The judge has decided to allow infants to remain with their mothers, but otherwise has not modified the order removing all of the children from their homes, despite no individualized showings of child abuse or neglect.
In the previous thread, some commenters seem to assert that the CPS may take all of the FLDS's children away because (a) there has been documented abuse of children at other FLDS communities; and/or (b) the "culture" of the FLDS is inherently abusive, as it encourages early marriage and leaves its children inherently isolated by homeschooling them and not exposing them to social events, television, and the like. The latter criterion, at least, would place Amish and some of the more insular ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in jeopardy.
As one commenter, otherwise sympathetic to CPS, put it, "the judge should focus on current or past crimes and not the culture - this puts religious belief on trial rather than actual behavior." Relatedly, the focus of CPS, and the judge overseeing the case, should be on individualized evidence of child neglect or abuse. And it remains rather troubling that the CPS apparently had the authority to take 437 kids from their parents after launching an investigation based on an apparently fraudulent complaint of abuse involving a specific, apparently nonexistent, girl.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
My nomination for Understatement of the Year.
Lets think about this for a minute. Is there evidence that this action relied exclusively on one report, fraudulent or not? Did the action occur in a vacuum of information surrounding the community, or were there other, widespread indications of cause for concern surrounding the welfare of these children? What was the apparent credibility of this other body of cause? If true, were the allegations/ concerns serious? Aren't these things cause for further consideration?
There is nothing wrong with raising the question but seeing:
1. modifiers like "rather" in front of the word, "troubling" and
2.the words "based on (an apparently fraudulent complaint)" when there is no evidence as yet as to what the decision was based on, including the totality of considerations that were available to be taken into account in the decision to apprehend,
3. the rhetoric of a the phrase "involving a specific, apparently nonexistent, girl" to characterize a complaint already characterized as "apparently fraudulent,"-- already more than sufficient to make the point,
are signs of a reach too soon, too far.
I agree that if it appears that the raid and apprehension of these children was groundless, if it was cavalierly undertaken, or if it overshot the full body of evidence on which the decision was taken, then it should be a cause for complaint, ridicule and probably much more.
I do not agree that these conclusions should be reached lightly, or cavalierly themselves, when the risks are so high.
This is particularly true where the subject of the apprehended abuse is third party, children who by virtue of uncontrovertible fact are vulnerable and exposed.
Certainly, lawyers are trained to Monday morning quarter-back and the polity is, by far, better off for it, but analysis mixed with too much ideology when the stakes are of the height and nature of these, deserves care and restraint.
It always strikes me as odd that in a legal environment that abhors prior restraint of non-state actors, there seems to be a complete unwillingness to consider the chill of premature condemnation.
The age distribution for this community seems very odd, I might add. This article suggests that of the 416 children, 289 are aged 0-4 (with 82 alleged mothers), 100 are aged 5-18, and another 27 are "teenaged" (but housed elsewhere). There were about 130 women grabbed at the compound, too. The only estimate for the number of men at the compound is this CNN article, suggesting 57. 57 guys fathered as many as 416 children by 130 women? And 289 of those children aren't even 5 years old? It looks to me like the polygamy case has been made. Now we just need to know the mothers' ages.
On a different note, the message being communicated by Texas courts is that if you are a parent practicing a minority religion, the State of Texas has the right to take your children away from you because you don't let your kids watch enough TV. Seventh Day Adventists should be trembling because they fit the foregoing criteria.
Much as we would like to see 'them' corrected, this nation has a method for dealing with crime: prosecute and try the accused individuals for the offenses.
Yes there is. So the rest of your argumentative speculation is irrelevant.
But the general population has been led to believe that this population is subhuman. Even the victims are treated like perps. It's all good, though. They're not like us.
Individuals, schmindividuals.
And the reason I am more surprised is that I can recognize some of the names as being in the forefront of decrying that same-sex marriage will destroy marriage, by leading to polygamy, incest (very likely to have happened here, at least as a statistical chance), underage marriage, and of course, a situation that is very far from "every child needs a father and a mother", and "until we are absolutely sure that there is no chance of any harm to the development of a child, [gays/polygamous/xxx] should not be allowed to be parents"
Now we have what it should be these same commenters' worse nightmare, a polygamous, likely incestuous community, where children were also likely abused, and harmed, and I see several of the same names decrying that this poor people were not left alone to live their lives and raise their children in the same manner.
So it seems that it is not the end of the slippery slope that they are concerned about, but the beginning. It is only the gay part of gay marriage that seems to bother them .You can say anything about the FDLS, but at least the FLDS did not practice homosexuality, so they can't be that bad.
I hope someone besides me remembers this in the next tirade against same sex marriage, and perhaps one of the commenters will owe up to say: "hey, I saw the end of the slope, and it is not that bad. I recognize that it is only the gay part that bothers me." That way at least we can have a serious discussion.
Man, just when I thought it was safe to mention to people that I have libertarian sympathies...
I agree.
The adults presumably can resume their swinging lifestyle, but they may want to rethink whether their profits from defense contracts are best used to raise female breeding stock in polygamous relationships.
(Assuming that is what they were doing for the glory of their God, who must be quite the voyeur.)
'Innocent until proven guilty' is to protect individuals from the state. When applied to state actions, that same scepticism becomes 'Mistaken or malevolent until proven otherwise'.
Here we have a small religious group that is breaking the laws of a larger society. Laws about adolescent sexuality that are entirely arbitrary and historical anomalies. This small religious group is practicing what are still norms in several areas of the world. It practices arranged marriages (historically the most common type of marriage), polygamy (historically unusual in this area, but common worldwide) and early marriage - but no earlier than is still common in many, if not most areas of the world. Also, its isolationist.
And, the larger culture is, at the least, bending the heck out of its own laws to destroy this group. A search warrant was issued to search an entire town, to locate a sixteen year old. Not a house - a town, which a search warrant isn't suppose to be that broad. Then it turns out that the call was fraudulent. Which is glossed over, and ignored.
The CPS moves in, and removes ALL the children (not even getting the number seized right), even though there is no evidence of abuse for the vast, vast majority of the children.
It goes on and on. Yes a large number of commentators are not concerned by anything but that these people don't conform to societal norms. They claim indoctrination, as well, acting like its a "bad thing" when the government they are backing espouses the same thing. Or have you forgotten what the California judge wrote when denying that there is a right to homeschooling?
“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”
In short, the state says "Stay sweet" too.
The mind boggles!
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF
Man, just when I thought it was safe to mention to people that I have libertarian sympathies..."
Reason has an article on that subject here.
"And the reason I am more surprised is that I can recognize some of the names as being in the forefront of decrying that same-sex marriage will destroy marriage, by leading to polygamy, incest (very likely to have happened here, at least as a statistical chance), underage marriage, and of course, a situation that is very far from "every child needs a father and a mother", [...n]ow we have what it should be these same commenters' worse nightmare, a polygamous, likely incestuous community, where children were also likely abused, and harmed, and I see several of the same names decrying that this poor people were not left alone to live their lives and raise their children in the same manner. "
Well, homosexuals are, by definition, not Christians. If these cultists worshipped Allah, or Shiva, or Ayn Rand, instead of the living Christ, you wouldn't hear a word in their defense from most of the posters here; on the other hand, while aspects of the FLDS family structure may be creepy, a solidly and devotedly Christian upbringing excuses a multitude of sins.
"The only estimate for the number of men at the compound is this CNN article, suggesting 57. 57 guys fathered as many as 416 children by 130 women?"
Be fruitful and multiply.
"The irony is that it is legal for mothers in this country to abort their unwanted fetuses (30,000 per week) but if a mother wants to keep her child, the State of Texas will nevertheless take that child away from his/her mother."
There's only a short jump from condemning the FLDS to the atheist claim that all religion is child abuse. And speaking of child abuse, I expect the (male) children in this case will quickly find themselves in foster homes run by (male) homosexuals, whose desire to, er, adopt male children is unquenchable. But that's fine, say the liberals. As long as they aren't taught to fear God, anything goes.
"It's good to see the chickens coming home to roost on the scientific stupidity of using age as the legal proxy for capacity to consent to sex or to freely choose one's sexual partner."
Indeed, throughout history - the same history that has defined marriage as between a man and one (or more) women - women have been married off as soon as they reach puberty; their fathers generally chose their husbands, older, wealthy, successful men who have the proven resources to support a stay-at-home wife. And this is the model the FLDS was using; FLDS women were/are expected to begin having children as soon as they were married, which shows that women were not, in fact, being forced into marriage while biologically 'underage'. As for the 'forced marriage' bit: it's only with the rise of the feminazis and the sexual revolution that women gained the 'right' to act as 'free moral agents', ie, ignore the requirements of chastity and morality and sleep with whoever they wanted. And look at the results: STDs are rampant, single motherhood is an epidemic, children are growing up sexually perverse and rejecting their God-given roles (male to provide, woman to cook and clean), society is in general breaking down. We would be so much better off as a country if American men had the strength of moral character to take on the servant-leadership role that the FLDS men have with regard to their wives and daughters, don't you think?
You are incorrect. If you believe you are correct, then name names.
No.
Not to mention the Hutterite communes.
But, the real issue is that like the Indian Schools (that tried and failed to turn the kids into members of another culture) and the Short Creek raids where the States of Arizona and Utah tried to do the same thing to the FLDS in the 50s -- and failed -- this does not seem likely to do much except create a lot of trauma.
They should really study the Short Creek raids.
At present they've established that as a community the underage pregnancies are less than those in the normal communities in Texas -- guess they need to take away all the children in the state from their parents for failure to protect them?
Yes, there are really, really creepy things going on with some people. But ... the actual number of child brides, per capita is smaller than the normal population (if you treat pregnant teens having kids as child brides). Dramatically less if you include teens having abortions.
I remain conflicted. But there are things about this I really don't like, as much for the gratuitous pain as for the fact that it seems doomed to failure and a series of 42 UCCA 1983 suits that will bankrupt CPS.
Given that CPS performs a necessary function and that many CPS workers are good, honest, diligent people, it is a shame to burden them with the fall out of this mess.
A good solution is beyond me, though I appreciate reading others thoughts.
I was also thinking the same thing.
Also, public schools are nothing more than centers of indoctrination of the liberal, secular belief system. Any parent who dares to home school their children or send them to a private, sectarian school is deemed to be a threat to the public school system.
If the state wants to maintain its monopoly on force, the onus is upon the state to prove its actions are justified, not upon others to prove they are not.
Now that is a damn good idea.
If Amish culture involved underage sex and polygamy, we'd shut them down too. But it doesn't.
But somehow Muslim culture, which also involves underage sex and polygamy, gets a pass among liberals. Make up your minds, lefties - you can't act horrified at this relatively benign and traditional sect while simultaneously condoning the far more brutal cultural traditions of our Islamofascist enemies. What happened to moral relativism? Multiculturalism? Or is it only white Christians that you're willing to condemn?
JIMINY, according to an op-ed piece in yesterday's Dallas Morning News by someone who is following this case, only five girls between the ages of 16 and 19 were found to have been impregnated and the age of consent in Texas is 16. Therefore, your above statement regarding religions being flawed if they advocate sex with children is a complete red herring.
Perhaps you're having a hard time distinguishing between "anger at a positive commission of injustice" and "sympathy with the accused." These people are being treated all out of proportion with the seriousness of the accusations, in a manner that, if carried out, will assuredly destroy more lives than any course of actions EXCEPT leaving the community untouched (I'm saying that I believe this community is even more destructive than our foster care system).
Really? Someone at Volokh is agitating for parenting licenses? That's bizzare. In fact, I don't believe it at all. The simple fact that someone believes that society should encourage one family structure (and even discourage others) doesn't mean that they want to perform THIS kind of action -- ripping children away from their parents without a trial on the pretext of a hypothetical far-future harm.
This case is moving beyond alleged underage sex and polygamy. This case is now establishing precedent whereby if the state deems your children to be too sheltered from the secular world, then you are an unfit parent and the state has a right to take your children away from you.
While I'm sure there are lots of differences, this does remind me of David Koresh and Waco. The government (ATF, FBI) could have simply gone after Koresh as an individual. Supposedly he left the compound often enough, and they could have arrested him once he was no longer there. Instead, they had to be heavy-handed and provoke a confrontation with the entire group.
And since both of these incidents happened in Texas, I'm surprised they haven't learned anything. (I realize that Waco involved the Feds while FLDS involves the state authorities.) In particular, if you're endeavoring to help children who are trapped in a cult or abusive sect, you shouldn't traumatize them further. Any group like this will have a bunker mentality, and things have to be handled delicately. (Janet Reno justified the Waco raid by saying there was abuse of children going on. No doubt there was, but almost all the children died in the conflagration.) In the case of the FLDS, to forcibly remove the children from their parents will only play into their fears of the outside world.
Many of the posts here suggest that the "slippery slope" arguments against Sullivan were not, after all, conservative paranoia. Perhaps it's the case that the water has gotten so hot that it's too late for the frog to jump.
Since I don't keep files on all the commenters, let's make a deal. If I notice in the future that you make claims about the dangerous slippery slope to polygamy, I will remind you of this thread.
And by the way, what are your feelings about what is alleged to have happened in there, if it comes out to be true? It would be interesting to know....
First, if this had been a community of homosexuals in the same circumstances, every word in this community's defense would apply in the same way. I don't know about the others here, but I'd be speaking up in the same way and for the same reason. Your charges of hypocrisy should be leavened by evidence.
With that said, let me also comment that the non-Christian nature of this sect's particular practices is clearly evident. It was founded by a group that rejected all Christian churches and doctrinal teachings as "abomination"; its practice of polygamy comes from a foundational belief that the only way for a woman to become exalted into the presence of God is to become the wife of a good Mormon man who himself becomes exalted. This is why this particular sect started performing "spiritual weddings"; they didn't want to "practice for having babies early" (I'm being circumloquacious), but rather they wanted to assure themselves that even the young girls can be assured of the highest level of heaven (btw, I'm not proclaiming them innocent NOW, I'm just making a historical note of the origins of the practice).
Affirming this groups' practices therefore doesn't equate to feeling brotherhood for them in Christ (or anything like that). These specific practices are definite denials of critical portions of Christianity. BTW, I'm not making a big deal of that; I'm just pointing out that YOUR accusation that Christians are only defending these people because they're fellow Christians is unfounded.
Teenagers are NOT 'children' in any normal use of the word -- only in governmental Newspeak. For 99.9+ percent of human history, teenagers have been [rightfully] regarded as adults, and they still are in many modern cultures.
Through 2005, it was legal to marry in Texas at age 14 with parents consent. So the state would need to research when these 16-17 year olds had there children. Anything prior to 2006 would need to prove age under 14. Also a news report was that the state law was changes primaraly to be able to break up this cult so the law may be challange-able for that reason.
I think Polegamy was defined as multiple civil marriges. But the news reports do not report any multiple civil marriges, only religious marriges. So polegamy by civil marrige does not seem to have beeen happening.
There is common law marriges, but my understanding is that it requires several years (7?) living as a couple. So that if the bride was 14 at the start, then a common law marrige would be recognized (begine) 7? years latter at age 21. Still might be polegamy, but the state then has to find the legal proofs that they lived as a couple for the entire 7? years
So i dont think polegamy is very provable if it requires a civil marraige, and underage marraige requires either a civil marriage or the duration of a common law marriage.
Just having a child out of wedlock is not always a crime, even by a teenager, so that the state needs to prove who the fathers are, in order to prove predetory sex crime.
But the State may have problems if it takes the DNA under false pretenses for this if the stated reason was just to determine the parents for civil child welfare reasons, if they then use it for criminal charges. This is probably just a minor obsticle.
"Asked whether 14- and 15-year-old girls get married on the compound, a tight-lipped woman who would only give her first name, Marilyn, gave what appeared to be a rehearsed response. 'We are talking about our children now,' she said, shaking her head, unwilling to stray from the subject of her children."
Are you kidding me? Moving beyond alleged underage sex? I'm less concerned about polygamy, even as I recognize that it can have a potential negative impact on the people involved. The sex angle is the problem here, and Jeffs (remember him? the guy who was in charge of all of this?) made his beliefs clear.
Even the husbands in the FLDS admitted that they "didn't know" it was not okay to marry/have sex with young women. Whether they were lying or just ignorant doesn't excuse the religion that chooses to enforce that line of thinking and behavior.
This case is now establishing precedent whereby if the state deems your underaged children were having sex (coerced or not) with older men, and this constitutes child abuse as I understand it, then you are an unfit parent and the state has a right to take your children away from you. Religion don't enter into it other than providing the framework and encouragment of abuse. It's right up there with genital mutiliation.
Huh? I thought that the definition of "Christian" had to do with what people believed about Jesus Christ, not what they did. That statement makes as much sense as "adulterers and fornicators are, by definition, not Christians," "thieves are, by definition, not Christians," "oppressors of the poor are, by definition, not Christians." You can argue that such people are bad Christians, but you have no reason to say that they aren't Christians at all.
Regarding polygamy, personally, I would never practice it because I have my hands full with one wife. I couldn't imagine seeing my monthly credit card statement after having multiple wives going out shopping together.
Seriously, my religious upbringing, regardless of civil law, teaches me that God created marriage to be a union between one man, one woman, and one God. However, I also note that some of the Old Testament Patriarchs practiced polygamy. Therefore, I will not judge whether another person chooses to practice polygamy as part of his/her religion. Ultimately, the polygamist will have to account to God in Final Judgment as surely as I will have to account to God in Final Judgment for other things I have done throughout my life. I believe that to prohibit polygamy that is a part of one's religion on religious or pseudo-religious grounds clothed in secular reasoning abridges the First Amendment.
An excellent argument; one which can and should be presented in court, of course with citations. I had to quote your entire argument because it increases the signal/noise ratio of this channel.
I don't hold all "unfit parents" at the same level, though, and I hold in contempt any law that does. The charges in these cases don't in any way justify taking any children away from their mothers, although they may justify taking them away from their fathers (I don't condemn that, although I am waiting for some kind of claims beyond the vague handwaving I've seen so far).
Only if they attempted a civil marriage. As far as Texas law is concerned, those second, third, etc. marriages aren't marriages at all, just menages a trois, quatre, etc. They might be violations of the Texas law against adultery, if there were a Texas law against adultery, but Texas repealed its laws against adultery years ago. (Given that the Supreme Court has ruled that Texas can't outlaw even sodomy, it's pretty clear it couldn't reinstate its adultery laws either.)
1) Is this judge also going to be the trial judge? I think that at least the fathers may as well throw in the towel cause they ain't getting any fair shake before this one, who's already been showing a clear animosity against the group.
2) How can the whole sect be condemened for child abuse so severe to take the kids away when there was no minimum age of marriage with parental consent in Texas only a few years ago? What was legal a few years ago is so "abusive" now?
3)What about Muslim parents who encourage their kids to marry at puberty overseas, where many of those marriages can be polygamous? Can we take their kids away to?
4) Why is there no allowance for(from the perspective of the believing FLDS parents)irreparable harm done by indoctrinating the kids in the morally corrupt and bankrupt values of general American society? What right does the state have, even at the preliminary stage (which could last months and which undoubtedly will have a permanently devastating effect on the children's relationship with their families and perhaps on their own developement)to take away children from their parents for indoctrinating them in beliefs the government considers "abusive" when it is arguable that the system in which the state wants its children to be raised is just as abusive? Are there any statistics demonstrating that those raised in and living in "normal" Texan society live any happier lives tahn those raised and living in the FDLS community?
1) Is this judge also going to be the trial judge? I think that at least the fathers may as well throw in the towel cause they ain't getting any fair shake before this one, who's already been showing a clear animosity against the group.
2) How can the whole sect be condemened for child abuse so severe to take the kids away when there was no minimum age of marriage with parental consent in Texas only a few years ago? What was legal a few years ago is so "abusive" now?
3)What about Muslim parents who encourage their kids to marry at puberty overseas, where many of those marriages can be polygamous? Can we take their kids away to?
4) Why is there no allowance for(from the perspective of the believing FLDS parents)irreparable harm done by indoctrinating the kids in the morally corrupt and bankrupt values of general American society? What right does the state have, even at the preliminary stage (which could last months and which undoubtedly will have a permanently devastating effect on the children's relationship with their families and perhaps on their own developement)to take away children from their parents for indoctrinating them in beliefs the government considers "abusive" when it is arguable that the system in which the state wants its children to be raised is just as abusive? Are there any statistics demonstrating that those raised in and living in "normal" Texan society live any happier lives tahn those raised and living in the FDLS community?
"I'm just pointing out that YOUR accusation that Christians are only defending these people because they're fellow Christians is unfounded."
You misunderstand. I think the fact that these people are Christians (in that they worship Christ as Lord), and that they do not condone homosexuality, *is* a mitigating factor in any claims of 'abuse'. The quote from me you seem to take as sarcastic was posted in all seriousness.
Yes, Jiminy, we all know what a stellar news organization ABC News truly is.
I think the FLDS lifestyle sucks. What they do grosses me out. But if I give the legal system the power to come down on them because they’re icky, then sooner someone like you will come along and say, “Now lets go after gays.” After homosexuals are taken care of, someone who doesn’t like me being a gun owner will say, “Now lets shut down the NRA.” Sometime thereafter someone will find something they don’t like about you, and it will be your turn.
That’s why I want the legal system to be forced to dot every “i” and cross every “t.” And there’s your “slippery slope” argument.
In most cases the men are legally married to 1 woman and have an informal marriage to several others. This only works when someone in the compound gets really good at "bleeding the beast". Finding ways to claim benefits from every level of government is a necessity. The compounds rail against big government but accept all handouts that help their chosen lifestyle.
The problem is that government largess distributors have over the years been taught to comply with their own "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It's not good to question the living arrangements of anybody asking for aid; that only results in less money flowing through the office. Questioning the young mother's assertion of "I don't know" to the father's identity isn't something that's tolerated. It's seen as racist or some other horrible sin. Therefore as long as mama holds to her story benefits flow to the community.
Polygamy has always been in response to economic conditions faced. It flares worldwide in areas where young men are often killed (especially in small raids against neighbors). It came to life in the US West because of the need to live in compounds and farm large swaths of poor farmland that was at the time partially populated with unfriendly natives. It nearly died as the economies of the early 20th century gave mobility, safety, and relative riches to the folks in the area.
Polygamy has resurfaced over the last 30 years as it became a great way to bleed money from the government wholesale instead of retail. The people distributing the money have no incentive to make sure it is deserved or spent well. INdeed, the distributor's incentive is to make sure as much as possible is distributed. That allows FLDS (and small African/Arab) polygamist groups to grow. The problem won't be solved by seizing kids, it can only be solved by removing the financing for the situation.
"I think the fact that these people are Christians (in that they worship Christ as Lord), and that they do not condone homosexuality, *is* a mitigating factor in any claims of 'abuse'."
That's an interesting claim. I don't understand how it's justified. Are you saying, for example, that if they condoned but did not practice homosexuality, the state should take their children away in this circumstance?
But let me quote your earlier post:
"If these cultists worshipped Allah, or Shiva, or Ayn Rand, instead of the living Christ, you wouldn't hear a word in their defense from most of the posters here;"
Here your argument claims to show something about the posters on this forum, not about the "cultists". Why did you phrase it this way? Are you trying to claim that your argument is right because it would win a vote in this forum?
"on the other hand, while aspects of the FLDS family structure may be creepy, a solidly and devotedly Christian upbringing excuses a multitude of sins."
Here your argument seems to assume that the posters on this forum would withhold excuses for the hypothetical sins if the covering of Christianity were not present.
To take this quote out of context and assume that it implies your later claim that their Christianity "is a mitigating factor in any claims of 'abuse'", I can agree that a stable upbringing -- pushing aside the issue of whether Allah is worse than Christ, or whether the Christ of the Mormon texts is different from the Christ of the historical orthodox Christian texts -- should provide an argument against taking children away from parents, regardless of non-violent infractions.
I don't like the fact that you chose to use the term "any form of abuse", even though you put it in scare quotes; that's blatantly false. Some forms of abuse require IMMEDIATE separation; some forms, if I personally catch a parent engaging in, will result me immediately physically separating the two without regard for (in fact, with prejudice in favor of) physical harm to the parent.
-Wm
Rubbish. That's like saying "some cops abuse their authority, so let's strip all cops of authority", or "we have to grant Islamofascists all the civil rights we allow to decent people, or decent people will lose their civil rights next." The proper response to the potential for abuse of authority isn't to limit authority but to make certain people who would abuse it (Democraps) never get into power in the first place.
"He acknowledged that they were all sinners."
Part of being a Christian, yes, is to accept that you are a sinner and require God's grace through Christ His Son for salvation. A person can have gay sex and - as long as he realizes that it is a sin - remain a Christian. A *homosexual* - that is, someone who actively and publicly supports the homosexual lifestyle - cannot be a Christian, because he denies that homosexual actions are sins (as they are: see Leviticus 18.22 et al). You will notice, I hope, that God did not burn Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of polygamy :)
"2) How can the whole sect be condemened for child abuse so severe to take the kids away when there was no minimum age of marriage with parental consent in Texas only a few years ago? What was legal a few years ago is so "abusive" now? "
Quite so. This entire case is about an abusive, power-hungry, publicity-hungry government going after Christians because they're the one minority the media thinks it's alright to oppress.
Texas law may have allowed marriage by 14 yr olds until fairly recently, but many of you are overlooking the need for meaningful consent by the child, not just her parents.
Excellent point. There are many areas of this country where otherwise rational people sincerely &honestly believe that the 'gun culture' is "... inherently abusive to children." or whatever the verbiage is that the CPS apologists are using to describe the FLDS.
I probably should have put "cultists" in scare quotes, yes.
"I don't like the fact that you chose to use the term "any form of abuse", even though you put it in scare quotes; that's blatantly false"
Ah, but I used the term "any claim of 'abuse'", not "any form of 'abuse'". Obviously, if you come across a six-year-old being raped, you should - indeed, you're morally required to - intervene (though corporal punishment, even if it looks extreme to outsiders, shouldn't go into this category unless you know all the circumstances); at the same time, given how often false and overblown claims of child abuse are levied against Christian parents by schoolteachers and other minions of the liberal establishment - did you know that spanking your own child is considered abuse in some states? - the religious beliefs of the accused party should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to follow up on an abuse claim.
But - to quote myself -
"If these cultists worshipped Allah, or Shiva, or Ayn Rand, instead of the living Christ, you wouldn't hear a word in their defense from most of the posters here[.]"
Cultists was the wrong word to use, yes. Perhaps 'cultists' (in quotes), or better yet, people (without quotes). My point is that the above religions don't have the solid moral foundations of Christianity, and so should - and probably would - be given shorter shrift.
"That document contained a list of names, men and "wives", one of which showed one man had 22 wives, and at least 10 of those "wives" in that document were younger than 17 or had children listed with ages that placed conception at younger than 17.
One of the most troubling statements from the child protection investigator was when testimony was given that girls at the YFZ Ranch were forced into marriage and gave birth as young as 13.
Voss also testified of a 14 year old that was pregnant and a number of 15 year olds that were pregnant as well."
The document referred to was a "Bishop's List" discovered during the search. Attorneys for various members of the church tried to have the document suppressed, as a privileged communication between the bishop and congregants. There was nothing in the synopsis of the testimony that anyone attacked the document's accuracy, only it's admissibility.
Seems like the Dallas Morning News op-ed piece forgot to mention this particular line of testimony.
This isn't about religion; it's about sex between older men and young girls, much of which as documented is still against the law.
If we are going to decry overbearing government intrusion into private lives, surely there's a better example than this. This looks like a legitimate attempt to protect females inculcated into a society of total male domination &sexual abuse.
Aside from all of the other issues, doesn't this reach the "makes your skin crawl" level?
Please name one currently married FLDS women who claims that she did not meaningfully consent to her marriage. The fake 'abuse' tip - probably rigged by the Texas government itself (shades of Ruby Ridge!) - doesn't count.
C'mon. You're not really claiming that the main reason these people engage in plural marriage is to make money, are you? Granted, they've found a way to get the government to subsidize their lifestyle choice, but I doubt you'd find any adherents who are doing it for the money.
Interestingly, the alleged practice being protested here is perfectly legal in this former British colony. Before marriage, both parties must give consent, although in the more religious states of Kelantan and Kedah, if the woman is an unmarried virgin, her wali mujbir (father or paternal grandfather) can marry her to a man of equal status as she is, without her consent.
Does a fireman require individual analysis of risk to life before removing a person from a burning house?
As many posters above have pointed out, if the 'children' were past the age of puberty, they would be considered adults in any sane culture. For example:
and so on. So, no, not creepy - there's a lot of support here for the idea that the 'age of consent' should begin at puberty.
Are you serious? You're going to ignore my entire argument because I put the word "cultist" in scare quotes?
No, you've go it backwards. They don't go into plural communities to make money. They wouldn't be able to support the lifestyle they desire without government largess. That's why the lifestyle all but died between roughly 1900 and 1970. Bad economics underlying it. Only with the advent of the welfare state based on personal integrity did it again become economically viable.
LarryA, I hear what you are saying. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." In other words, everyone is a sinner regardless of whether the sin is homosexuality or not. However, I also seem to recall that Christ commanded his followers to lead a Christian lifestyle after accepting him as their Savior. For instance, when Christ saved the adulteress from being stoned to death by her accusers, he afterward told her to "go and sin no more." Christ did not tell the adulteress to go and continue committing adultery.
Likewise, regardless of whether the sin is homosexuality, adultery, murder, theft, etc., after the sinner confesses the sin and accepts Christ's personal sacrifice as atonement for his/her sins, then the sinner must proactively lead a Christian life instead of a sinful life.
"And it remains rather troubling that the CPS apparently had the authority to take 437 kids from their parents after launching an investigation based on an apparently fraudulent complaint of abuse involving a specific, apparently nonexistent, girl."
News reports quote law enforcement as saying that they had a source inside the compound for as many as four years, and that the investigation had been on-going for some time prior to the call. Presumably, the authorities will be required to validate whatever other information they possessed (which may be in the original supporting affidavit for SW) beyond the single telephone call, which they acted on in good faith. No one has suggested that law enforcement had anything to do with faking the call. In other words, the call did not happen in a vacuum. The cops had been trying to get inside for some time. I'm sure they were thrilled to get that call, since it gave some immediacy to the probable cause they had been building for some time.
Considering the testimony so far about what went on inside, shouldn't we be thrilled as well?
Was the house really burning, or did burnt toast set off the smoke alarm?
Like an earlier poster, I am really "troubled" by this notion that the CPS could not take any action based upon an "apparently fraudulent complaint." There has been no allegation made, at least insofar as I am aware, that the CPS, or any Texas law inforcement agency, was either complicit in making a false complaint, or had any reason to suspect that the telephone complaint to a Child Welfare Hotline was not authentic. Is David Bernstein suggesting that either CPS or a law enforcement agency were either complicit in making the fraudulent call or aware of circumstances that would lead them to reasonably doubt the authenticity of the complaint? Or is he instead suggesting that no law enforcement agency should ever act on a complaint until they first investigate the source of the complaint thoroughly to determine its authenticity?
In this case, taking the complaint at face value, a 16 year old girl in the FLDS Compound complaint that she was being raped and sexually abused by an older man to whom she had been involuntarily "married". Taking the fact that there was no legal marriage ceremony, and the age of the girl, this on its face was evidence sufficient to create probable cause that a child rape had occurred, and was likely to continue. Should we REALLY insist that the CPS or the County Sheriff could not act on this without first establishing the bona fides of the complainant? Are you willing to accept the consequences of the delay, or even complete inaction that such a standard would necessarily entail?
As to the general gist of the Post, and many of the comments, that the Judge should not be able to take away any children without individualized proof of criminal activity or child abuse/neglect, I have some sympathy for this view. However, we need to remember that the Order by the Court was only for Temporary Custody, not a termination of parental rights. None of the parents were facing any criminal sanctions (which clearly would require an individualized showing of guilt), or permanent loss of their parental rights (which also clearly requires an individualized showing of unfitness to be a parent). This is a case where the tension between a State's duty to respect due process and a state's duty to insure the welfare of children is apparent. Each new level of due process protection added to the state's burden increases the risk of further injury to a child. So, just what is the appropriate balance to be drawn? In this case, the State showed that there were several underage girls who were already pregnant (I don't remember offhand if it was 4 or 6 girls 16 and under who were pregnant), and that it was the common and accepted practice in the FLDS to coerce young girls, as young as 14, into "marriages" with older man. So, just what level of risk are you willing to accept that 2 or 3 other semi-pubescent teenage girls will be subjected to rape in the name of religious freedom in order to insure "Due Process" for the parents? If you aren't willing to answer that question, please don't try to second guess the balance drawn by the state in this case.
As to infringinging upon the religious freedom of the FLDS, I'm all in favor of letting these folks believe whatever they want to believe, but their actions must conform to generally applicable laws. If a group of fundamentalist christians were to decide that the strictures of Leviticus required them to stone to death all adulterers or homosexuals, would we excuse them from generally applicable laws that prohibit homocide? Frankly, on the general question of polygamy, I think a strong case could be made under Lawrence v. Texas that the State cannot simply outlaw polygamy; however, that assumes that the relationship is entirely voluntary on BOTH sides. Even under Lawrence, I don't think that laws prohibitting the coercion of underage girls into marriages against their will (even assuming a 14 year old girl is capable of giving informed and rational consent to a marriage to a 55 year old man who already has 27 other wives) run any risk at all of running afoul of either the First Amendment Free Exercise clause, or the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
the character of the informant is irrelevant at this point.
all the judge needed was a sincere belief that a crime had been committed.
crimes were committed.
those poor children are citizens of the US.
if the parents can't or won't protect them from abuse, it the states duty to do so.
what really creeps me out here is the idea that these children are just chattel of the FLDS.
and also the apologists on this thread.
and yes, they had to take all the children.
they have to do DNA testing to discern parent/offspring relationships.
25% of the children have the surname jeffs. like warren jeffs? the founder of the FLDS church now doing prison time for forcing the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her cousin?
What did go on inside?
1. Religious agricultural commune
2. Middle-aged men with multiple steady sex partners in marriage-like relationships.
3. Some of these sex partners were teenagers
4. Some of these marriage-like relationships were coerced.
5. A bunch of healthy, happy children, now wrenched from their homes, friends, and families.
Ever hear of Waco, David Koresh, and the Branch Davidians???
Hmmmm...let's see, anonymous complainant, no specific name or address provided regarding the victim or the alleged rapist.
What is being described in this case is not 16 year old boys engaging in sexual activity with 14 year old girls. We're talking about 50 year old men having ten wives 17 or under.
That doesn't strike you as predatory? I thought "creepy" was mild. Sick and disordered is more appropriate.
This may be a giant leap of faith on my part, but I assume every law enforcement agency has caller-ID. If the call really came from a 33 year old woman from Colorado with a history of making fake calls, at least the Colorado origin of the call should be immediately apparent.
The fear of a genuinely separatist, libertarian Christian community - one that polices itself, pays for its own health care, and turns to God rather than government in time of need - is strong among the liberals, and those of us who are going to stand up for the FLDS have to be prepared to refute this propaganda.
What We're Not Talking About: Other Issues With The FLDS
Canadian women went to Texas; no children went to Canada. In my experience, you can't casually take a child to Canada: you've always needed a birth certificate, more recently if both parents weren't together, the crossing parent would need a letter of permission from the other, and soon if not now the children would need passports.
Sounds like someone is quoting lobbyists for the Funeral Homes Association.
the children may be moved back and forth regularily between the two places.
Argument by analogy is suspect. In this case, show that the acting parties are parallel to firemen, that removal from the house is parallel to dispersing families, and that a burning house is parallel to a polygamous compound.
I could attack on any of the three, but I'll point out that unlike a burning house, a polygamous compound bears no danger to life or limb of its occupants or of the people cleaning it out... That seems to me to be a sufficient difference.
"C'mon. You're not really claiming that the main reason these people engage in plural marriage is to make money, are you? Granted, they've found a way to get the government to subsidize their lifestyle choice, but I doubt you'd find any adherents who are doing it for the money."
I'm not the one you're responding to, but he's clearly claiming that economic support is encouraging of polygamy in general, not that it's sufficient for it or causative in this specific case. He definitely didn't say that there's EXTRA monetary reward for polygamy.
The female-to-male sexual ratio didn't happen by accident. It occured by design. And part of that design was finding justifications to run out as many young boys from their families as possible.
I am, frankly, appalled by the number of commentators looking for reasons to attack a clearly justified action by the State of Texas.
there are no innocents
the adults in the FLDS compound are either perps, enablers, or accomplices.
because they are adults.
and their children are not chattel.
even though they treat them as such.
The legal system has stepped into quick sand here and I see very dangerous precedent about to be established
Yes, Gaius Marius, I've heard of those names. Now, since there is no parallel to the present case, do you have a point? Or do you just like calling attention to what you perceive as past government abuses, regardless of how irrelevant they are to the current string?
It's ridiculous. Liberals are condemning the FLDS for having the audacity to bury their own dead. o_O
"The female-to-male sexual ratio didn't happen by accident. It occured by design. And part of that design was finding justifications to run out as many young boys from their families as possible. "
Young men leave their families and go out to make their fortunes all the time. It's part of the divinely inspired division of labor - men focus outwards, women inwards. I'm not seeing the problem here.
As Shakespeare would note, "There is something rotten in the State of Texas."
my gawd, are actually all this stupid?
is that some basic tennant of the christian faith, that your children are your chattel, to with as you please??????
Yes...one loses the debate, just start calling the other side a bunch of pedophiles.
Sorry, DiverDan, I can't help it if the parallels are not obvious to you.
I have a faith, you belong to a sect, he's in a cult.
sarah may be in canada
mebbe the informant was just phonin it in.
The claim is that the older men practiced selective expulsion on any young man who became involved with a young woman. Younger men were not allowed to form relationships with females of their own age group. Dogma for this cult/sect/whatever mandated the senior males were allowed exclusive marital access to the females.
This mainly from a woman named Jessop who left the sect/cult/whatever several years ago, and has now written a book.
The young men didn't leave the nest to make their way in the world, they were tossed out because they competed with the old goats who ran the place.
The problem is that the young men are minors and are often forced out of the community before they can legally take care of themselves so that the older men have less competetion for the young girls. Sometimes they are kicked out as young as 13. Estimates are that between 400 to 1000 boys have been kicked out of FDLS communities so far and left to fend for themselves with no previous contact with the outside world. Often they are dumped by the roadside with no money and no idea how to survive.
If you have a problem with the law in Texas and want to make staturoy rape legal or want to make it legal to abandon minors, here is the webpage for the state legislature and you can contact them to try to get the law changed. Until then this Texan is happy that CPS is investigating what looks to be very justifiable claims of child rape.
Yes. I don't want firemen barging into my house spraying water every time my smoke detector goes off because some microwave popcorn got burned.
On another note, I think everyone will agree that being trapped in a legitimately burning house is dangerous. Clearly, from the comments, not everyone agrees (nor is there any good evidence) that this was an imminently dangerous situation for the children that would require removal, especially when you consider that the "cry for help" was a hoax. Thus, I don't accept your analogy.
This compound is a prison camp for all the women and girls, who are being raped and cannot leave. And I do mean rape. If a woman is told she must marry a certain man, she has no choice in the matter, that is rape, no matter what her age. That type of environment is unfit for all children.
So all arranged marriages = rape?
Also, by your definition, in an arranged marriage, couldn't the wives also be (simultaneously?) raping the husbands?
On the other hand, if after four years of investigation they still didn't have probable cause, that rather suggests that no matter how "creepy" people find it, nothing illegal was going on.
If he didn't marry the women it would be legal.
No, law enforcement agencies should not raid homes and seize children based on anonymous phone calls that provide no factual basis to believe that they're legitimate.
the state doesn't HAVE a monopoly on force. citizens routinely use LEGAL force in self-defense and defense of their property. in (right thinking jurisdiction), citizens also have the right to carry firearms for protection. in my state, on duty police officers are generally MORe restricted in use of deadly force than citizens.
this is a myth that the state has a monopoly on force.