alcohol.

And yet the state will take your freedom and your children for smoking a joint and will not do so for drinking a beer.

Many of our laws are irrational and the correct perception of this drives many people to conclude that all laws are hogwash.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. When my youngest son was about 7 years old, his teacher read a book

to the children about who do you know that you would sell. At the end of reading the story she asked the children, who would you sell. My son said, my Dad because he hit me.
Well, I got a call from CPS and they investigated my son's father (we were divorced). It turned out that my son had done something dangerous (I forget what) and his father swiped his tush. But my ex was on record for several years because of this.

I also had CPS called on me by a neighbor who had a grudge against my boyfriend. They made all sorts of allegations from leaving the children alone to that I drank and took drugs. I told the CPS worker to send me for a drug test right there and then. She couldn't but made an appointment for me the next morning. I tested negative for anything and I also was made to meet with a psychologist who did some work for the county. After meeting with me, she couldn't understand why I was there in the first place.

Now if a child was truly being abused, please help that child and family, and in the worse case, remove the child, but we are a dealing with an imperfect system that can easily target normal families too.

[LisaL]

43. Happens all the time.

[Fumesucker]

51. Thank you for fleshing out my point..

If you had tested positive for marijuana, we all know that your children would have been taken from you..

That's one of the reasons I get upset when I hear people applaud stupid laws, like the one the other day in Florida outlawing "truck nutz".. There were several people who dead seriously said they agreed with the law.

[LanternWaste]

147. Not in TX...

"If you had tested positive for marijuana, we all know that your children would have been taken from you.."

Not in TX-- I was a CPS Caseworker for a number of years in the nineties and your statement, in and of itself is simply false.

Testing positive for Marijuana, and not directly or indirectly tied into any abusive behavior (smoking it in front of the children, allowing the children to smoke it, etc) , is not sufficient grounds for removal of a child.

[Wizard777]

64. Not to mention that the laws against it were passed by what we now call terrorism.

By Harry J. Anslingers own admission. He was perplexed by how he was going to make America afraid of a plant that commonly grew up and down the banks of the Potomac river. When you use that fear and it tools such as hysteria and panic to create political change. As Anslinger did. We now call that terrorism.

[Fumesucker]

132. Even the name "marijuana" was stolen from Mexicans..

Because Americans knew what cannabis was and were not scared of it..

[kestrel91316]

34. I am confident that Wiccans and Hindus and such will be safe

as long as they refrain from allowing their daughters to all be systematically raped and enslaved. JMHO.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. Uppityperson quite aptly put it I think in response #4 that with

a push in our country towards fundamentalism, you never know what will be considered the norm.

[kestrel91316]

48. The aggressive behavior of the FLDS apologists here

(and on other forums I visit) has me GRAVELY concerned about this nation's future. I believe FLDS to be potentially extremely violent toward those who disagree with them. Remember, these folks are the direct philosophical descendents of the early Mormons who practiced "blood atonement" with vigor. Jon Krakauer covered one such murder in Under the Banner of Heaven.

They also are the embodiment of Dominionism and fully support theocracy - they isolate themselves to have their theocratic fiefdoms when they can't actually take over the local government like they did in Short Creek.

[uppityperson]

52. Taliban in USA.

I have a hard time being open minded about close mindedness that includes really nasty shit, like FLDS. Have you ever read Sheri Tepper's book "Raising the Stones"? It is about a world segregated into different societies. The men in the society like this try to take over and eventually get sent to a place where they can live, sort of. It is a cautionary tale and it really upsets me that we have to work to make it not be true.

[kestrel91316]

58. I haven't read that one, but she also wrote The Gate To Women's Country

which is excellent. Covert women-led program to selectively breed out violent tendencies in men, as a response to nuclear holocaust. GREAT book.

Frankly, I think these freaks have got ahold of The Handmaid's Tale and are using it as their playbook. And to think I used to believe the things she wrote about couldn't possibly ever happen here, and now........

I am no longer so certain.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

55. There was an excellent program on PBS about the history of the Mormons

and I was shocked to read about a particular episode of violence in their history. It was called the Mountain Meadow Massacre. The date was September 11, 1857. They slaughtered a huge group of pioneers who were making their way west from Arkansas to California.

I actually am very concerned as to why the FLDS received a $1.7 million dollar defense contract from our government and who in our government promoted them for it.

On edit.. Spiritually I believe that "things" created with negative or violent energy, continue to keep that energy until there is a conscious effort to stop it. Not too different to the violent history of our country. We are one of the most violent countries on this planet.

[kestrel91316]

60. OSO, I am a descendent of this man:

William Adams Hickman, Chief of the Danites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Wild_Bill%22_Hickman

.......as are a couple million other folks, I suspect, lol. He had ten wives - I am descended from the first wife. He was head of the, ahem, "enforcement" arm of the early Mormon Church. Today they try to deny the Danites even existed, but I just ROFLMAO at that. My grandfather had personal discussions of his deeds with WAH's daughter, who was his grandmother.

In researching him in various published books and articles of the day, I have put together evidence (timeline and confirmed location and direction of travel, possession of property belonging to the pioneers, etc) that he and his men were definitely involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre and may in fact have been THE perpetrators. How d'ya like THEM apples??

The guy that took the fall for MMM and was executed probably got in the way of Brigham Young or somebody powerful and so they punished him by pointing the finger of blame at him - I think his name was Hamblin.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

78. Wow! Actually, if you click on John D. Lee, the person who baptised your descendent Hickman, you'll

find he was the person executed for the Massacre. Another WOW!

Being a NYer, I have only known one Mormon in my life, who I met through the Internet. She lives in Chicago. She left the church just before they were going to excommunicate her. She is a real psychic medium and they were going to excommunicate her for being a witch. :) Her family were converted to Mormonism back in the 1950s. Her Mom is Filipino and her Dad was a GI.

There is so much history of our country most people don't know, myself included, and your link to wikipedia and your grandfather opened my field of knowledge a little more. Thank you!

The other night I heard of another horrible chapter in our history. It took place in California. Redick McKee a U.S. Federal Indian Agent led a treaty expedition to the Shasta people. Shasta and Wintu oral historians tell of hundreds of Indians being deliberately poisoned by the army at a banquet in November 1851 after signing the peace treaty. As I said, a nation founded on violence...

:hi:

[kestrel91316]

82. Well, actually, Bill Hickman was my g-g-g-grandfather, lol.

I'm only 51..........

I didn't realize the guy who baptized him was the guy they fingered.......wow.......there has got to be something to that. There are no coincidences.......

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. My g-g-g-grandfather was just a virgin to the US then. He was a German Jew and got

his citizenship fighting in the Civil War.

And no, there are no coincidences. :)

[kestrel91316]

89. Funny thing when you go looking into family histories (totally OT, BTW) -

My BIL, who we tend to think of as totally Irish-German catholic heritage, to match up nicely with my sister's totally WASP heritage (lol, stereotypically middle-class, too), turns out to have a Geman Jewish great-grandfather. Came to the US with his parents as a little boy in the mid or late 1800s and they died, leaving him to be adopted by a catholic aunt in Indiana. I would like to find his adoption records for my BIL some day, but that's about as likely as me getting rich doctoring kitties......

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

138. Doctoring kitties???

My kitties are sending you a :hug:

[kestrel91316]

144. Some cuties you got there......

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

146. Thanks!

My family couldn't be owned by a more interesting trio! :)

[kestrel91316]

148. I'm a kitty bigamist myself. Got two at home and two at the office.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

179. My office

is in my home and I love it when a kitty or three hangs out with me when I'm working. I recently reorganized it to make it more kitty friendly.

BTW...have your two from at home, or the two from your office, ever find out you were cheating on them???

:rofl:

[kestrel91316]

180. Of the two at home, one was a patient of mine that got donated.

The other was a foundling that got donated and spent 8 years as office mascot before going home.

Everybody smells everybody else on my clothes. They are used to each other in that way.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

182. They are lucky to have you.

My first two in the pic, Amy and Charlie were adopted from rescue organizations. My black kitty, Jack found his way to my doorstep 6 months ago at 5AM. He was sitting there meowing. My younger son and I just happened to be awake, gave him some food outside. He ate, and didn't leave. We took him in and searched for his people but no one ever claimed him. According to our vet, he was between 4 and 5 years. It took over 5 months for him to get used to his new name, but otherwise, he settled in and is a very happy boy. I have a feeling that he was deserted, but who ever he was with before was thoughtful enough to have him neutered.

lol! One day, when I am much older and all gray, I'll probably be one of those old eccentric ladies found dead amongst her cats. ;)

[Chovexani]

122. Uh, no.

Wiccans and other Pagans in the US have repeatedly had children taken away by the state for no damn reason other than being Pagan. I've seen it happen over and over again. Scenario one: Mom and Dad are Pagan, Grandma and Grandpa are bible-thumping fundie Christians and the grandparents spin spurious SRA bullshit about the parents' religion, saying it harms the child. Depending on the locality they're successful in getting the kid taken away. Scenario two: a nosy neighbor peeks over the fence and witnesses a Wiccan ritual, doesn't know wtf it's about and starts freaking out because they've seen too many bad horror movies. CPS is called. An overzealous fundie social worker sees "Satanic" materials in the home and goes ape. Kids are taken away. I can go on and on, but all you really need to do is look on Google and you'll find dozens of cases like that. Or #3, the most common one: Pagan couple splits up because the ex finds Jesus, and talks a lot of shit about "cultic rituals" and the like to paint the Pagan as a bad parent. More often than not, they're believed, and they get full custody. I've personally seen all three of these scenarios play out, and not all of them ended well.

Stuff like this happens less now than it used to, but with enough frequency that it's still a very real fear, especially in the Bible Belt.

[kestrel91316]

127. You are right. Thank you for pointing that out.

Being a non-practicing closeted neopagan ecofeminist with anabaptist leanings, I should have remembered about cases like that I have heard of.....

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

133. I forgot all about this! A very good customer of mine is Pagan, was married but came out of the

closet. Then his wife was killed in a car accident. His children's fundy maternal grandparents sued for custody and they won because he's Pagan and also gay. He gets to see his girls infrequently and it's heartbreaking because they all love each other so much.

[Marrah_G]

140. As a Wiccan I have had DSS in my house and they inquired about my religion

Fortunately the worker was a very cool young man and he quickly realized there was nothing to worry about.

With that said, if I knew of a Pagan group doing the things that FLDS is doing I would be the first one to alert the authorities.

Religion is not an excuse for violating human rights.

It's not okay for the Taliban and it is not okay for Warren Jeffs.

[Chovexani]

160. I agree

We aren't immune to this kind of thing. Every once in a while you hear about some pedo fruitcake who convinces a bunch of teenage girls that the only way to be a "real Witch" is through initiation of the wang. And there's the Frosts and that one nagging passage in their Witches Bible that they never seem to denounce (while I question the motives of AJ Drew in stirring that particular cauldron, and the way he went about it, it is something that needs to be addressed and they've never done it to my satisfaction--but then they've had zero credibility with most people like, forever).

Fortunately those nuts are few and far between, and they are decidedly fringe--we handle business when we find this stuff out. I have to say, I may have a lot of issues with the Pagan community but I'm pretty proud of us on this point. In Pagan polyamory you never see abuse like this FLDS Taliban nonsense. I think it's because we're just not patriarchal and authoritarian like that. We're about freedom and choice. I find spiritual fulfillment in my little triad but it's by no means required. And the three of us are consenting adults.

My only issue in these threads so far is that you've got a handful of people (by no means everyone, or even most) who are so ruled by their visceral squick about multi-partner relationships that they'll make broad statements such as "polygamy is always abusive". The problem with that view is that "polygamy" has, over time, come to be defined as just one very narrow interpretation of it: this Taliban-style polygyny. Polyamory, as practiced by Pagans and others, is something entirely different than that and has nothing to do with child/spousal abuse, "bleeding the Beast" or any of that nonsense. I've seen people using the terms polygamy and polyamory interchangeably and they just are not the same thing.

It's a sore point for me because while I'm not parading my relationships around, most people I work with know that I'm poly (I have pictures of my BF and my GF on my desk), and I've had to field some pretty insulting questions in the last few days due to the media coverage of this raid. I'm sure that most people can tell the difference, but I'm not so sure when reading some of these threads.

[Marrah_G]

162. Ewwwwww you said the "F" word............

(I cannot stand the Frosts- bunch of con artists)

I agree I have friends in polyarmourous relationships also. Some have worked, others have not. They are very different from the sort of cult enslavement we see in the FLDS.

And Poly-pagans.... hehe... I would love to see someone ordering around an HPS.

[Chovexani]

175. LOL I'm sorry

I'll go wash my mouth out with soap. :evilgrin: Con artists ain't the half of it.

(And LOL at the idea of somebody ordering around an HPS making her wear prairie garb. Hope they've got 911 on speed dial)

[kestrel91316]

181. If FLDS wants to stay within the law in all things (no sexual abuse of minors,

no physical abuse of anybody, no child abandonment, no welfare fraud, etc) then I don't give a damn HOW many wives or husbands or tribbles they have.

They should have just kept their hands off the kids. And to think they thought they could get away with this in TX - don't they realize TX is a bunch of fundie BAPTISTS who HATE Mormons?????

Can we take up a donation and buy those fools a clue or three??

[Chovexani]

185. I think at this point they need a Clue Bat

:puke:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

139. Please see my post #133. I forgot all about it until last night.

I'm 56 and it seems that sometimes my memory needs more like a good shaking lately than just a jogging to remember things. It's brutal.

[lukasahero]

145. Thank you

I couldn't figure out how to say that politely. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. I have Choctaw friends who were sent to those schools

and Cherokees who were persecuted merely because of their race--in the Cherokee instance, it had NOTHING to do with religion, as they had been Christian for generations.

The Native American religions are not like the FLDS church in that there is no child abuse, spousal abuse, and no ceremony is required, at least the ones I know a bit about and in which I have participated. So the analogy is not apt.

That being said, if it were Native Americans or other minorities in the US who were doing what the FLDS Church was doing, they would have been shut down immediately. In the case of Native Americans, there was a great deal of racism involved in what happened to them. The US was involved in using religion as an excuse for destroying Native American culture. Government can use religion for its own nefarious means as well as so-called "religious groups".

[uppityperson]

29. The only similarity is the FEAR of LOSING A GENERATION of kids.

Not yelling at you but am hoping to be able to have it read by others.

The similarity is the fear of losing a generation, NOT any societal beliefs and I did NOT intend to make that point. I apologize if I did as that was not meant.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

56. Ok, I understand now

I misinterpreted your comments about Native Americans.

But how bad is it to lose a generation of kids -- to lose all membership, for that matter -- of a group that is abusing children and breaking laws? Isn't it better to remove kids from that situation so that they can grow up in a healthy environment rather than allowing a harmful environment to perpetuate? Would you feel sympathy for a family with no religious affiliation but with generations of sexual and child abuse who bemoan the loss of custody of children because the facts finally come to light? Because this is ALL about abuse, really, and not religion.

Another example: There are Dominionist Churches around where I live. They teach that only whites are the Chosen People and that the "mud people" are bad. However, they don't abuse their kids and don't advocate going out and killing minorities. So even though I find their beliefs totally repugnant, I feel they are protected by the First Amendment. If, however, they decided to abuse their children or start fire-bombing the few black families who live in the area, I'd want them persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[uppityperson]

57. I agree with you.

So long as people aren't getting hurt, they can do whatever. Abusing kids, harming others, etc, then no. "mud people"? Found this (Ross Institute for study of destructive cults, controversial groups and movements) http://www.rickross.com/reference/christian_identity/christianidentity10.html

[Marrah_G]

135. I wouldn't consider is losing a generation of kids

I would think of it more like freeing the slaves.

[horseshoecrab]

143. Great analogy Marrah_G

The children (How many more children on this continent?) are all part of this bizarre scheme to mate older white men with incredibly young, underage white females, using techniques of mind control. That does indeed amount to a form of slavery.

If we look back at one of the earliest comments coming out of all the confusion when the authorities in Texas first took the children and their mothers out: When they were given crayons and paper to use, both the children and the mothers had no idea of what to do with them.

This is a pretty telling sign that it's not just this generation of children who've been under mind control and lack of normal everyday learning and stimulation, but their mothers as well. Who knows -- perhaps the children's grandmothers have been victimized as well. I hope the investigation in progress will reveal more about that.

Freeing the slaves is a great analogy!


horseshoecrab

[Greyhound]

21. No, in this case it is simple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3163212">Infanticide, rape, physical abuse, child abandonment, incest...

It is only complicated by those that would muddy the waters to hide their own "sin".

[Iris]

59. Even within the framework of religoius freedom, I would think some things must stand. Minimum ages

for marriage, for one thing. You could also argue that genital mutilation is a cultural and religious practice, but in this country, we don't do that and, so, I would think that would be a practice that would best be stopped or at least postponed to a reasonable age of consent - say, 18. So, if a woman chooses to marry at 18 and fully submit to her husband and have 18 kids, then, I'd say that's acceptable as her choice. Same for an 18 year old woman who wants the women of her community to cut her clitoris out. But I'd say until the participants reach the age of 18, these practices should not be permitted.


That's not to say I'm exactly comfortable with an 18 year old who has been kept from "worldly" things making these decisions in a vacuum, but at least it could be argued she was old enough to make her own choice.

[LisaL]

63. Minimum ages for marriage are not even the same in different

states. In Texas you could legally marry at 14 (with parental permission) until 2005. Now they raised it to 16.
The same goes for the age of consent-it varies from state to state. So, what exactly is a "reasonable age of consent?"

[Wizard777]

65. Should age of concent be legislated by the federal government to end the disparity?

[kestrel91316]

88. I think we could both agree that falls under states' rights. Pity.

Make it 18 and end this nonsense.

But you won't find me campaigning to make it a federal matter.....I think this case will wake up a lot of people in a lot of states and those that allow marriage under about 17 are gonna change.

Hell, I don't think most people are mature enough to marry until about 25......

[Iris]

71. I don't know. But you obviously have all the answers, so why not tell us?

[LisaL]

93. I would make it 18, but then teenagers would just ignore it, just

like they do now.

[uppityperson]

97. You do know that the reason for min age is to protect the child who is less mature, don't you?

The issue of legal age and statutory rape is to protect those who need protecting. It is to stop people from preying on the young. There are laws protecting the young and the old who are less able to protect themselves.

And to prosecute those who break the law, not the underage person.

[LisaL]

100. And what does that have to do with the fact that different states

have different ages of consent, and marriage? Is someone in one state at 17 going to be more mature than someone in another state at 17? And how is it possible for the marriage age (albeit with parents permission) to be legally younger than the age someone can consent to sex (in the same state)?

[uppityperson]

102. That info had to do with your statement that teens would ignore it anyway.

Just making sure you know who is supposed to be protected, and who gets prosecuted if it happens.

Now, about different ages of consent and marriage. It is states rights as of now, vs federal law. I think the thinking is that states consider their young people mature enough at different times (rather like in the early 70's you could drink alcohol at different ages in different states, now federally uniform age of 21). Some states consider (picking numbers out of the air since I'm tired of looking it up) 14 to be mature enough, where another will consider maturity to happen at age 16. There are also differences (some places) in consent and marriage between males and females, again protecting those who may suffer the most (usually females' consent is older, am thinking because they are the ones that get pregnant).

Yes, some states a person can get married, with parental permission, at an age younger than otherwise would be age of sexual consent. Perhaps the thinking is that by parents giving permission, they are saying that the young person is mature enough.

[Wizard777]

67. I think Congress needs make a Constitutional amendment that makes the Constitutional rights.......

of children more clear. Currently under the constitution children's rights are not absolute. It's a privilege we extend to them. A privilege may be revoked at any time for any reason. Like it or not and no has yet to disprove it. Because children's rights are not specifically addressed by the Constitution. Justices trying to interpret those right will have to refer back to English Common Law that states they are chattel AKA the property of their parents. An amendment concerning the rights of children would allow the justices to stop using English Common Law.

[Iris]

72. Probably not a bad idea.

In thinking about this more, I think my main concern is that in allowing parents to make certain decisions before the age of 18, we are essentially violating the civil rights of the adult that child will become - basically taking away their freedoms by allowing someone else to remove all paths to freedom to make their own lives, whatever that looks like.

[Wizard777]

90. My parents afforded me freedom of religion as a child.

They left it up to me choose my religion. If I even wanted a religion. This did not deprive me of spirituality. I still believed in God. I still felt close to God. But what this allowed me to do. Is form my beliefs as to who or what God is and is not. Then decide which of the many belief systems best fit those beliefs. This provided me with a sense of responsibility I took very seriously. As a result I have studied all the worlds religions through out time. Finial I decided upon Mazdaism AKA Zoroastrianism. This was because the Navjote (nativity/initiation ceremony)there is a ritual called the Ahu Vata in which you choose to follow Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord.)We have a 12,000 year tradition of religious tolerance of respecting the religious belief of others. In fact the first amendment concept of freedom of religion comes from my religion. As evidenced by Jefferson copies of the Cyropaedia (the education of Cyrus ) by Xenophon. It was required reading for statesmen of that day.

[uppityperson]

94. I want to double check what you just wrote.

Are you saying that allowing parents to parent or to guide a child, violates that (child who some day will be an adult)'s civil rights to become whatever they want?

So telling my kid "no" is a civil rights violation and kids should be able to make every decision on their own because otherwise we're taking away their freedoms?

That's what I think you are saying, but can't believe you are saying that, so please clarify for me. Thanks.

[Iris]

163. I'm saying that if a parent parents his child in a way that makes him or her unable to function in

the real world as an adult, then, yes, someone should step in for the sake of the adult the child will become.

I don't think it's so out there to suggest that irrevocable decisions about a person's life should be left until a time when that person is at least somewhat capable of making them for herself or himself.

[uppityperson]

165. Thank you for the clarification.

That makes much more sense. In dealing with this the last few days I'm finding clarification often helps, esp with posters whom I consider have some sense. Thanks.

[Iris]

166. If I weren't so flabbergasted by the tone this place has taken lately,

I might have been more clear. I should have used an analogy like if parents decided it was against their religion to teach their kids to read, the larger part of society would have to step in because not only does that kind of thing affect the kid and his future, but it also affects the rest of us in the long run.

[horseshoecrab]

84. Texas Statutes

Disagree on the concept of children needing a constitutional amendment.

There's no need to go by Common Law when there are Statutes. All states have statutes relating to the protection of children. These statutes and codes which have been legislated by the people's elected representatives supersede any body of Common Law.

Texas has its Child Protection statutes here:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000261.00.htm

Also, care of children is not a privilege which we extend to them. It is the child's right to NOT be abused, and the parents' (or guardian's) legal duty to not abuse or neglect their child, in every state in this country. The (state's) justices need only consult the state's statutes and codes.


horseshoecrab

[Wizard777]

91. That's SCOT. But SCOTUS will go to English Common Law.

[horseshoecrab]

99. Do you actually think that...

the Supreme Court of the United States is going to overrule statutes made by a state's legislature in favor of "English Common Law" which, you contend, sees women and children as property?

Serious question, because I don't buy it.

Children are protected under the law and they are being protected now in Texas.

I'll be amazed if this ever gets to the Supreme Court of the United States. In any case, the matters are being investigated by authorities under Texas statutes.

horseshoecrab

[Richard Steele]

105. Utter nonsense.

[LanternWaste]

154. Can you cite a federal child custody case in the last twenty years

Can you cite a federal child custody case in the last twenty years in which modern jurisprudence was considered insufficient and the jurist based his decision on English Common Law?

[Richard Steele]

167. Of course he can't; he's just baiting us with that stupid crap.

That's some wackjob nonsense he's dragging in from
some far-right-fringe website. It's complete hogwash;
he spent two days saying it but never once provided
anything to back it up.

[uppityperson]

170. Oh you're just saying that 'cause you have a Y chromosome and are going extinct.

Don't worry, we'll love you even when your Y goes away.

[Wizard777]

61. Thank you for trying to turn this into a civil and scholarly discussion.

:yourock:

[uppityperson]

66. This is different topic, about complexities, NOT allegations.

If someone wants to talk about that, there are other topics. Thank you for your consideration.

[Wizard777]

68. The complexities is exactly what I was trying to discuss in the other threads.

Your not going to wiggle out of this complement. I won't allow it. LOL

[electron_blue]

70. In my mind, religious folks are already given too much rope in the name of

'benefit of the doubt' with regard to religious freedom. I don't think we need to try harder to be open minded to this group - they have already gotten way too much benefit of the doubt over the years which led to this travesty.

[uppityperson]

74. No benefit of the doubt, just attempting to say it is complex and will take time to fix.

[Wizard777]

101. Competing parallel concepts.

The forefathers were concerned with preventing government from using a persons short time upon this earth to condemn them to hell in the after life.

Now we are concerned with try to preventing religion from using a persons short time in childhood to condemn them to criminality in adulthood.

So should we not give the benefit of the doubt to the new concept of childrens rights and the freedoms they provide? How do you propose to keep the concept of childrens rights from getting out hand? As some would say children of today have.

[uppityperson]

104. Most of us are concerned with condemning children to abuse.

Do you think childrens rights have gotten out hand?

[Wizard777]

113. I'm not really sure.

:dilemma:

Back in the 60's and 70's when all this was coming to fruition. I supported the movement whole heartedly. Some parents were legitimately going way too far in disciplining kids. We had our heads full of all kinds of notions of human rights. Now when I pick up the papers and read stories about kids beating up their teacher, each other, and shooting up the school. They aren't ashamed of this or even try to hide it. In fact they now put it on display. I honestly have to wonder if we didn't go too far. Now they don't allow principals to spank kids to deter behaviors that could lead up to a kid shooting up a school. But when the kids shows up with the gun and starts shooting. We will allow the police to put a bullet in the kid. I cannot see the wisdom in this.

[kestrel91316]

79. Link to blog which has a nice summary of TX family law

as it pertains to this case:
http://patterico.com/2008/04/18/answers-to-texas-family-law-questions/

[horseshoecrab]

85. thank you n/t

[uppityperson]

86. Thanks, that gives some answers to questions, in a clear manner too. nt

[kestrel91316]

80. Delete - dupe

How the hell did THAT happen????

[pitohui]

107. you know what, it IS that simple

i didn't give a good goddamn what anybody's god says, guess what, almost everyone's god and EVERYONE'S holy book says women are shit and not the equals of men

it is time to put the holy books away, time to make it illegal to bring religion into public life (along the lines of france) and time to say --

if you are fucking 13 year olds and sticking babies in them and then refusing them child support and forcing them to get welfare from the taxpayer, you need to go to prison for a very long long long fucking time

some things really are that simple

getting 13 year olds pregnant for profit, yeah, it's simple

your "religion" should end where the moment it encroaches on my rights as a girl and as a woman

you would not tolerate a "religion" that pimped out young black boys at age 13 for the profit of their owners

this is only considered a religious issue because it's girls and females are STILL not considered the equals of males -- if you really believed females were equals you couldn't have any doubts about the rights and wrongs of the matter

DNA test every gee-dee one of them, and every man must pay back all the money collected in welfare for his kids plus, if he got an underage girl pregnant to create that kid, he needs to do the prison time, pretty damn simple, next question?

[uppityperson]

108. There is also talk of prosecuting the mothers of the young pg females

Simply put, if there is abuse, religion is not a defense.

[LisaL]

109. What would you prosecute the mothers for?

For allowing it to happen? But if you prosecute them, then should the mothers of the regular young pregnant teen girls be prosecuted? After all, if you allow your teenager to date, you also might be allowing it to happen.

[Breeze54]

110. Raping and offering your child to be raped is not the same as dating...

as you full well know, oh, "stupid on purpose one".

[uppityperson]

111. I am not prosecuting anyone.

[LisaL]

112. Authorities, then.

Some mothers allow the daughter's boyfriend to move in, or the daughter to move in with her boyfriend. I've never heard about these women being prosecuted.

[uppityperson]

114. Here is the article I read.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0421/p01s02-usju.html?page=2

(clip) The DNA tests will not only identify fathers, but mothers as well. And if those mothers were found to willingly turn over their underage daughters for such marriages, they could be charged as complicit to statutory rape, experts say.

"As long as the women were conspiring in the child sex abuse, knowingly allowing these underage marriages, all of them are capable of being indicted," says Marci Hamilton, an expert on church-state issues at Cardoza Law School in New York and author of the recently released "Justice Denied: What America Must Do To Protect Its Children."

As of now, no criminal charges have been filed in this case. That could be, experts say, because the children haven't identified their parents – some young children believe all the so-called sister wives are their mothers – and the women are being evasive in the answers they provide, according to the Child Protective Services workers' testimony. That may change once the DNA tests are completed.

"I suppose what they're hoping to do in part is identify the guys who impregnated these girls and prosecute them for statutory rape," says Ira Ellman, an expert on family law at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law in Tempe. "The adult women who cooperated in supplying these underage girls who were impregnated could have a criminal liability, too." (clip)

[LisaL]

120. This is all very interesting.

If authorities are planning to charge these mothers, should they also go after the mothers of regular pregnant teenagers, if those mothers knew the teenager was having sex? What about mothers who put their under-aged daughters on birth control? That kind of action on DU would be considered responsible, but wouldn't that qualify as child abuse, if the daughter is below the age of consent? By the way if two teenagers below age of consent are having sex, then it ain't consensual under the law, since they are considered to be incapable of giving consent.
So, that shouldn't be an excuse to give an under-aged teenager birth control, should it be?

[uppityperson]

123. There is a difference between knowledge and conspiring.

There is a difference between knowledge and conspiring. That argument doesn't hold water.

So, I'll put you on the "don't prosecute anyone unless you prosecute them all" list.

Are you saying under aged teens should not get birth control? (that is a question)

[LisaL]

125. Conspiring to what? As far as I understand it, the prophet is

the one who decides if someone should marry, not the mother.
What did these mothers conspired to?
As for birth control, why don't you answer first? Should teenagers under the age of consent be put on birth control?

[uppityperson]

126. I'm wondering if you actually read that article. Why don't you go do that as it may answer directly.

rather than asking me to quote the article, why don't you just go read it.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0421/p01s02-usju.html?page=2

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Breeze54]

131. Are the boyfriends 56 years old and balding and the daughters 13 yrs. old ?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

124. Looking like not.

[Kitty Herder]

117. GREAT post, pitohi!!! Gets right to the heart of the matter.

Can you imagine if this cult were systematically raping 14-year-old boys?!! No one would defend them.

[uppityperson]

118. You have more positive view of some posters than I do.

If there is abuse, religion is not a defense. My heart goes out to those who suffer due to Fundamentalist crap.

[Kitty Herder]

142. Wait, that was exactly the point of Pitohui's post, that religion does not excuse abuse.

That's what I was agreeing with. What is it that you disagree with?

[uppityperson]

153. I am not disagreeing with you, am agreeing about that part

I disagreed with this part of what you wrote: "No one would defend them." I think some posters would defend them. Not you. Not Pithoui.

[Kitty Herder]

174. Actually, you're probably right.

Some people here probably would defend them.

[yardwork]

156. I totally agree that we shouldn't tolerate the rape of children.

But I'm not sure that separating the children from their mothers and adopting them into brand-new families is the best solution, either.

[Iris]

176. It hasn't gone that far yet.

[Chovexani]

121. Good post.

I read "Under the Banner of Heaven" and the thing that struck me while I looked into this is the number of women who end up going back to these sects once they flee. That's how deeply this stuff is ingrained in them. There need to be more resources devoted to post-cult counseling and the like. I kept thinking about that while seeing the pictures of children being removed. How many will go right back?

And while I believe something has to be done where there is proven abuse, a part of me is worried that raids like these just fuel their apocalyptic craziness. There's got to be a better way, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

[Withywindle]

183. I find the isolation these women and children are kept in every bit as disturbing as the sexual abus

if not even more so.


I was thinking about your excellent post upthread about consenting-adult polyamory, and the huge difference. Absolutely. And then I look at these adult women, who have so little education and are deliberately kept so completely unworldly and ignorant and frightened of the outside world...

do they EVER get a chance to become what you or I would recognize as a "consenting adult"? Seems to me like an involvement with someone whose will is so utterly broken and doesn't even know what a crayon is would feel like a sort of psychological pedophilia even if the person was chronologically 40.

I think binding little girls' feet ancient Chinese style is definitely abusive, and binding their BRAINS is even worse by orders of magnitude.

I don't think "freedom of religion" should give anyone the right to stunt their children's intellectual growth so horribly. It's the same reason far-right Christian homeschoolers creep me out.

[uppityperson]

184. It reminds me of the Taliban and what they did in Afghanistan.

Seems that adults should be free to do whatever they want, with some making unhealthy choices and needing help at some point. (stupid choices in my opinion, but am being PC. I've made stupid choices myself also)

But when children start being hurt, I don't think it's right. Is freedom of religion a good enough excuse to stunt a child? Or is it a good enough excuse to allow a child to grow up wanting only the latest fashions, worshiping the almighty dollar? 2 different fundamentalist religions there, you notice?

It is difficult to know what laws to pass, how to enforce them as they can be used inappropriately as well as positively. People outside the "norm" can be targeted, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. And even the "norm" I disagree with, mindless sheep hoping to strike it rich by chance, rather than actually working for what they get, letting Big Daddy President handle Everything because it's too scary and complicated to understand. (that was rude, I know)

I've had a couple experiences with fundies sorts and kids. 1 stopped to tell me she was concerned about my kid for playing with Magic cards because of devil worship, etc. I thanked her politely and she went on. Another family (mom, dad, preteen, younger kid) on a ferry noticed I was reading a Harry Potter book and wanted to talk with me about it since they hadn't read any due to witchcraft/sorcery, but had seen the third movie and were confused. They said they were getting the books so they could read them but wanted to know my opinion (middle aged female stranger). We talked and I emphasized the Love and friendship aspects of the books, while talking about death being part of life and happening. They were glad to hear about it all.

So, both homeschooling fundie sorts, but very different people. I felt really sad for mom 1's kids, while the second family, while limiting in ways, at least stood a chance.

So, rambling on here, sorry. Yes, I agree that the isolation of the women and kids is very disturbing. Then look at Amish, and (oh dang what's the other group) that shun wordly things, yet function at least as well as other Religious peoples. You don't hurt people, you don't hurt things.

These guys hurt people, not just by sexual abuse, but by intellectual and psychological abuse. Freedom of Religion shouldn't give you the right to do that.

[LisaL]

By the way ACLU is concerned about violations of the rights of these children

and their mothers.
Which most of you seem to be unable to comprehend.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/20/polygamy.sect/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[uppityperson]

130. As I said in my OP, lots of issues going on with it.

My heart goes out to those who suffer due to Fundamentalist crap.

[ColbertWatcher]

137. All cults are the same...

...and they all need to be held to account for all their crap.

[Iris]

177. And we're supposed to agree with the ACLU all the time?

quite frankly, glad as I am that they are around, I don't always agree with them.

Yes, I see that there should be some concerns about removing children from their homes, but this case has extraordinary circumstances, including the possibility that some of those children are living with women who are NOT their mothers. So, I would say getting to the bottom of all of this is in the best interests of the child AND the state if welfare fraud is involved.

[uppityperson]

178. And there is another issue, what defines "mother"?

Biologic/genetic mother, or the one who raises a child? Or how about the situation where a whole bunch of women raise the children as a group of kids, a group of mothers? In those cases, does genetics take precedence or how do they decide which child gets to continue to live with which adult?

It is a mess to figure out, and complicated to decide what to do next with them.

[LisaL]

128. dupe

[yardwork]

155. I agree that this is a very complex issue.

The state of Texas is saying that they are going to put all these children in foster care and adopt them out. Their parents may never see them again. I'm very concerned about the abuse, but is separating them from the only world they've ever known the best solution?

I don't know. I see a lot of complex issues here - no simple answers.

[Marrah_G]

161. If that world is one of oppression and slavery it is worth it

[yardwork]

168. Maybe so. It just seems as if the kids are the ones suffering.

Why not leave the mothers with their children and make the men leave the compound? It seems like the children are suffering the loss of their homes and mothers, while the fathers get to stay in the compound and continue with their lives. The men will quickly replace their wives with new wives and just continue the cycle.

It seems to me that the cycle won't be broken until all the fathers with multiple wives and underage wives are thrown in prison for rape and bigamy.

[Marrah_G]

171. Easy- The mothers would simply take the kids to another compound or Colorado City

They are that brainwashed and that fearful of breathing without the expressed permission of warren jeffs and his cronies.

[treestar]

172. IA, this kind of thing triggers emotional reactions

Somewhat like the Elian Gonzalez matter. Everyone gets upset and can't see the issue.

Adults probably should have the freedom to live in a polygamous relationship if they choose to, but our society/laws do not allow for it. Then if they had that right, the children would necessarily grow up that way and think it was normal.

The laws regarding age for being eligible to marry should be followed, but there can be disagreement about what that age should be. The parental consent laws - and if the parents live in this life, they would consent - could mean 16 year old girls marry 30 year old men. To us, that's the Victorian era. But not everyone on this planet feels that way.