LN: LN says:
Oh that’s right — you didn’t call her parents or her teacher or FDLE liars. The only people you’re calling liars are those who accept their accounts.

He did nothing of the kind, and it would be absurd on its face to do so, given that they would by definition have no first hand knowledge. Gullible, perhaps, even dangerously so, but I did not see where he called them liars.

To be sure, there are legal risks in manager-subordinate sex, and a jury may be more likely to infer some implied threat in certain situations. But that’s far from certain. And in any event, it’s not correct to assert that employer-employee sex (even if the employer is the one is making the advances) is treated the same as adult-pre-age-of-consent-minor sex (which is a crime) or physician-patient sex (which is usually treated as a basis for professional discipline) or counselor-patient sex (which is usually treated as a basis for professional discipline and may be a basis for a tort law suit). Clergy-adult-parishioner sex is a whole other matter; my sense is that it is not the basis for any sort of governmental action unless it’s outright rape, or unless the clergy member is acting as a psychiatrist.

Steve2: The ancient Hebrews may well have had it right that 13’s adulthood. I tend to think it varies by person in the 14–16 range, myself, so average it out and draw the line at 15 I guess. As to my hypothetical daughter (I being 25 and childless), it would depend on the manner of the “persuasion”. If it’s a coercive form of persuasion, that’s a problem — you’ve no right to coerce her, and I’ve an obligation to interfere. If, though, she really wants to move into a frat house, I may have an obligation to explain to her why that’s an execrable idea, but no right to interfere — a 15/16/17 year-old-woman has the right (and the law should recognize that right) to ensconce herself in a frathouse bedroom as long as she likes. The frat’s got no right to keep her there if she doesn’t want to be, but I don’t see anyone else having a right to keep her out, and I look at trying to as being bad for the same reason the frat’s kidnapping would be.

Would coercion include repeated assertions that all Muslims believe absolutely that the required punishment for apostasy is death, that this absolute is known as “honor killing” and that it happens every day to converts in the United States? How about the deliberate conflation of the practice of reclaiming family honor in the case of sexual misconduct with that of killing a family convert in order to acquire great honor. What about providing a bus ticket and a ride to the bus station–would that count? or providing a specially decorated bedroom in a Florida ranch–clearly much nicer than the two-bedroom second-floor apartment of her parents–could that be tipping the balance? Or providing national coverage of her conversion story and video of her tearful assertion that her father is duty-bound to kill her. Might these things make it difficult to ever face her family again–even if they should prove to have no other conflict than the relative roles of Jesus and Mohammed in the revelation of God’s word?

There are good reasons why certain kinds of “consent” are considered null and void. The consent of a minor in almost all dealings with adults. The consent of an employee, a counselee, a parishioner, or a patient to the sexual advances of an employer, a counselor, a clergy-member, or a physician, respectively. These are cases in which the power-differentials must be accounted for. In the case of Rifqa, many of these come into play.

ArthurKirkland: At what age do you draw the line, Steve2?I gather you would not object were I to persuade your teenage daughter to leave your house, then drive her to my fraternity chapter’s house, and let the 36 current active brothers entertain her for a few weeks (I believe at least one of the lads would be generous enough to find a suitable spot in his room for her), and refrain from telling you where she is.And if the reason you are defending the child-hiding preacher is the religious angle, I am confident your daughter would be shouting “Oh God,” “Jesus Christ,” “Oh My God” and similar phrases frequently during her time at the house.If you don’t want to share your daughter’s address in a public comment, Steve, let me know so I can provide an e-mail address.If you reconsider your position and decide you do not think it would be a good idea for anyone to hide your daughter from you and the police, I will understand. The boys would be disappointed, though. Maybe your daughter would be, too.

The ancient Hebrews may well have had it right that 13′s adulthood. I tend to think it varies by person in the 14-16 range, myself, so average it out and draw the line at 15 I guess. As to my hypothetical daughter (I being 25 and childless), it would depend on the manner of the “persuasion”. If it’s a coercive form of persuasion, that’s a problem – you’ve no right to coerce her, and I’ve an obligation to interfere. If, though, she really wants to move into a frat house, I may have an obligation to explain to her why that’s an execrable idea, but no right to interfere – a 15/16/17 year-old-woman has the right (and the law should recognize that right) to ensconce herself in a frathouse bedroom as long as she likes. The frat’s got no right to keep her there if she doesn’t want to be, but I don’t see anyone else having a right to keep her out, and I look at trying to as being bad for the same reason the frat’s kidnapping would be.

Ricardo: The police, who are kind of experts in this sort of thing, concluded that Rifqa was not a credible witness because of inconsistencies like this.

Quote precisely where FDLE said Rifqa is not a credible witness.

As far as I know, all they said was they found no CLEAR evidence of a criminal activity that would SUPPORT her allegations. In other words no judgment of her credibility, only a report of a lack of CLEAR supporting evidence.

If you allege someone threatened you but there are no witnesses and he denies it, just because the police does not arrest him does not mean they think you’re a liar. If you think otherwise you really do not know much about law enforcement. And in this case FDLE could not even make an arrest (Ohio would have to).

BTW, Rifqa stated in her interview that she has no proof of her allegations and worried about the implications of that. So no surprise FDLE was unable to find any outright proof.

None of the other evidence they examined led them to believe she was in danger.

That does not mean they concluded she’s not a credible witness.

You can never prove a negative (that her parents were not planning to kill her), but under any fair view of the evidence, there is no case here.

Again, try to get this through your head:

In the U.S. not being arrested, not to mention convicted, even if someone alleges you committed a crime, does not mean you are innocent and that the witness is not credible.

It simply means there’s not enough evidence to make a definite conclusion.

Unlike you, I do not go around and call children liars just because they accuse someone in a manner I dislike. I’m calling neither Rifqa nor her father a liar. One or the other, possibly both, is lying in a substantial manner, but I do not know which one.

You may have an opinion, but as long as you pretend your opinion is fact, be prepared for people like me to call you on it. Especially when the target of your baseless attacks is a mere child.

Ricardo: In any case, that’s not the only inconsistency.

You didn’t show her to be “inconsistent” in any way. And look up the word in a dictionary before you reply.

Her claims to have confided in a teacher about abuse at home were not confirmed by the teacher.

I already answered this. And even if the teacher disputed what Rifqa said — which by the released evidence she did not — that would not amount to being “inconsistent”.

She claims that her family were all active members at a mosque: this has not been confirmed by either the mosque or any of the members of the mosque

You mean the mosque said her family never went there?!?

Why not quote precisely what Rifqa said and precisely what someone else said that contradicted it.

Not that it would be an “inconsistency” on Rifqa’s part in any way.

(I know, I know, Muslims always lie to infidels so this doesn’t mean anything).

Why do you interject with something so stupid? I never indicated ANYTHING of this sort.

Somehow objecting to a girl barely 17 being savagely attacked as a liar on blogs with bogus arguments makes into some kind of fanatical anti-Muslim?

It seems you’re just as much of a fanatic as those you imagine you are fighting.

She also claims to have a very devout upbringing but at the beginning of the interview she refers to her local Muslim preacher as “a Rabbi person, I don’t know, I guess they’re called Imams.”

That’s false — she did NOT say it was a local Muslim preacher.

And you conveniently left out the fact that she was 5 (FIVE!) years old when this occurred.

It makes perfect sense that she may not have been told at that age what the proper term was for the teacher, OR that she may not be certain what the proper translation of the term into English should be.

In fact it’s not that certain he was an Imam. He might have been simply a mullah. And that’s not taking into account regional and sectarian differences in the use of the word “Imam” — e.g. Shi’a usage differs greatly from Sunni usage, and there may be other, regional variations within Sunni usage.

I know many, many people who were raised as devout Muslims and not one would stumble over the correct word or who would call a Muslim preacher “a Rabbi person.” That’s like a devout Christian not being able to recite the Lord’s Prayer.

Rifqa was talking to people she knew most likely know nothing about Islam. In that sense likening him to a Rabbi was quite appropriate. And Yankev already explained nicely why a thoughtful and careful person may stumble over the proper English term, if there even is one at all.

But I guess Yankev must be a fanatic who thinks all Muslims lie to infidels, right?

You’re hell-bent on denouncing this girl as a liar and obviously nothing will stop you — you’ll just keep making up fantasies as you go. Anything just to defame her.

LN: Oh that’s right — you didn’t call her parents or her teacher or FDLE liars.

That’s right, as you well know.

The only people you’re calling liars are those who accept their accounts.

I called YOU a liar. Stop hiding behind others. You lied; so either apologize or get used to being called LIAR.

If someone doesn’t think that the cheerleader pictures were an elaborate ruse to trick the police, then you call them a liar and full of hate towards Rifqa (interesting that you’re on a first-name basis with her).But the parents who not only want to murder her but are also devious enough to trick the police with this ruse?You withhold judgment on them.You wouldn’t call them liars, oh no sir.Just the people who accept their version of events.

More lies.

And it was Ricardo who declared Rifqa a liar, without any proof. Saying you *think* she lied because you *believe* her parents is light years away from simply declaring her a liar as if it was a fact.

I mocked Ricardo by saying it is an “established fact” (in quotes) that he’s lying, because he wrote several falsehoods and because I wished him to reflect on how he’s treating Rifqa, who’s not even an adult. My point was he should treat her at least like he’d like others to treat himself (or his own child).

YOU I called a liar outright because… you are a liar.

Ricardo: Didactus, do you have any citation for the claim that police visited the parents only after the details of Rifqa’s interview with police became public knowledge?

I wrote “allegations”, not “details of Rifqa’s interview”. Her allegations against her parents became widely known before and, furthermore, her being cheerleader has been raised by several media commentators and bloggers as evidence that her parents could not have been so devout.

Her mom’s lawyer, for example, was quoted by TIME as saying “This is a family with Westernized kids. Their daughter is a cheerleader.” A columnist for Orlando Sentinel wrote: “Somehow I can’t imagine a Muslim extremist allowing his daughter to wear short skirts and shake pompoms in front of a crowd of infidels.” And so on, this all BEFORE FDLE interviewed the parents.

Yet, according to you, it is unthinkable the parents put up her cheerleading pictures AFTER the allegations against them. It is unthinkable that CAIR advised them to do so, just as they likely advised them to selectively leak portions of Rifqa’s diaries (a very cruel thing to do to a teenage girl).

Mind you, you do not even have a statement from her parents asserting those pictures were there BEFORE she ran away. No, you simply KNOW they were there, and we have to take that on faith. Anything so you can declare a child to be a liar.

How noble of you.

If someone doesn’t think that the cheerleader pictures were an elaborate ruse to trick the police, then you call them a liar and full of hate towards Rifqa (interesting that you’re on a first-name basis with her). But the parents who not only want to murder her but are also devious enough to trick the police with this ruse? You withhold judgment on them. You wouldn’t call them liars, oh no sir. Just the people who accept their version of events.

LN:
It amazes me how much you hate her parents, her teacher, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, calling them all liars, fools, and potential murderers and enablers of murderers.Does your God force you to fanatically hate all of these people or do you do it of your own free will?

You’re a liar.

I never called her parents or her teacher or FDLE liars or fools or enablers of murderers etc. Nor do I hate any of them.

And I’m an agnostic, you presumptuous fool.

She also claims to have a very devout upbringing but at the beginning of the interview she refers to her local Muslim preacher as “a Rabbi person, I don’t know, I guess they’re called Imams.” I know many, many people who were raised as devout Muslims and not one would stumble over the correct word or who would call a Muslim preacher “a Rabbi person.” That’s like a devout Christian not being able to recite the Lord’s Prayer.

I do not know whether she is or is not, nor do I know whether or not the charges against her parents are justified. But as a non-Christian raised and living in c Christian society, I can tell you that one sometimes stumbles over concepts that one is very familiar with when trying to explain them to Christians; not because of one’s own unfamiliarity, but because of uncertainty how best to explain in English a concept that does not exist in Christianity and that is alien those raised in the larger culture. Even matters like the Sabbath or dietary restriction — which many Christians think they understand — requires considerable deliberation when choosing English words to express Hebrew concepts. E.g. the Hebrew word, “malacha” has no English analogue, and is often mistranslated as “work” or “labor”, which reinforces the onn-Jewish misconception that an activity’s permissibility on the Sabbath depends somehow on the degree of effort that the activity requires. If I had to explain other concepts, such as tumah, tahara, taharas mishpoha, to a non-Jewish listener, you can bet it would take considerable forethought, and I have more than 40 years over this teenager.

From what little I know about Islam, Christianity has no position analogous to an Imam. Rifqa may well have been searching for the closest analogue that she thought an American non-Muslim might understand. Her choice of terms was probably fairly accurate, but given the average American’s misconception of what a Rabbi is and does, she may not have succeeded in communicating what she had hoped to.

ArthurKirkland: After substantial discussion, I sense that a substantial number of commenters continue to believe that it is morally acceptable (if not laudable) and is (or should be) lawful for an adult to hide a minor child from parents and from the police.

Yes, by and large, I would think a substantial number of commenters, and people generally, would believe that allowing parents to murder their children is not a great idea.

Ricardo: By your reasoning, only lousy parents would raise a child to make false accusations

Yeah, and I pretty much stand by that. Why, do you think that children hurling wild accusation is a mark of a good upbringing?

Ricardo: By that standard, the state should never bother with an investigation when a child comes forward with abuse accusations.

They should investigate. The question is, what if the investigation turns up, as it did, inconclusive?

In Ricardo and Arthur’s world, the girl is dragged back to her parent. The good scenario is that she spends the next 10 months in a nightmare of recriminations and bitterness in a home she hates. The bad scenario, she’s raped, tortured and murdered. At least, I hope that Ricardo and Arthur regard that as a bad scenario, they’ve certainly never mentioned it.

My plan is, she spends the rest of her childhood with adults she likes and respects. If her statements about her parents were incorrect, then those parents are spared the burden of a child they obviously weren’t getting along with.

This blog attracts some strange agents.

Malvolio: It’s possible that Rifqa is wrong or lying about her parents, which means, whatever else is true, Rifqa’s parents are bad enough parents that they raised at least one child who would make such an accusation falsely.

By that standard, the state should never bother with an investigation when a child comes forward with abuse accusations. By your reasoning, only lousy parents would raise a child to make false accusations like that and the child’s best interests would best be served by denying the children custody. It is a fact that children do sometimes make false accusations against parents in a fit of rage, as an act of rebellion or as a way to get the upper-hand in a more trivial domestic dispute. Do you want states to uniformly apply this burden of proof in all family law disputes or only in disputes involving Muslims?

As for the Florida cops: Rifqa’s parents might not be murderers but there are parents out there who are and Florida law enforcement will serve up their child with just as much alacrity as they did with Rifqa.

They are not, in fact, murderers. They have neither been accused nor convicted of murder. You meant potential murderers and, sure, the American legal system does frown upon the idea of potential criminals to some extent. If there is credible evidence that there is a potential for abuse or violence, the state should remove a child from custody. If there is not any credible evidence, it should not. The broader principle here is that denying the parents in this case the right to custody of their child means accepting an almost non-existent burden of proof in the future of abuse allegations to deny parents custody of their children. People who are suspicious of child welfare authorities overreaching ought to be very, very troubled by this.

LN: It would be fun to pretend that the girl in question was an outspoken feminist who was accusing a white Christian man of rape, to see how the standard of proof changes.

If the accusers cannot get their story straight and say things inconsistent with the facts, then the cases should be dismissed which does, in fact, happen in the real world. The burden of proof should be the same regardless of the race or religion of the accusers or the accused. The problem is some here want to say that since the parents are Muslims and that there is a Muslim doctrine that says that those who convert away from Islam should be killed, the case should be based on views imputed to the parents without any evidence rather than on the individual facts or circumstances of the case. I agree with Eugene Volokh that religion should play no role in family law disputes one way or another.

I also note that some commenters here complain about child protection services in many states and how quick they are to take children away. If Florida relaxed the burden of proof to a level that some are demanding here, there would be many more cases of parents being falsely accused of abuse and loosing their children. Rifqa is 17: as far as I’m concerned, the law should allow her to emancipate herself if that’s what she wants. The law apparently does not allow that though. According to the law, a burden of proof for a 17-year-old girl from a Muslim family would be the same burden of proof applied to a 7-year-old from a Christian family. Is that what you want?

AVI is right, this is a Rorschach test. It would be fun to pretend that the girl in question was an outspoken feminist who was accusing a white Christian man of rape, to see how the standard of proof changes. Maybe she could be a black stripper accusing a lacrosse team of rape.

787.03 Interference with custody.–

(1) Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice, any child 17 years of age or under or any incompetent person from the custody of the child or incompetent person’s parent, his or her guardian, a public agency having the lawful charge of the child or incompetent person, or any other lawful custodian commits the offense of interference with custody and commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) In the absence of a court order determining rights to custody or visitation with any child 17 years of age or under or with any incompetent person, any parent of the child or incompetent person, whether natural or adoptive, stepparent, legal guardian, or relative of such child or incompetent person who has custody thereof and who takes, detains, conceals, or entices away that child or incompetent person within or without the state, with malicious intent to deprive another person of his or her right to custody of the child or incompetent person, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A subsequently obtained court order for custody or visitation does not affect application of this section.

(4) It is a defense that:

(a) The defendant reasonably believes that his or her action was necessary to preserve the child or the incompetent person from danger to his or her welfare.

(b) The defendant was the victim of an act of domestic violence or had reasonable cause to believe that his or her action was necessary to protect himself or herself from an act of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28.

(c) The child or incompetent person was taken away at his or her own instigation without enticement and without purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the child or incompetent person.

(5) Proof that a child was 17 years of age or under creates the presumption that the defendant knew the child’s age or acted in reckless disregard thereof.

(6)(a) This section does not apply in cases where a spouse who is the victim of any act of domestic violence or who has reasonable cause to believe he or she is about to become the victim of any act of domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28, or believes that his or her action was necessary to preserve the child or the incompetent person from danger to his or her welfare seeks shelter from such acts or possible acts and takes with him or her any child 17 years of age or younger.

(b) In order to gain the exemption conferred by paragraph (a), a person who takes a child pursuant to this subsection must:

1. Within 10 days after taking the child, make a report to the sheriff’s office or state attorney’s office for the county in which the child resided at the time he or she was taken, which report must include the name of the person taking the child, the current address and telephone number of the person and child, and the reasons the child was taken.

2. Within a reasonable time after taking the child, commence a custody proceeding that is consistent with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. s. 1738A, or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, ss. 61.501-61.542.

3. Inform the sheriff’s office or state attorney’s office for the county in which the child resided at the time he or she was taken of any change of address or telephone number of the person and child.

(c) Information provided to a sheriff or state attorney under paragraph (b) is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. This paragraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act of 1995 in accordance with s. 119.15 and is repealed on October 2, 2005, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature before that date.

History.–s. 24, ch. 74-383; s. 14, ch. 75-298; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 88-244; s. 25, ch. 94-134; s. 25, ch. 94-135; s. 1201, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2000-231; s. 1, ch. 2000-357; s. 157, ch. 2004-5.

So, I guess there is a law that supports AK.

But like most crimes, there are defenses.

The preacher can’t us the (a) defense unless he filed a report but (c) seems applicable.

If she told police that it was her idea, how would you get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe in many situations, but under these facts?

LN: It amazes me how much you hate her parents, her teacher, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, calling them all liars, fools, and potential murderers and enablers of murderers.

I am not calling them that! Rifqa is calling them that — and she should know.

It’s possible that Rifqa is wrong or lying about her parents, which means, whatever else is true, Rifqa’s parents are bad enough parents that they raised at least one child who would make such an accusation falsely.

As for the Florida cops: Rifqa’s parents might not be murderers but there are parents out there who are and Florida law enforcement will serve up their child with just as much alacrity as they did with Rifqa.

LN: Does your God force you to fanatically hate all of these people or do you do it of your own free will?

I’m an atheist. Everything I do is of my own free will. Other commenters are Christians, whose doctrine likewise says they act of their own free will.

Didacticus: She said no such thing. What she said is that her parents NEVER saw her cheerlead and did not really know what it obtains; and that they NEVER got a yearbook; and that she HID her cheerleading pictures from them but that NOW they have them.

Absolutely NOTHING from the above was contradicted by any published evidence.

Yet a picture or two of Rifqa prominently displayed to be noticed by police, AFTER her allegation became well known, is enough for you to conclude this girl is a liar? Talk about gullible…

Didactus, do you have any citation for the claim that police visited the parents only after the details of Rifqa’s interview with police became public knowledge? If you read the interview, the questions are so specific it is obvious the police were looking for information they could corroborate on their own. It’s not really believable that the police would go through this exercise and then publish the information in the interview before visiting the parents or other witnesses.

In any case, that’s not the only inconsistency. Her claims to have confided in a teacher about abuse at home were not confirmed by the teacher. She claims that her family were all active members at a mosque: this has not been confirmed by either the mosque or any of the members of the mosque (I know, I know, Muslims always lie to infidels so this doesn’t mean anything). She also claims to have a very devout upbringing but at the beginning of the interview she refers to her local Muslim preacher as “a Rabbi person, I don’t know, I guess they’re called Imams.” I know many, many people who were raised as devout Muslims and not one would stumble over the correct word or who would call a Muslim preacher “a Rabbi person.” That’s like a devout Christian not being able to recite the Lord’s Prayer.

You can choose to believe whatever you want but don’t pretend there is any objective evidence leading you to that belief. The police, who are kind of experts in this sort of thing, concluded that Rifqa was not a credible witness because of inconsistencies like this. None of the other evidence they examined led them to believe she was in danger. You can never prove a negative (that her parents were not planning to kill her), but under any fair view of the evidence, there is no case here.

And if you cannot respond like a civil adult, don’t bother.

It just amazes how much hate people have for Rifqa.

It amazes me how much you hate her parents, her teacher, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, calling them all liars, fools, and potential murderers and enablers of murderers. Does your God force you to fanatically hate all of these people or do you do it of your own free will?

Ricardo:
It’s a fact that some of the information she gave police — information which would have made her fear of being killed more legitimate or credible if it was true — was inconsistent with their investigation.If a significant other or co-worker ever came to the police claiming you hit him or her and the police found blatant inconsistencies and falsehoods in the details of the statement, you would rightly demand that the police discount this person’s credibility in deciding how to handle the complaint.It is not an assumption that Rifqa is lying — it is an established fact that she is lying about certain things which makes it more likely than not that her central accusation is false as well.

It’s an “established fact” now that you’re lying.

Ricardo: Rifqa also lied to police when she said that she had confided in a teacher about abuse she was suffering at home. When the teacher she named was interviewed, she not only said that she was never told of any abuse but that she was more concerned about her suspicion that Rifqa’s older brother was hosting parties involving alcohol at the family home while the parents were away.

Rifqa said no such thing. In fact she said nearly the opposite, that she’s not sure she told the teacher about the abuse, since the beatings became infrequent in high school (compared to middle school). Rifqa in her interview said the teacher offered her her home but not specifically why, except that she was concerned for her after she became openly Christian at school.

FDLE said the alleged reason was to protect Rifqa from repercussions at home due to her Christian beliefs, but this is never stated by Rifqa in her interview.

Even had the FDLE summary not be false — even had Rifqa stated the teacher was concerned about repercussions — it easily could have been a misunderstanding. Rifqa said she spoke to the teacher about many things, so if the teacher offered her her home if need be, what if they had different reasons in mind?

But it’s much more convenient to label a minor girl a liar, isn’t it?

And of course if Rifqa did tell the teacher about physical abuse, the teacher would admit a criminal act if she did not report it. So let’s see… on one hand Rifqa telling FDLE to go and speak to the teacher and check with her, knowing full well that they can, and on the other an adult who, if she admits Rifqa reported abuse, is certain to destroy her career and possibly end up in jail. Oh of course, it must be the girl who, having absolutely nothing to gain by it and having no chance of getting away with it, must be lying. Not the teacher who has EVERYTHING to lose by NOT lying.

Why not call you a liar from now on to forever. After all, what you wrote was false. Given your own standards towards Rifqa, we’d be treating you more leniently than a child if we let you get away with it, right?

It just amazes how much hate people have for Rifqa.

Ricardo: Indeed, it does appear she lied to police when she told them that her parents had no idea about her cheerleader activities and that it involved appearing in public with a short skirt. In a visit to the family home, investigators noticed pictures of Rifqa in her cheerleader outfit prominently displayed near the entrance. Obviously, she did not give up “taqqiyah” upon converting to Christianity.

She said no such thing. What she said is that her parents NEVER saw her cheerlead and did not really know what it obtains; and that they NEVER got a yearbook; and that she HID her cheerleading pictures from them but that NOW they have them.

Absolutely NOTHING from the above was contradicted by any published evidence.

Yet a picture or two of Rifqa prominently displayed to be noticed by police, AFTER her allegation became well known, is enough for you to conclude this girl is a liar? Talk about gullible…

Arthur is implying that there was something indecent about Rifka being with that man.

I gather you would not object were I to persuade your teenage daughter to leave your house, then drive her to my fraternity chapter’s house, and let the 36 current active brothers entertain her for a few weeks (I believe at least one of the lads would be generous enough to find a suitable spot in his room for her), and refrain from telling you where she is.

Laura(southernxyl): To further this — for two spring breaks, and then for a period of time after graduation, we hosted our daughter’s college roommate. Our daughter was there, I was there, but I suppose the fact that my husband was there means that her parents were frightfully negligent in letting her come and stay with us.I didn’t think anyone thought this way anymore.

No–if they let her come, that is different. Florida law prohibits keeping a minor for more than 24 hours without either knowledge and permission of parents, or notification of proper authorities. Seems reasonable to me.

Perhaps I worded that badly, as I am a Christian and Pam Geller is a Zionist. However, so many have cast this as a Christianity vs Islam issue. I have been accused by many of being Muslim. In fact, I would term the Christians in this case to be of an extremist variety, bordering on cult status.

The responses of any of the “ministers” involved (and their ministerial standing is in doubt in several cases) was not what would be either legally or ethically required in a case in which they believed that a minor was in danger of abuse or other violence at the hands of parents. Ministers are mandated reporters in both Ohio and Florida. Their obligation was to make a report to either the police or child protective services. They did neither, and in fact not only hid Rifqa from her parents, but also hid her from the very authorities charged with her protection. Pastor Lorenz preached about how the Kansas City police were persecuting Christians because after uncovering a connection between Rifqa and the Pastor(?) Williams–the contacted him there and demanded that he come clean about her whereabouts.

I didn’t think anyone thought this way anymore.

Ohioan: The decisions made by the players on the Christian side make
sense only within a context that understands that Muslims are
somehow “not like the rest of us,” concurrent with a belief
that the duly constituted authorities do not know this.

The “Christian side”? Which side is the Christian side?

I’m not a Christian, but I think that a young girl should not be left to be murdered even if it might put Muslims in a bad light — and I’d really like someone to explain to me the logic of the opposite position.

I make my daily bread in acute psychiatric emergency evaluations. If I did the kind of leaping to conclusions I see here, I would long ago have been fired, and certainly would have made decisions which were terribly unjust.

1. The girl might be overdramatic and volatile, and will be accusing the couple next.

2. The girl may be legitimately frightened and trying to make her story sound as good as it can, even stretching the truth, to keep herself safe.

3. The parents may be lying start-to-finish and have actually threatened her with death.

4. The parents may be difficult but not homicidal, seeking other revenge for her embarrassing them if she returns.

5. The parents may not be minded toward honor-killing, but may have friends or relatives who are, creating an original legitimate fear in the girl.

6. The parents may be wonderful people who have a difficult daughter.

7. The Christian couple may be bigots who believe that all Muslims whose children convert are likely to kill them.

8. The Christian couple may be equally frightened and not know quite what to do to get a minor child out of danger.

9. The local police might have been content to bring the girl back into district, identify her location to her parents, and turned the whole thing over to DSS with no further protection.

10. The local police in FL may know that this couple cries wolf all too often and ignore their concerns if reported, even though this time it is true.

I can go on forever with possibilities that could be true. One has to stand back from all of them.

Within their context, it is first off absolutely a given that not
only do some people who are Muslim commit acts of violence
against family members, particularly females, but that they do
so because they are bound to this behavior either through profound
ignorance, mind-control, fear or evil. In other words–unless
cleansed by the blood of the lamb (and there is a growing list
of these folks)–there is absolutely no trusting them to do
otherwise. The second belief is that the United States has been
over-run by mindless (dare I use the term) infidels, who either
due to stupidity or actual evil intent, are in support of such
actions, or do not believe in their existence, because of an
adherence to a religion of “diversity.” Further–there is an ongoing threat to the US of “creeping Sharia law” from an Islam absolutely bent on world domination.

I am reminded of G. Gordon Liddy justifying Watergate with a belief that the US was at war–not only in Vietnam, but an active war on domestic soil against anti-war protestors. It’s a frightening thought–but he was absolutely serious. As are the chain of folks in various ministerial roles who believe that their actions (totally NOT in keeping with any code of minesterial ethics) have been appropriate to the situation.

ArthurKirkland: Whether the girl was telling or truth or lying or something else altogether, the only proper and lawful course for any adult harboring her would have been to report the girl’s whereabouts to the police (or child welfare authorities).Does anyone wish to explain why the authorities should not have been notified?

It is easy. As we all can see from the story unfolding, state authorities are working diligently to put the girl back into her parents’ house. If you really believe she is in danger and needs to be rescued, you wouldn’t be in a rush to turn her over to them.