NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the court has ruled that these children shouldn't have been removed from the cult's ranch.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sect-members-cheer-ruling-on-children/20080522133509990001

SAN ANGELO, Texas (May 23) -- Members of a polygamist sect whose children were placed into foster care said Friday they were thrilled by an appellate court decision that upended the custody case and eagerly waiting to find out if and when their children will return home.

"I just feel like I'm coming back to life," Nancy Dockstader, whose five children were among more than 440 seized last month during a raid on the sect's ranch, said Friday on NBC's "Today." ''We can be a family again. It's just unreal."

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said Thursday that the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds under Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther now has 10 days to release the youngsters from custody, but the state could appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and keep the children from immediately going back to their parents.

All I can say, respects due to the judge of course, is WHAT THE F*CK!?:eek:

Comments?

Beware, lest you incur the illogical wrath of USofA-.

"the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger"

The laws the law I'm afraid.

Unfortunately not all children are going to grow up in the circumstances mainstream society wants them to grow up in.

What a shame that our government will protect the brainswashing of pre-pubescent girls.

"the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger"

The laws the law I'm afraid.

Unfortunately...

What a shame that our government will protect the brainswashing of pre-pubescent girls.The government has to establish that harmful brainwashing has taken place first.

All I can say is, thank God.

Look, I agree that if there were girls being married off who were underage, then that needs to be addressed directly. I also agree that if there was polygamy going on illegally, then it too should be addressed through proper channels...

But to arbitrarily traumatize the younger kids by just yanking them from their homes on the grounds that eventually they'd be married off underage is idiotic and here's why:

1)The underage marriage business is being handled. When this is over, that sect will not be continuing the practice. They'll be watched quite closely from here on out I'm sure.

2)The male children were taken too. Logic?

3)I still don't understand how it's possible to charge someone with polygamy when it's impossible to marry 2 people under the law in the first place.

And for those of you calling it brainwashing: Save it. There are cultures out there in the world that do exactly the same thing and more, so unless you're prepared to pass judgment on entire cultures you're being ridiculous.

And for those of you calling it brainwashing: Save it. There are cultures out there in the world that do exactly the same thing and more, so unless you're prepared to pass judgment on entire cultures you're being ridiculous.

I come from a society that only criminalised polygamy forty years ago where polygamy was practised for thousands of years, and I can't say I'm happer that it's gone.

I come from a society that only criminalised polygamy forty years ago where polygamy was practised for thousands of years, and I can't say I'm happer that it's gone.

Personally, I have no problem with legalizing polygamy anyway (and no, it isn't because I'm a Mormon ;) ) It's because if we're going to live in a society that believes the Government has no right to legislate marriage between consenting adults, then there's no logical reason to outlaw plural marriage either.

So, the court has ruled that these children shouldn't have been removed from the cult's ranch.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sect-members-cheer-ruling-on-children/20080522133509990001



All I can say, respects due to the judge of course, is WHAT THE F*CK!?:eek:

Comments?

there is already a thread for this. It has the link to the actual ruling which shows why the court ruled the way it did. CPS lied about those 20 children being children. Two of them were actually 27 and 28 year olds.

there is already a thread for this. It has the link to the actual ruling which shows why the court ruled the way it did. CPS lied about those 20 children being children. Two of them were actually 27 and 28 year olds.

I was unaware that there was another thread addressing this issue already.

Personally, I have no problem with legalizing polygamy anyway (and no, it isn't because I'm a Mormon ;) ) It's because if we're going to live in a society that believes the Government has no right to legislate marriage between consenting adults, then there's no logical reason to outlaw plural marriage either.

To be fair the decision to outlaw polygamy came as part of the wave of feminism. Women at the time were still rather unequal compared to men, and all polygamous marriages resulted mostly because women (and men) were forced to get married by their parents. So they weren't exactly consenting. So outlawing polygamy was a way of female emancipation, a triumph of consent, not a reduction of it.

Personally I find it mind-boggling that anyone would consent to someone else sharing their spouse - if the original couple married out of love, that is.

What a shame that our government will protect the brainswashing of pre-pubescent girls.

If this is brainwashing, then we need to ban all girls from attending any church or other religious service until they are 21.

The US Constitution states that alll religions must be treated exactly the same.

To be fair the decision to outlaw polygamy came as part of the wave of feminism. Women at the time were still rather unequal compared to men, and all polygamous marriages resulted mostly because women (and men) were forced to get married by their parents. So they weren't exactly consenting. So outlawing polygamy was a way of female emancipation, a triumph of consent, not a reduction of it.

Personally I find it mind-boggling that anyone would consent to someone else sharing their spouse - if the original couple married out of love, that is.

I agree with that last part, but then I've never seriously considered the possibility. Who knows? Not all polygamous sects out west are in arranged marriages. if they can make it work, then more power to them.

All I can say is, thank God.

Look, I agree that if there were girls being married off who were underage, then that needs to be addressed directly. I also agree that if there was polygamy going on illegally, then it too should be addressed through proper channels...

But to arbitrarily traumatize the younger kids by just yanking them from their homes on the grounds that eventually they'd be married off underage is idiotic and here's why:

1)The underage marriage business is being handled. When this is over, that sect will not be continuing the practice. They'll be watched quite closely from here on out I'm sure.

2)The male children were taken too. Logic?

3)I still don't understand how it's possible to charge someone with polygamy when it's impossible to marry 2 people under the law in the first place.

And for those of you calling it brainwashing: Save it. There are cultures out there in the world that do exactly the same thing and more, so unless you're prepared to pass judgment on entire cultures you're being ridiculous.

Sorry but I guess I can just be labled ridiculous then. :D

As a woman, the idea that my parents might have taught me that my 'duty' was to marry and breed children the moment I began to have a period completely offends me and my value of freedom of thought.

I absolutely feel that is abuse. I know exactly how advanced my thinking was when I started my period and it certainly was not emotionally stable enough to be in a sexual relationship with child bearing being the purpose.

As for the point that there are cultures in the world that practice closely related rituals. Sure there are. But that is not what is practiced in America and that is the reality of where this is happening.

I don't claim to know what the solution is to this. But I feel these parents are completely incompetent and abusive when raising girls. Removing the children was the right move, at least until it can be sorted out. The sort will be in what is considered abuse.

If these children/young adults were being beaten for refusing to have sex, that is a crime and we would have been overjoyed that the children were removed. Both boys and girls. So I am fine with social services erring on the part of safety first.

And really whose to say that 'carting off' the children is more traumatizing than being carted to a bed as soon as you bleed?

If this is brainwashing, then we need to ban all girls from attending any church or other religious service until they are 21.

The US Constitution states that alll religions must be treated exactly the same.

That's never protected religions if they were considered weird enough.

If you want an interesting exercise in American History you'll never hear about in the classroom, go to the Library of Congress and look up an order from the mid 1840s when the Governor of Missouri signed an order to literally execute any Mormon still living in the state after a specified date.

Then look up about how Joseph Smith appealed to the President of the United States for help and was told that nothing could be done to correct it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=557139&page=4


Speaking of which. If anyone noticed the title of the first thread made about the issue, "State raids Evil Pedophile Cult" should have shown that even I iniitially thought they were all guilty until I saw that state was diong this only because of the "pervasive" (catchword for evil) belief system. Despite the fact they had no proof of abuse going on.

I don't usually change my mind about something unless there is compelling evidence. There was such evidence here so I could not continue claiming those people were all guilty as charged and still claim to value democracy. I'd have to change my account name. LOL

Sorry but I guess I can just be labled ridiculous then. :D

Okay, you're ridiculous ;)

(you know I think the world of ya ;) )


As a woman, the idea that my parents might have taught me that my 'duty' was to marry and breed children the moment I began to have a period completely offends me and my value of freedom of thought.

I absolutely feel that is abuse. I know exactly how advanced my thinking was when I started my period and it certainly was not emotionally stable enough to be in a sexual relationship with child bearing being the purpose.


It offends me too, but then, that issue is being resolved independently.


As for the point that there are cultures in the world that practice closely related rituals. Sure there are. But that is not what is practiced in America and that is the reality of where this is happening.


But bear in mind that America isn't a single monolithic culture. The whole point of this country is that people have the freedom to live and worship according to their own conscience.


I don't claim to know what the solution is to this. But I feel these parents are completely incompetent and abusive when raising girls. Removing the children was the right move, at least until it can be sorted out. The sort will be in what is considered abuse.


I'd say maybe in specific instances it might be appropriate, but what happened here was that ALL of the children from this group were summarily taken just because they lived within this community. Isn't our justice system based on the acts of individuals and not groups?


If these children/young adults were being beaten for refusing to have sex, that is a crime and we would have been overjoyed that the children were removed. Both boys and girls. So I am fine with social services erring on the part of safety first.

Has that been proven?


And really whose to say that 'carting off' the children is more traumatizing than being carted to a bed as soon as you bleed?

Again, in those specific instances action has to be taken, but they went in with much too wide a net.

If this is brainwashing, then we need to ban all girls from attending any church or other religious service until they are 21.

The US Constitution states that alll religions must be treated exactly the same.

The brainwashing argument could also be be applied to the society at large, who will protect the children from that? Parents are supposed to, but society doesn't seem to like that notion.

I agree with that last part, but then I've never seriously considered the possibility. Who knows? Not all polygamous sects out west are in arranged marriages. if they can make it work, then more power to them.

I think my underlying logic behind being against polygamy is: if you are married for love, you wouldn't want to share your spouse with somebody else. Hence polygamous marriages indicate that somebody in the relationship might be forced. On the other hand if somebody willingly consents to somebody else sharing his/her spouse, then love is not involved and they can get a divorce instead. I see that the risk of coercion in a polygamy as stronger than the potential benefits for recognition of consent.

If somebody can point otherwise please do.

The US Constitution states that alll religions must be treated exactly the same.

That is absolutely not true in the least. The US constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Nowhere in that statement does it say that all religions must be treated the same.

I think my underlying logic behind being against polygamy is: if you are married for love, you wouldn't want to share your spouse with somebody else. Hence polygamous marriages indicate that somebody in the relationship might be forced. On the other hand if somebody willingly consents to somebody else sharing his/her spouse, then love is not involved and they can get a divorce instead. I see that the risk of coercion in a polygamy as stronger than the potential benefits for recognition of consent.

If somebody can point otherwise please do.

I think my disagreement is with one of your premises, which is that a person who loves someone else cannot possibly share that person with another, or in other cases, cannot sincerely love more than one person at a time. I reject those premises on the grounds that people do it every day, whether they call it plural marriage or not.

Ironic, isn't it, that in this country I could live in sexual relationships with 3 women, perfectly legally, but the moment I call more than one of them my wife I become a felon?

I think my disagreement is with one of your premises, which is that a person who loves someone else cannot possibly share that person with another, or in other cases, cannot sincerely love more than one person at a time. I reject those premises on the grounds that people do it every day, whether they call it plural marriage or not.
I see your point. But the law is sometimes making the better choice out of two or more, so while neither are completely "right" I think (at least where I come from) criminalising polygamy is the right thing to do to protect women. Can there be more flexibility? Maybe.


Ironic, isn't it, that in this country I could live in sexual relationships with 3 women, perfectly legally, but the moment I call more than one of them my wife I become a felon?

No. If you call them all your wives that won't make you a felon. It's only if you complete the legal process that actually makes all of them your wives.

Somewhere in the social psyche marriage and casual sex remain separate categories of relationship, and it's more than just legal, apparently.

Wow...Dragons Bay...How are you old friend!!

Didnt realise you were still on here!!

Okay, you're ridiculous ;)

(you know I think the world of ya ;) )



It offends me too, but then, that issue is being resolved independently.



But bear in mind that America isn't a single monolithic culture. The whole point of this country is that people have the freedom to live and worship according to their own conscience.



I'd say maybe in specific instances it might be appropriate, but what happened here was that ALL of the children from this group were summarily taken just because they lived within this community. Isn't our justice system based on the acts of individuals and not groups?



Has that been proven?



Again, in those specific instances action has to be taken, but they went in with much too wide a net.

Oh no, I don't know if there is even an instance of beatings...my point was that we (as a society) would be applauding social services for removing children in such circumstances. Even if is was a religious custom. My thought was that I am happy for them to remove the children until they know it isn't so.

I guess that violates innocent until proven guilty though. Hmmm...

The problem with the whole thing is that I don't feel it is appropriate to leave children in circumstances that are questionable. If a child calls in that he is being abused, should we not immediately assume the truth is being told by the child? Should we not remove the child until we KNOW it is safe and healthy for them to be returned? Isn't that what we do?

Being free to live and worship how one pleases does not include harming others. I am free to handle rattlesnakes as part of my religion, I am not free to make my child do so.

I don't think it was too much of a wide net. I think they had to assume if it was happening with one, given the nature of the sect, it was happening with all the children. Better safe than sorry.

*proudly wearing embroidered "R" for ridiculous" :p

I see your point. But the law is sometimes making the better choice out of two or more, so while neither are completely "right" I think (at least where I come from) criminalising polygamy is the right thing to do to protect women. Can there be more flexibility? Maybe.


I'd certainly hope there would be. I think at this point we're advanced enough in our society that coercion to marry would be easily detected and dealt with more effectively than it was way back when.


No. If you call them all your wives that won't make you a felon. It's only if you complete the legal process that actually makes all of them your wives.

Somewhere in the social psyche marriage and casual sex remain separate categories of relationship, and it's more than just legal, apparently.

That's the part that mystifies me... If it's illegal to have more than one wife, then how can one complete the process of doing so, a component of which is a state issued marriage license?

A lot of these isolated towns out west where polygamy is legal must either be getting some kind of special dispensation or they're not doing it through legal channels and simply keeping it within the context of their religion. I admit that I don't really know.

Wow...Dragons Bay...How are you old friend!!

Didnt realise you were still on here!!

*slowly shifts away*

Do I...know you...?

Don't you love a country where adult homosexual men and women aren't allowed to marry each other, but it's perfectly fine for twisted old men to marry minors and have sex with them in the name of religion?

I'd certainly hope there would be. I think at this point we're advanced enough in our society that coercion to marry would be easily detected and dealt with more effectively than it was way back when.
Really? A lot of social abuse goes ahead undetected.


That's the part that mystifies me... If it's illegal to have more than one wife, then how can one complete the process of doing so, a component of which is a state issued marriage license?

A lot of these isolated towns out west where polygamy is legal must either be getting some kind of special dispensation or they're not doing it through legal channels and simply keeping it within the context of their religion. I admit that I don't really know. Haha. So you can't actually "break" polygamy laws - unless you get married in two different jurisdictions.

Oh no, I don't know if there is even an instance of beatings...my point was that we (as a society) would be applauding social services for removing children in such circumstances. Even if is was a religious custom. My thought was that I am happy for them to remove the children until they know it isn't so.

I guess that violates innocent until proven guilty though. Hmmm...

That last line is the part I have a problem with.

In a lot of places Social Services is more or less autonomous, and can go in and seize children without a warrant. if I call CSC and tell them my neighbor is beating their kids, that could very well be enough to have them removed from the home.

(Which, when they get to making all that noise up there running around and slamming stuff I'm temped to do...)

(I'm joking...)

(maybe.)

(:D)

Once that happens, then the burden is on the parents to come up with the money for a lawyer to help them get their kids back, a process that could very well take years.

I'm all for protecting children but this system is broken.


The problem with the whole thing is that I don't feel it is appropriate to leave children in circumstances that are questionable. If a child calls in that he is being abused, should we not immediately assume the truth is being told by the child? Should we not remove the child until we KNOW it is safe and healthy for them to be returned? Isn't that what we do?

And what if the child is only doing it because he's angry at mom and dad for not letting him go to the movies with his friends? This is a system where incidents like that can and do happen, and the road to recovery is long and sometimes impassable.

I know a guy who had a stepdaughter with whom he did not get along. One day, after a particularly bad argument between them, she fixed his little red wagon by telling a counselor at school that he'd touched her inappropriately.

She later admitted that it was a lie. In a properly run system, things would then be allowed to get back to normal.

Instead what happened is that this man did 6 months in jail and is a registered sex offender. Show me the justice. Show me how this protected the stepdaughter, or his other kids whom he can't have contact with unsupervised now.


Being free to live and worship how one pleases does not include harming others. I am free to handle rattlesnakes as part of my religion, I am not free to make my child do so.


Of course not, but the burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused.


I don't think it was too much of a wide net. I think they had to assume if it was happening with one, given the nature of the sect, it was happening with all the children. Better safe than sorry.

That logic does not fit with our justice system at all. You can't punish a whole group of people because of 'the nature of the sect.' Not only is that a form of religious discrimination it's simply wrong to punish anybody of a crime that you can't prove they committed. There's no room for guilt by association in our system.

...or at least, there shouldn't be.


*proudly wearing embroidered "R" for ridiculous" :p

[Issued by the Department of Internal Order for the Empire of Neo Bretonnia]

The government has to establish that harmful brainwashing has taken place first.

So that it can do its own harmful brainwashing. *nod*

Don't you love a country where adult homosexual men and women aren't allowed to marry each other, but it's perfectly fine for twisted old men to marry minors and have sex with them in the name of religion?

Have you been paying attention at all to the fact that these people have been arrested, or are you just digging for trollbait?

Really? A lot of social abuse goes ahead undetected.

Some things never change but is it right to categorically impose what amounts to a moral rule over the whole country because of such cases? That's a little like saying that just because there's a case now and then of a priest molesting a child that now there can be no more priests, ever.


Haha. So you can't actually "break" polygamy laws - unless you get married in two different jurisdictions.

Is that how they did it?

Have you been paying attention at all to the fact that these people have been arrested, or are you just digging for trollbait?

Of course I've been paying attention. Personally I find the results unpleasant. If the sect's leader was arrested and imprisoned for encouraging the very acts that the sect is infamous for, why should the followers be granted an exemption especially if they go along with such things?

The whole "in no immediate danger" ruling reminds me too much of stalking cases where police were unable to take actions to protect someone because the they were "in no immediate danger" from someone who has a distinct history and displayed inclinations of behaving violently. And a few of those cases end up in death. While the FLDS children aren't going to be killed, you would have to be naive or USoA- to not expect the "indoctrination" to occur long before they reach legal maturity.

Some things never change but is it right to categorically impose what amounts to a moral rule over the whole country because of such cases? That's a little like saying that just because there's a case now and then of a priest molesting a child that now there can be no more priests, ever.

Strawman. Catholics priests are not part of a religion in which child molestation is an integral component of faith. No Pope in history ever declared that it's God's Will that the priests should molest children.

Some things never change but is it right to categorically impose what amounts to a moral rule over the whole country because of such cases? That's a little like saying that just because there's a case now and then of a priest molesting a child that now there can be no more priests, ever.

Eh...where did you jump to? My statement was referring to your statement that "I think at this point we're advanced enough in our society that coercion to marry would be easily detected and dealt with more effectively than it was way back when". I merely disagreed, saying that a lot of social abuse goes on undetected. Where did I say I want to "categorically impose what amounts to a moral rule over the whole country"?



Is that how they did it?
I don't know, but back where I came from quite a few men are hopping across the border to find second wives.

That last line is the part I have a problem with.

In a lot of places Social Services is more or less autonomous, and can go in and seize children without a warrant. if I call CSC and tell them my neighbor is beating their kids, that could very well be enough to have them removed from the home.

(Which, when they get to making all that noise up there running around and slamming stuff I'm temped to do...)

(I'm joking...)

(maybe.)

(:D)

Once that happens, then the burden is on the parents to come up with the money for a lawyer to help them get their kids back, a process that could very well take years.

I'm all for protecting children but this system is broken.



And what if the child is only doing it because he's angry at mom and dad for not letting him go to the movies with his friends? This is a system where incidents like that can and do happen, and the road to recovery is long and sometimes impassable.

I know a guy who had a stepdaughter with whom he did not get along. One day, after a particularly bad argument between them, she fixed his little red wagon by telling a counselor at school that he'd touched her inappropriately.

She later admitted that it was a lie. In a properly run system, things would then be allowed to get back to normal.

Instead what happened is that this man did 6 months in jail and is a registered sex offender. Show me the justice. Show me how this protected the stepdaughter, or his other kids whom he can't have contact with unsupervised now.



Of course not, but the burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused.



That logic does not fit with our justice system at all. You can't punish a whole group of people because of 'the nature of the sect.' Not only is that a form of religious discrimination it's simply wrong to punish anybody of a crime that you can't prove they committed. There's no room for guilt by association in our system.

...or at least, there shouldn't be.



[Issued by the Department of Internal Order for the Empire of Neo Bretonnia]


I'm sorry about your friend. I have a client that was in a very similar situation. It cost him thousands of dollars and his business in the end. She was mad she wasnt' allowed to date on a school night. Sad but true.

But the thing is this....we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the child. We (society) are their protectorates because they are not in a situation to wield any authority in their lives.

Take these girls for example. Who is telling them they do NOT have to have sex? Do not have to marry? Do not have to bear children? Adults took those choices away from these girls. The very adults that are supposed to be or should be protecting their rights. Seeing as those parents refuse to do that it is the government who must protect those rights.

I know only too well that social services can be very invasive and seemingly unreasonable. In Ky you are required by law to report any incident you see that might be child abuse. If you don't and you know it happened and they can prove it you can be charged. This goes for teachers, scout leaders, sunday school teachers, doctors, family members, neighbors etc. The water muddies when my idea of what is abuse is not the same as a parent's idea of what abuse is. Your neighbors think it is fine for kids to be loud and obnoxious...you don't. ;)

I don't see removing all the children as "punishment". It was part of the investigation wasn't it?

Apperantly the State wants to take it to the Texas Supreme Court. It aint over yet.

Beware, lest you incur the illogical wrath of USofA-.

Texas is the whole US....???

Texas is the whole US....???

No, he's talking about UnitedStatesofAmerica-, NSG's foremost defender of the FLDS and it's "constitutionally granted right" to force child weddings and statutory rape.

Texas is the whole US....???

No no, USofA- the NS user.

Of course I've been paying attention. Personally I find the results unpleasant. If the sect's leader was arrested and imprisoned for encouraging the very acts that the sect is infamous for, why should the followers be granted an exemption especially if they go along with such things?


You suggested that it's considered perfectly fine for these guys to be marrying minors while homosexual marriage is disallowed, which is 2 inaccuracies for the price of one.

Those who were involved in these underage marriages are being prosecuted, and nobody on this thread is suggesting that they shouldn't be. So where did the 'perfectly fine' but come from?

Meanwhile more and more states are getting out of the way of gay marriage, so what was that about?


The whole "in no immediate danger" ruling reminds me too much of stalking cases where police were unable to take actions to protect someone because the they were "in no immediate danger" from someone who has a distinct history and displayed inclinations of behaving violently. And a few of those cases end up in death. While the FLDS children aren't going to be killed, you would have to be naive or USoA- to not expect the "indoctrination" to occur long before they reach legal maturity.


First of all, you can't arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed yet, no matter how certain you are that they will. Similarly, you can't yank kids out of their homes because you think they will someday be molested. It hasn't happened yet.

Think about it. Now that the ones behind the underage marriages have been busted, do you really think they're going to continue the practice? They're going to be watched very closely indeed from now on.


Strawman. Catholics priests are not part of a religion in which child molestation is an integral component of faith. No Pope in history ever declared that it's God's Will that the priests should molest children.

It's not a strawman in the context I presented it. Look again.

Eh...where did you jump to? My statement was referring to your statement that "I think at this point we're advanced enough in our society that coercion to marry would be easily detected and dealt with more effectively than it was way back when". I merely disagreed, saying that a lot of social abuse goes on undetected. Where did I say I want to "categorically impose what amounts to a moral rule over the whole country"?


In the sense that criminalizing plural marriage is essentially a moral rule, not one of safety. I understand your point about people being coerced into plural marriages at times, but its' not like nobody's ever been coerced into a one on one marriage either and yet it would be ludicrous to outlaw marriage itself.

Incomprehensible as it might be to you or to me, there really are people who would find happiness and fulfillment in a plural marriage. What's our basis for denying them that right?


I don't know, but back where I came from quite a few men are hopping across the border to find second wives.

Really? Where was that?

Of course I've been paying attention. Personally I find the results unpleasant. If the sect's leader was arrested and imprisoned for encouraging the very acts that the sect is infamous for, why should the followers be granted an exemption especially if they go along with such things?

The whole "in no immediate danger" ruling reminds me too much of stalking cases where police were unable to take actions to protect someone because the they were "in no immediate danger" from someone who has a distinct history and displayed inclinations of behaving violently. And a few of those cases end up in death. While the FLDS children aren't going to be killed, you would have to be naive or USoA- to not expect the "indoctrination" to occur long before they reach legal maturity.



Strawman. Catholics priests are not part of a religion in which child molestation is an integral component of faith. No Pope in history ever declared that it's God's Will that the priests should molest children.


I think this is a really good point. It isn't like this is a random once event. Their leader has been convicted of sexual abuse and it is their practice. Given that fact and then a phone call reporting abuse, I feel the state did the right thing in assuming the children were all in danger of being subject of the same practices.

I really don't believe that Jeffs' case was taught to the children as the daily 'What We Are No Longer Allowed To Do' lesson.

Which is my belief and of course nada to do with the law. lol

In the sense that criminalizing plural marriage is essentially a moral rule, not one of safety. I understand your point about people being coerced into plural marriages at times, but its' not like nobody's ever been coerced into a one on one marriage either and yet it would be ludicrous to outlaw marriage itself.

Ah...I see your point. Unfortunately every law on the land is based on some type of moral authority. Different lands, different morals, different laws.


Incomprehensible as it might be to you or to me, there really are people who would find happiness and fulfillment in a plural marriage. What's our basis for denying them that right?
On the basis that pure happiness alone isn't the only category to fulfill to decide or decide against a law.


Really? Where was that?
Hong Kong.

You suggested that it's considered perfectly fine for these guys to be marrying minors while homosexual marriage is disallowed, which is 2 inaccuracies for the price of one.

If you can't tell sarcasm, then it's amazing you've lasted this long on NSG.

Those who were involved in these underage marriages are being prosecuted, and nobody on this thread is suggesting that they shouldn't be. So where did the 'perfectly fine' but come from?

This isn't like breaking up an organized crime family. The FLDS is a religious sect which means as long there are men and women who follow Warren Jeffs' credoes the practices will inevitably continue.

Meanwhile more and more states are getting out of the way of gay marriage, so what was that about?

Maybe 3 out of 50 states? And let's not forget the Defense of Marriage Act that's still being pushed for as a Constitutional Amendment.

First of all, you can't arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed yet, no matter how certain you are that they will. Similarly, you can't yank kids out of their homes because you think they will someday be molested. It hasn't happened yet.

Think about it. Now that the ones behind the underage marriages have been busted, do you really think they're going to continue the practice? They're going to be watched very closely indeed from now on.

Read my reply above. And how are they going to know when it happens again until another member flees from its compounds or they plant an undercover operative in their midst? Do that with any other religious group and there would be screams of invasion or privacy, etc. etc.

It's not a strawman in the context I presented it. Look again.

And you need to look again yourself. The Catholic Church does not institutionalize pedophilia so when a few priests are caught molesting children of course it doesn't make sense to do away with priests. By its very fouding the FLDS institutionalizes child weddings and statutory rape, otherwise Warren Jeffs and his inner circle wouldn't be in jail.

In the sense that criminalizing plural marriage is essentially a moral rule, not one of safety. I understand your point about people being coerced into plural marriages at times, but its' not like nobody's ever been coerced into a one on one marriage either and yet it would be ludicrous to outlaw marriage itself.

Incomprehensible as it might be to you or to me, there really are people who would find happiness and fulfillment in a plural marriage. What's our basis for denying them that right?

Strawman. I find nothing wrong with plural marriages if the participants are of legal age and they are willing to partake in it. The FLDS version of "plural marriage" boils down to institutionalized statutory rapes and misogynistic control.

No no, USofA- the NS user.

*facepalm*


I knew that. *shifty eyes*

The main thing to think about is: have these kids, in fact, being indoctrinated in getting married underage?
And if so, would they be showing any signs?
How can the court demonstrate, without room for doubt, that these children are suffering and that they will be enacting any teachings from said sect?

*facepalm*


I knew that. *shifty eyes*

It happens. I would have thought "illogical" would have given it away. I mean, of all things, illogical would be an odd way to describe the US.

And indeed, his illogical wrath has been incurred.

Ah...I see your point. Unfortunately every law on the land is based on some type of moral authority. Different lands, different morals, different laws.

I think that's true in many cases, but ideally we'd whittle it down to a set of universally agreed upon ideas like, it's wrong to kill somebody or take their stuff.


On the basis that pure happiness alone isn't the only category to fulfill to decide or decide against a law.


True. I'd say that the basis ought to be whether the law limits freedom unreasonably. Are we going to assert that adults are capable of deciding whether to enter into such a lifestyle or not?

If you can't tell sarcasm, then it's amazing you've lasted this long on NSG.

Ok that one was lost on me.


This isn't like breaking up an organized crime family. The FLDS is a religious sect which means as long there are men and women who follow Warren Jeffs' credoes the practices will inevitably continue.


How can you say it's inevitable? People will be watching them. At the first sign of those shenanigans continuing the law will be all over them like white on rice.


Maybe 3 out of 50 states? And let's not forget the Defense of Marriage Act that's still being pushed for as a Constitutional Amendment.


It's not going to pass.


Read my reply above. And how are they going to know when it happens again until another member flees from its compounds or they plant an undercover operative in their midst? Do that with any other religious group and there would be screams of invasion or privacy, etc. etc.


Simple. A good many of these people are going to be on some kind of probation for the foreseeable future. That means home visits. In Texas, being in trouble for that sort of crime brings some of the harshest measures in the country.


And you need to look again yourself. The Catholic Church does not institutionalize pedophilia so when a few priests are caught molesting children of course it doesn't make sense to do away with priests. By its very fouding the FLDS institutionalizes child weddings and statutory rape, otherwise Warren Jeffs and his inner circle wouldn't be in jail.


Jeffs' church is either going to undergo a fundamental change or it's going to disband. That's it. They cannot feasibly continue as they have been.


Strawman. I find nothing wrong with plural marriages if the participants are of legal age and they are willing to partake in it. The FLDS version of "plural marriage" boils down to institutionalized statutory rapes and misogynistic control.

Do you just like saying "strawman" a lot hoping it'll stick? The part you just quoted wasn't even directed at you nor was it about underage polygamy.

Jeffs' church is either going to undergo a fundamental change or it's going to disband. That's it. They cannot feasibly continue as they have been.




I think we cannot assume that at all. Considering that it took years to track the man, there is no question that he isn't willingly giving up his beliefs and customs. He fought it, continued it, ran from the law etc. I can't assume he is a law abiding person in the least, nor that he is simply going to change his ways because our government said to do so.

I think it will just become more and more secretive and will continue...that seems to be what the pattern has been anyway hasn't it?

Those parents told those children to lie to social services about who their parents were, their ages etc. This isn't exactly a group of Mennonites who are known for the honesty.

I think we cannot assume that at all. Considering that it took years to track the man, there is no question that he isn't willingly giving up his beliefs and customs. He fought it, continued it, ran from the law etc. I can't assume he is a law abiding person in the least, nor that he is simply going to change his ways because our government said to do so.

I think it will just become more and more secretive and will continue...that seems to be what the pattern has been anyway hasn't it?

Those parents told those children to lie to social services about who their parents were, their ages etc. This isn't exactly a group of Mennonites who are known for the honesty.


I suspect he's going to be in prison for quite some time, and when he's released the conditions of his parole are going to keep him from being in a position to continue as before.

More than likely the members will be absorbed into other Mormon fundamentalist sects.

I suspect he's going to be in prison for quite some time, and when he's released the conditions of his parole are going to keep him from being in a position to continue as before.
More than likely the members will be absorbed into other Mormon fundamentalist sects.

Then that's good news.

The government has to establish that harmful brainwashing has taken place first.

Sufficient evidence has already been shown. You can tell they're brainwashed. Babies aren't allowed to cry, infants are taking away from their monthers at one year of age. Thirteen year old girls are forced into marriage to men in their fifties and sixties, a lot of boys are exiled from the cult when they reach puberty because they are competition to the old men. Isn't this enough evidence for the courts to hold the children? The Texas Supreme Court needs to overrule this and keep those children until they can be taken better care of.

Sufficient evidence has already been shown. You can tell they're brainwashed. Babies aren't allowed to cry, infants are taking away from their monthers at one year of age. Thirteen year old girls are forced into marriage to men in their fifties and sixties, a lot of boys are exiled from the cult when they reach puberty because they are competition to the old men. Isn't this enough evidence for the courts to hold the children? The Texas Supreme Court needs to overrule this and keep those children until they can be taken better care of.

At what trial did these come out in?

I suspect he's going to be in prison for quite some time, and when he's released the conditions of his parole are going to keep him from being in a position to continue as before.

More than likely the members will be absorbed into other Mormon fundamentalist sects.

Interesting thought. I am curious about this, would other Mormon sects work to 'deprogram' the mothers and fathers? Do you think that is possible? Are you assuming that the bizaare sexual rituals can be seperated from religion?

I feel like just because Jeffs is in prison, that doesn't preclude those who embraced his beliefs from continuing to believe such. I don't get the impression that the law means much to these folks.

Don't you love a country where adult homosexual men and women aren't allowed to marry each other, but it's perfectly fine for twisted old men to marry minors and have sex with them in the name of religion?

Just because it's going on doesn't make it right. Both homosexual marriage and the forced marriage of minor girls to older men is morrally wrong. Neither one should be allowed. Unfortunately, in the case of forced marriages, they have to be reported to the police in order to recieve any help because the authorities don't know the marriage was forced unless they investigate it. The state can't investigate the circumstances of each marriage license request that crosses their desk.

At what trial did these come out in?

This has been all over the news. CNN showed pictures of the compound and the children don't have any toys, all they have is a picture of Warren Jeffs over their beds. They didn't even know what a crayon was. There has been numerous reports about the abuse, and firsthand accounts of women who used to live within this very sect. Two example is Carolyn Jessop, and Flora Jessop.

Interesting thought. I am curious about this, would other Mormon sects work to 'deprogram' the mothers and fathers? Do you think that is possible? Are you assuming that the bizaare sexual rituals can be seperated from religion?

Yes I am assuming that. I'm a Mormon, remember so I know something of the basis these people used to create their rather warped version of the truth of Mormon theology. I can tell you that if these people were to adhere to the true LDS Church, the distortions would be straightened out in short order. The LDS Church does not practice underage marriages or polygamy, either of which would get someone excommunicated.

If, instead, they joined up with another fundamentalist group then who knows? Every one of those has their own take on things. They're generally not out there marrying kids though.


I feel like just because Jeffs is in prison, that doesn't preclude those who embraced his beliefs from continuing to believe such. I don't get the impression that the law means much to these folks.

They might believe it but Mormon sects tend to follow a rigid hierarchy and leadership structure. They believe their prophet is called by God and if their current leader is taken away then presumably someone else will step in, claiming to have been called to lead.

If that new person has even a modicum of common sense he will cease the practices that got the group in trouble in the first place, and the people will go with it because they believe he speaks with the authority of God.

This has been all over the news. CNN showed pictures of the compound and the children don't have any toys, all they have is a picture of Warren Jeffs over their beds. They didn't even know what a crayon was. There has been numerous reports about the abuse, and firsthand accounts of women who used to live within this very sect. Two example is Carolyn Jessop, and Flora Jessop.

I wasn't aware the news constituted incontrovertible evidence.

Whenever the state takes a child from the parents there had better be a clear and present danger to that child. The parental right is one of the most crucial rights we possess and no government should be allowed to infringe upon it.

It is obvious that the state did not have the right to take every child and did so upon shaky legal grounds. I don't like what these guys were doing on that compound and much of it needs to be addressed but the wholesale abduction of child by the state, without clear cut reason, can not stand.

Many of the anti-religious on this forum see this as a travesty but it only takes a minor shift in government policy to make YOU the target of such policies.

Take, for example, Elian Gonzalez (sp?). His father deserved to have his son back even though sending him back to that Communist hell hole (brainwashing anyone?) was hard to do. The father wanted him and (I don't say this often) Clinton did the right thing.

That may be, but it would be hard to argue with the firsthand accounts of those women, or argue the pictures of the compound.

The Smiling Frogs, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it doesn't take but a small shift to turn bad policy on others. And if the state didn't have sufficient evidence to take all of those children, then by all means they had no right to go in there. But given what they thought was happening, and what may indeed have been happening, they had probable cause to go in there. And when they found those girls underage, married, and pregnant that gave them more than enough reason to take the children from the compound.

Whenever the state takes a child from the parents there had better be a clear and present danger to that child. The parental right is one of the most crucial rights we possess and no government should be allowed to infringe upon it.

It is obvious that the state did not have the right to take every child and did so upon shaky legal grounds. I don't like what these guys were doing on that compound and much of it needs to be addressed but the wholesale abduction of child by the state, without clear cut reason, can not stand.

Many of the anti-religious on this forum see this as a travesty but it only takes a minor shift in government policy to make YOU the target of such policies.

Take, for example, Elian Gonzalez (sp?). His father deserved to have his son back even though sending him back to that Communist hell hole (brainwashing anyone?) was hard to do. The father wanted him and (I don't say this often) Clinton did the right thing.
I agree with you.

At one point, during the 60s and 70s, being born into an aboriginal family was per se evidence that you were being abused, and thousands of children were forcibly removed from their families to be raised in white foster homes. The justifications were many, based mostly on beliefs of cultural superiority rather than any actual abuse.

Once we start saying that we can take children away from parents who are members of 'x' religion/political party/group or parents who are 'z', and stop focusing on abuse itself, we tread extremely dangerous ground. People might not like the religion or the beliefs of this group, and that's fine. But unless it can be shown that their religion and/or belief is inherently abusive, then their children should not be taken away, period absent actual instances of specific abuse.

And beware the term 'inherently abusive'. I can't stand racists who raise their children to be as stupid as themselves...but I also wouldn't say we should snatch said children away because racist ideologies are inherently abusive.

The Smiling Frogs, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it doesn't take but a small shift to turn bad policy on others. And if the state didn't have sufficient evidence to take all of those children, then by all means they had no right to go in there. But given what they thought was happening, and what may indeed have been happening, they had probable cause to go in there. And when they found those girls underage, married, and pregnant that gave them more than enough reason to take the children from the compound.

But now the evidence has been looked at and the initial response has been questioned throug official channels and found wanting. It is now time to give these children back to there parents.

If the laws of Texas have not been violated then you must return them. It is that simple.

I see your point. But the law is sometimes making the better choice out of two or more, so while neither are completely "right" I think (at least where I come from) criminalising polygamy is the right thing to do to protect women. Can there be more flexibility? Maybe.



No. If you call them all your wives that won't make you a felon. It's only if you complete the legal process that actually makes all of them your wives.

Somewhere in the social psyche marriage and casual sex remain separate categories of relationship, and it's more than just legal, apparently.

Except that these days you don't need official documents to be legally married. According to common law marriage, you are married if you call someone your wife and you live with them as if you are married.

Oh no, I don't know if there is even an instance of beatings...my point was that we (as a society) would be applauding social services for removing children in such circumstances. Even if is was a religious custom. My thought was that I am happy for them to remove the children until they know it isn't so.

I guess that violates innocent until proven guilty though. Hmmm...

The problem with the whole thing is that I don't feel it is appropriate to leave children in circumstances that are questionable. If a child calls in that he is being abused, should we not immediately assume the truth is being told by the child? Should we not remove the child until we KNOW it is safe and healthy for them to be returned? Isn't that what we do?

Being free to live and worship how one pleases does not include harming others. I am free to handle rattlesnakes as part of my religion, I am not free to make my child do so.

I don't think it was too much of a wide net. I think they had to assume if it was happening with one, given the nature of the sect, it was happening with all the children. Better safe than sorry.

*proudly wearing embroidered "R" for ridiculous" :p
To do that, CPS tried to claim they were all one big family or household. The 3rd AC said they were not allowed to do that because the ranch was actually occupied by several households, not one big one. That is why CPS must return 460 of the children with exception of the 5 who are under investigation.

As I understand it.

I'd certainly hope there would be. I think at this point we're advanced enough in our society that coercion to marry would be easily detected and dealt with more effectively than it was way back when.



That's the part that mystifies me... If it's illegal to have more than one wife, then how can one complete the process of doing so, a component of which is a state issued marriage license?

A lot of these isolated towns out west where polygamy is legal must either be getting some kind of special dispensation or they're not doing it through legal channels and simply keeping it within the context of their religion. I admit that I don't really know.

It always in the religious context never in the political or legal.

Don't you love a country where adult homosexual men and women aren't allowed to marry each other, but it's perfectly fine for twisted old men to marry minors and have sex with them in the name of religion?

actually even that is changing. Mass and California. The rest of the nation will be forced to follow once the SCOTUS rules they can't ban gay marriage.

I'm sorry about your friend. I have a client that was in a very similar situation. It cost him thousands of dollars and his business in the end. She was mad she wasnt' allowed to date on a school night. Sad but true.

But the thing is this....we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the child. We (society) are their protectorates because they are not in a situation to wield any authority in their lives.

Take these girls for example. Who is telling them they do NOT have to have sex? Do not have to marry? Do not have to bear children? Adults took those choices away from these girls. The very adults that are supposed to be or should be protecting their rights. Seeing as those parents refuse to do that it is the government who must protect those rights.

I know only too well that social services can be very invasive and seemingly unreasonable. In Ky you are required by law to report any incident you see that might be child abuse. If you don't and you know it happened and they can prove it you can be charged. This goes for teachers, scout leaders, sunday school teachers, doctors, family members, neighbors etc. The water muddies when my idea of what is abuse is not the same as a parent's idea of what abuse is. Your neighbors think it is fine for kids to be loud and obnoxious...you don't. ;)

I don't see removing all the children as "punishment". It was part of the investigation wasn't it?

The question is, and this what the 3rd AC was assuming, how do we know the adults in the compound are not telling them they have a choice. Everything we've learned about them thus far indicates the girls had choice if they wanted to marry and if they wanted to have sex. Nothing in their testimonies showed or proved abuse. If you have freedom of choice, how is that abuse?????

No, he's talking about UnitedStatesofAmerica-, NSG's foremost defender of the FLDS and it's "constitutionally granted right" to force child weddings and statutory rape.

That is simply untrue. If you look at the ruling, which I posted in my thread, you would find that the 3rd Appeals Court of Texas said basically the same exact thing I've been arguing about this case.

You suggested that it's considered perfectly fine for these guys to be marrying minors while homosexual marriage is disallowed, which is 2 inaccuracies for the price of one.

Those who were involved in these underage marriages are being prosecuted, and nobody on this thread is suggesting that they shouldn't be. So where did the 'perfectly fine' but come from?

Meanwhile more and more states are getting out of the way of gay marriage, so what was that about?



First of all, you can't arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed yet, no matter how certain you are that they will. Similarly, you can't yank kids out of their homes because you think they will someday be molested. It hasn't happened yet.

Think about it. Now that the ones behind the underage marriages have been busted, do you really think they're going to continue the practice? They're going to be watched very closely indeed from now on.



It's not a strawman in the context I presented it. Look again.



In the sense that criminalizing plural marriage is essentially a moral rule, not one of safety. I understand your point about people being coerced into plural marriages at times, but its' not like nobody's ever been coerced into a one on one marriage either and yet it would be ludicrous to outlaw marriage itself.

Incomprehensible as it might be to you or to me, there really are people who would find happiness and fulfillment in a plural marriage. What's our basis for denying them that right?



Really? Where was that?

No one is the sect is being prosecuted. What are you talking about?

The only person busted was Warren Jeffs because he actually forcing them into the marriage. He is the only person doing time and still awaiting trial on the same charges in Az. None of the other members are jail and none of them are being prosecuted. Because they didn't force any underage girls to marry.

I think this is a really good point. It isn't like this is a random once event. Their leader has been convicted of sexual abuse and it is their practice. Given that fact and then a phone call reporting abuse, I feel the state did the right thing in assuming the children were all in danger of being subject of the same practices.

I really don't believe that Jeffs' case was taught to the children as the daily 'What We Are No Longer Allowed To Do' lesson.

Which is my belief and of course nada to do with the law. lol

Do you know anything at all about the FLDS people? It's been proven in court that they don't follow all the teachings. You are allowed to believe in killing people as long as you don't actually go out and kill people.
The president of the united states ordered the torture of innocent. I suppose that means that all Americans are guilty of torturing civilians because their leader did it.
If you had paid attention to the news regarding the call, they aren't using it anymore because it was based on false and misleading information. 3rd AC indicated in its ruling that CPS cannot rely on that call to justify its raid.

If you can't tell sarcasm, then it's amazing you've lasted this long on NSG.



This isn't like breaking up an organized crime family. The FLDS is a religious sect which means as long there are men and women who follow Warren Jeffs' credoes the practices will inevitably continue.



Maybe 3 out of 50 states? And let's not forget the Defense of Marriage Act that's still being pushed for as a Constitutional Amendment.





Read my reply above. And how are they going to know when it happens again until another member flees from its compounds or they plant an undercover operative in their midst? Do that with any other religious group and there would be screams of invasion or privacy, etc. etc.



And you need to look again yourself. The Catholic Church does not institutionalize pedophilia so when a few priests are caught molesting children of course it doesn't make sense to do away with priests. By its very fouding the FLDS institutionalizes child weddings and statutory rape, otherwise Warren Jeffs and his inner circle wouldn't be in jail.



Strawman. I find nothing wrong with plural marriages if the participants are of legal age and they are willing to partake in it. The FLDS version of "plural marriage" boils down to institutionalized statutory rapes and misogynistic control.

You seem very biased about a religion that neither you or I know very much about.

Sufficient evidence has already been shown. You can tell they're brainwashed. Babies aren't allowed to cry, infants are taking away from their monthers at one year of age. Thirteen year old girls are forced into marriage to men in their fifties and sixties, a lot of boys are exiled from the cult when they reach puberty because they are competition to the old men. Isn't this enough evidence for the courts to hold the children? The Texas Supreme Court needs to overrule this and keep those children until they can be taken better care of.

That's all hearsay. The 3rd AC qouted the CPS own expert witnesses as saying that none of that was true. I'm sorry, but most people write books to make money, not to tell the truth.

Interesting thought. I am curious about this, would other Mormon sects work to 'deprogram' the mothers and fathers? Do you think that is possible? Are you assuming that the bizaare sexual rituals can be seperated from religion?

I feel like just because Jeffs is in prison, that doesn't preclude those who embraced his beliefs from continuing to believe such. I don't get the impression that the law means much to these folks.

the state can't disband a religion or force it to change. first amendment clause.

Just because it's going on doesn't make it right. Both homosexual marriage and the forced marriage of minor girls to older men is morrally wrong. Neither one should be allowed. Unfortunately, in the case of forced marriages, they have to be reported to the police in order to recieve any help because the authorities don't know the marriage was forced unless they investigate it. The state can't investigate the circumstances of each marriage license request that crosses their desk.

I strongly don't agree. If two guys or two girls want to marry each other they should have every right to do so. We don't have the right to cram Bible law down their throats.

the state can't disband a religion or force it to change. first amendment clause.

False. Congress can make no law blah blah, for goodness sake I already said all of this already. See my earlier post.

This has been all over the news. CNN showed pictures of the compound and the children don't have any toys, all they have is a picture of Warren Jeffs over their beds. They didn't even know what a crayon was. There has been numerous reports about the abuse, and firsthand accounts of women who used to live within this very sect. Two example is Carolyn Jessop, and Flora Jessop.

And since when is it child abuse to not let a child have a crayon?????
I guess that means it child abuse when you don't gvie your children everything they want to grab when you are in the store. Wow. All those mean abusive mothers I should have called the police on.

and the two women you cite. How do you know they are not frauds? You do know they have grudges and would do anything to deliberately slander a whole religion. People have done that before when they have left other religions.

Yes I am assuming that. I'm a Mormon, remember so I know something of the basis these people used to create their rather warped version of the truth of Mormon theology. I can tell you that if these people were to adhere to the true LDS Church, the distortions would be straightened out in short order. The LDS Church does not practice underage marriages or polygamy, either of which would get someone excommunicated.

If, instead, they joined up with another fundamentalist group then who knows? Every one of those has their own take on things. They're generally not out there marrying kids though.



They might believe it but Mormon sects tend to follow a rigid hierarchy and leadership structure. They believe their prophet is called by God and if their current leader is taken away then presumably someone else will step in, claiming to have been called to lead.

If that new person has even a modicum of common sense he will cease the practices that got the group in trouble in the first place, and the people will go with it because they believe he speaks with the authority of God.



I wasn't aware the news constituted incontrovertible evidence.

I take you are not aware that these people WERE excommunicated from the LDS???

If that is true and someone else steps into the vaccum how do you know he won't alter the teachings? After Mr. Smith died, the LDS certainly changed its teaching on polygamy after a different leader stepped in.

False. Congress can make no law blah blah, for goodness sake I already said all of this already. See my earlier post.

Congress shall make no respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Where in there do you see that the states have the right or the authority to ban or change a religion?

Congress shall make no respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Where in there do you see that the states have the right or the authority to ban or change a religion?

The fact that Congress is the federal government, not a state government.

I strongly don't agree. If two guys or two girls want to marry each other they should have every right to do so. We don't have the right to cram Bible law down their throats.

Have you seen the statistics of homosexuality and STD's? Also, if a country forsakes all of its morals, then what does it stand for? We need to keep morality in this country, not take it out. America was built on a moral foundation.

And while I'm not trying to start a debate on homosexuality, it has been proven, and will continue to be proven, that those who practice homosexuality have a much higher rate of contracting STD's, primarily men.

I am all for freedom in America. Freedom is what makes this country wonderful, but there is a limit to what freedom should entail.

Except that these days you don't need official documents to be legally married. According to common law marriage, you are married if you call someone your wife and you live with them as if you are married.

Umm, no that isn't true at all. It is dependent on each states laws. For instance there is no such thing as common law marriage in the state of Kentucky. So while you maybe in a common law marriage after living together for 8 years in Michigan, move to Kentucky and you are no longer legally married as common law marriage is not legal in Ky nor is it recognized. Some states do recognize CL marriage even though they do not sanction it with in their state.

Lots of people are under the misconception that common law marriage applies everywhere but it doesn't, nor is it based on the fact that someone just has to call their mate a wife to exist. There are legal requirements that have to be met to be considered common law marriage. Those vary in states that recognize the union and generally involve a time period of so many years in which a life and home are shared.

Only 11 states and DC recognize common law marriage.

Also to dissolve one, a couple must divorce the same as a licensed marriage. Just some fyi.

The question is, and this what the 3rd AC was assuming, how do we know the adults in the compound are not telling them they have a choice. Everything we've learned about them thus far indicates the girls had choice if they wanted to marry and if they wanted to have sex. Nothing in their testimonies showed or proved abuse. If you have freedom of choice, how is that abuse?????

There is no way to know if these girls actually had a choice at all. If they have never been exposed to a world that allowed them the free will to choose regarding their sexual activity how would they know the difference?

Are you suggesting that they have been given all the facts and shown how the rest of the world works and they chose on their own to breed children as soon as they started to have a period?

Just out of curiousity I would like to know if you are male or female. I suspect I already know, but I would like to be sure.

Except that these days you don't need official documents to be legally married. According to common law marriage, you are married if you call someone your wife and you live with them as if you are married.

You know, we had this same discussion back in the first thread you made. The laws have not changed since then.

For common law marriage to apply you must meet all of the qualifications for a normal marriage. Which means you must:
A) Be old enough to be legally married, or;
B) Have the consent of legal guardians in the case of a minor;
C) Not be married to any other person or persons;
D) Live together for the state-appointed amount of time for common law marriage to take effect.

If, then, the girl in question was a minor without consent of the guardian or below the age of consent, and/or was marrying a man who was already legally married to someone else, the marriage would not be legal under Texas state law.

Common law marriage IS official, legal documentation, by the way. You must apply for a common law marriage at a state-appointed legal court.


Common-law marriage is known as an "informal marriage", which can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony) **SEE NOTATION BELOW**, or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married.

...

NOTATION - Texas informal marriages by "DECLARATION" require a legally defined form to be completed by both marriage partners and sworn or affirmed in presence of the County Clerk that issues the "Declaration of Informal Marriage." This legally binding document is formally recorded as part of the Official County Records by Volume and Page number...The term "Informal" refers only to the fact that no actual wedding ceremony was conducted. Dissolution of this type marriage requires formal Annulment or Divorce Proceedings, the same as with the other more recognized forms of 'ceremonial' marriages. (Texas Family Code Chapter 24).

So. You're absolutely, definitely, unequivocally wrong.

No one is the sect is being prosecuted. What are you talking about?

The only person busted was Warren Jeffs because he actually forcing them into the marriage. He is the only person doing time and still awaiting trial on the same charges in Az. None of the other members are jail and none of them are being prosecuted. Because they didn't force any underage girls to marry.

Warren Jeffs was convicted of being an accomplice to rape.
To be an accomplice to a crime, someone else has to commit that crime.

And since when is it child abuse to not let a child have a crayon?????
I guess that means it child abuse when you don't gvie your children everything they want to grab when you are in the store. Wow. All those mean abusive mothers I should have called the police on.

I don't see how you could miss this by accident, but:
Not knowing what a crayon is, while not abuse by itself, shows a dangerous level of seclusion. It's circumstantial evidence.

and the two women you cite. How do you know they are not frauds? You do know they have grudges and would do anything to deliberately slander a whole religion. People have done that before when they have left other religions.
I really don't see how you could be saying this if you weren't just irrationally defending FLDS, but:
Which is more likely:
1)Two women, who have not collaborated with each other, both make up the exact same lie about their former church
or
2)Two women were abused by their former church?

(Not to mention, Occam's Razor is on my side.)

Congress shall make no respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Where in there do you see that the states have the right or the authority to ban or change a religion?

The fact that Congress is the federal government, not a state government.

You are both wrong.

USoA, there's some conflicting case law on this, but if either a religion has part of its practices something that would be illegal anyway, or if the government has a "compelling interest" in the law that would ban a religious practice, it's not covered by the first amendment.
Sexual abuse is covered by either standard.

RhynoD, you are wrong because the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states as well.

Have you seen the statistics of homosexuality and STD's? Also, if a country forsakes all of its morals, then what does it stand for? We need to keep morality in this country, not take it out. America was built on a moral foundation.

And while I'm not trying to start a debate on homosexuality, it has been proven, and will continue to be proven, that those who practice homosexuality have a much higher rate of contracting STD's, primarily men.

I am all for freedom in America. Freedom is what makes this country wonderful, but there is a limit to what freedom should entail.

Too bad, you started a debate.

First of all, you don't have a source for your claim that "those who practice homosexuality have a much higher rate of contracting STD's"

Second of all, how is homosexuality immoral? (Not to mention that the U.S was not built on any kind of moral foundation, not counting British law and Enlightenment philosophy as a "moral foundation".)

RhynoD, you are wrong because the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states as well.

Erm...how, exactly?

The fact that Congress is the federal government, not a state government.

So you're a state's rightser. Bad news for you is that the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the free exercise clause extends to cover even the states. Not just Congress. 14th amendment applies the first amendment to the states.

Have you seen the statistics of homosexuality and STD's? Also, if a country forsakes all of its morals, then what does it stand for? We need to keep morality in this country, not take it out. America was built on a moral foundation.

And while I'm not trying to start a debate on homosexuality, it has been proven, and will continue to be proven, that those who practice homosexuality have a much higher rate of contracting STD's, primarily men.

I am all for freedom in America. Freedom is what makes this country wonderful, but there is a limit to what freedom should entail.

Hold on. There is no evidence proving that homosexuals are more likely than any other sexually active people to get STD's. The only sure fire way to avoid it is to never ever have sex and there is no one on the planet who will do that. It's just unrealistic and proof of what a failure and foolish Bush's abstinence only programs are/were.

There is no way to know if these girls actually had a choice at all. If they have never been exposed to a world that allowed them the free will to choose regarding their sexual activity how would they know the difference?

Are you suggesting that they have been given all the facts and shown how the rest of the world works and they chose on their own to breed children as soon as they started to have a period?

Just out of curiousity I would like to know if you are male or female. I suspect I already know, but I would like to be sure.

What I am suggesting is that we don't know. The court has all the facts. That is why it ruled the way it did. The state appealed to state supreme court but that court turned down their request for a stay of execution and will hear the case over the weekend. Pretty fast progress if you ask me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/24raid.html?ref=us

What the TSSC decides, the only one left to appeal to is SCOTUS and they don't have to grant certiori to any party.

What I am suggesting is that we don't know. The court has all the facts. That is why it ruled the way it did. The state appealed to state supreme court but that court turned down their request for a stay of execution and will hear the case over the weekend. Pretty fast progress if you ask me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/24raid.html?ref=us

What the TSSC decides, the only one left to appeal to is SCOTUS and they don't have to grant certiori to any party.

Going to answer the question I asked you?

You know, we had this same discussion back in the first thread you made. The laws have not changed since then.

For common law marriage to apply you must meet all of the qualifications for a normal marriage. Which means you must:
A) Be old enough to be legally married, or;
B) Have the consent of legal guardians in the case of a minor;
C) Not be married to any other person or persons;
D) Live together for the state-appointed amount of time for common law marriage to take effect.

If, then, the girl in question was a minor without consent of the guardian or below the age of consent, and/or was marrying a man who was already legally married to someone else, the marriage would not be legal under Texas state law.

Common law marriage IS official, legal documentation, by the way. You must apply for a common law marriage at a state-appointed legal court.



So. You're absolutely, definitely, unequivocally wrong.

Perhaps that is true. But as the court of appeals stated in its ruling, CPS did not investigate to see if the pregnant 16 year olds were married nor did they try to find out the actual circumstance by which they became pregnant. They just saw 5 pregnant 16 year olds and screamed "child rapists" in a crowded theater.

Much like the Salem witch trials.

Warren Jeffs was convicted of being an accomplice to rape.
To be an accomplice to a crime, someone else has to commit that crime.


I don't see how you could miss this by accident, but:
Not knowing what a crayon is, while not abuse by itself, shows a dangerous level of seclusion. It's circumstantial evidence.

I really don't see how you could be saying this if you weren't just irrationally defending FLDS, but:
Which is more likely:
1)Two women, who have not collaborated with each other, both make up the exact same lie about their former church
or
2)Two women were abused by their former church?

(Not to mention, Occam's Razor is on my side.)





You are both wrong.

USoA, there's some conflicting case law on this, but if either a religion has part of its practices something that would be illegal anyway, or if the government has a "compelling interest" in the law that would ban a religious practice, it's not covered by the first amendment.
Sexual abuse is covered by either standard.

RhynoD, you are wrong because the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states as well.



Too bad, you started a debate.

First of all, you don't have a source for your claim that "those who practice homosexuality have a much higher rate of contracting STD's"

Second of all, how is homosexuality immoral? (Not to mention that the U.S was not built on any kind of moral foundation, not counting British law and Enlightenment philosophy as a "moral foundation".)

I was referring to the belief system itself, not the practice of those beliefs. CPS says that because the FLDS believes in polygamy they should be prosecuted. My position, and the ruling from the 3rd circuit seems to agree, is that you can't prosecute people just for thinking a certain way or believing a certain way. You can prosecute them when they actually commit an act that is illegal. That is why CPS overstepped its bounds. It was not prosecuting an actual crime, it was prosecuting thoughts and beliefs.

Going to answer the question I asked you?

Sorry, which one?

Sorry, which one?

Are you male or female? I am curious because I think it bears on your position, and would help me to understand why you think what you do.

male. how does that bear on anything????

On the Warren Jeffs conviction:

Mr. Jeffs was never at the Texas compound and was not among those who the Texas CPS is claiming to be engaging in child abuse. Mr. Jeffs is in Arizona for crimes committed in Arizona. No person in the FLDS ranch in Texas has ever been convicted of or tried for any crimes. Just a clarification.

Courts need to be brave enough to put the interests of children ahead of the notion of carte blanche immunity for religious activities.

male. how does that bear on anything????

On the Warren Jeffs conviction:

Mr. Jeffs was never at the Texas compound and was not among those who the Texas CPS is claiming to be engaging in child abuse. Mr. Jeffs is in Arizona for crimes committed in Arizona. No person in the FLDS ranch in Texas has ever been convicted of or tried for any crimes. Just a clarification.

True about Mr Jeffs, though he is still the recognized leader of FLDS according to their web site.

As for the gender question. I thought you were male, but I wanted to be sure. To me it is very relevant to your position because females (who are free to think and decide their futures) do not find this situation acceptable at all. You seem to find their practices acceptable.

And though you seem to think that the girls have a choice in the matter you are mistaken. FLDS practices placing. Which eliminates girls from having any choice.

The church currently practices the law of placing, whereby a young woman of marriageable age is assigned a husband by revelation from God to the leader of the church, who is regarded as a prophet. The prophet elects to take and give wives to and from men according to their worthiness.

It's a good ole boy club my friend, with young girls being the prize.

Courts need to be brave enough to put the interests of children ahead of the notion of carte blanche immunity for religious activities.

AMEN.

Courts need to be brave enough to put the interests of children ahead of the notion of carte blanche immunity for religious activities.

Absolutely but the scale of this is unprecedented. Take a apartment complex for example. However are whole apartment/flat complexes emptied out because of one individual? This whole process bothers me and I feel the government overstepped it's boundaries. At least one judge agrees and will be interesting how this plays out. I say punish those that need to be punished but reunite the kids to the innocent parents as quickly as possible.

Absolutely but the scale of this is unprecedented. Take a apartment complex for example. However are whole apartment/flat complexes emptied out because of one individual? This whole process bothers me and I feel the government overstepped it's boundaries. At least one judge agrees and will be interesting how this plays out. I say punish those that need to be punished but reunite the kids to the innocent parents as quickly as possible.


Hmmm...do you really feel there are any innocent parents in this? I have a hard time with that, I have issue with the entire sect knowing full well what was going on and obviously condoning it. You cannot remain a member if you do not adhere to the laws they have deemed acceptable.

To me knowing abuses are taking place and keeping quiet about it makes a person an accomplice. I'm not convinced any adult there is innocent.

I see your example of the apartment complex, but in this case they all adhere to the same beliefs and practice the same in-house laws. You won't find that in an apartment complex though.

Hold on. There is no evidence proving that homosexuals are more likely than any other sexually active people to get STD's. The only sure fire way to avoid it is to never ever have sex and there is no one on the planet who will do that. It's just unrealistic and proof of what a failure and foolish Bush's abstinence only programs are/were.

And even if there WERE evidence proving that, it's still ridiculous to want to ban homosexual marriage based on that. Unless you're also in favor of banning any kind of sexual activity without use of a condom.

/continuation of off-topic debate

Perhaps that is true. But as the court of appeals stated in its ruling, CPS did not investigate to see if the pregnant 16 year olds were married nor did they try to find out the actual circumstance by which they became pregnant. They just saw 5 pregnant 16 year olds and screamed "child rapists" in a crowded theater.

That may, or may not, be true. Regardles:

Texas: 18, 16 with parental consent. Possibly younger with judicial consent or if person under 18 had previously married and divorced.

So. If any girl was younger than 16 and pregnant, a statutory rape has been committed, and that was probably used as probable cause to investigate further, which means taking the children into custody for their own protection, until such time as the sect has been found to be innocent of abusing the children, if in fact they are innocent.

So you're a state's rightser. Bad news for you is that the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the free exercise clause extends to cover even the states. Not just Congress. 14th amendment applies the first amendment to the states.

According to some commentators, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood to fall within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the Amendment.[10] However, the Supreme Court sought to limit the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the "privileges or immunities" clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases that the Amendment was limited to "state action" and thus did not authorize Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and in fact have been specifically reaffirmed several times.

I never said I was in favor of states' rights. I just said you are wrong, because you are.

I think my underlying logic behind being against polygamy is: if you are married for love, you wouldn't want to share your spouse with somebody else. Hence polygamous marriages indicate that somebody in the relationship might be forced. On the other hand if somebody willingly consents to somebody else sharing his/her spouse, then love is not involved and they can get a divorce instead. I see that the risk of coercion in a polygamy as stronger than the potential benefits for recognition of consent.

If somebody can point otherwise please do.

You're arguing that three (or more) people can not all love each other? Why not?

Perhaps that is true. But as the court of appeals stated in its ruling, CPS did not investigate to see if the pregnant 16 year olds were married nor did they try to find out the actual circumstance by which they became pregnant. They just saw 5 pregnant 16 year olds and screamed "child rapists" in a crowded theater.

Much like the Salem witch trials.

I hope the state of Texas isn´t fixing to recreate an event like the Salem Witch Trials but with polygamists? That would enrage the international community. We don´t live in puritanical times anymore and the CPS has the means to do the job correctly. Salem can be dubbed as ignorance, if the CPS does something similar, it will be dubbed as genocidal and prejudiced.

Much as the idea of polygamy turns my stomach upside down, and much as I would like to the see these children removed from the sect compound, the Texas CPS has to prove that there has been indoctrination and, if that´s the case, possible rape of minors. Otherwise, there´s no case.

Courts need to be brave enough to put the interests of children ahead of the notion of carte blanche immunity for religious activities.

They're not being attacked for any actual activities. They are being punished for their beliefs.

Some people think it is ok to punish people just for thinking.

True about Mr Jeffs, though he is still the recognized leader of FLDS according to their web site.

As for the gender question. I thought you were male, but I wanted to be sure. To me it is very relevant to your position because females (who are free to think and decide their futures) do not find this situation acceptable at all. You seem to find their practices acceptable.

And though you seem to think that the girls have a choice in the matter you are mistaken. FLDS practices placing. Which eliminates girls from having any choice.

The church currently practices the law of placing, whereby a young woman of marriageable age is assigned a husband by revelation from God to the leader of the church, who is regarded as a prophet. The prophet elects to take and give wives to and from men according to their worthiness.

It's a good ole boy club my friend, with young girls being the prize.

That's true. Because according to the establishment clause of the US constitution, the state cannot decide who religious group's leader can be. If the Catholic Church wanted to, they could have elected Charles Manson to be their Pope and there is nothing the states could do about it.
Neither the government, nor the courts which are a branch of the government, are allowed to decide who a religious group can have or not have as its leader(s).

I think it is culturally relative. What strikes me is that most people, through history, who have held views similar to your own and then tried to enforce them on others, have been responsible for most of the wars and misery the human race has been through.

How do you know they practice placing? The witnesses CPS tried to use to bolster its claims said, under oath, that the CPS was wrong on its interpretations. They said clearly that not all of the FLDS members engaged in the activities their religion teaches. We can only prosecute actions that have happened. We cannot prosecute belief systems.

As for the placing, the witness, other than Carolyn Jeffs, have said that the girls do have the right to say no. So its her word against the everyone elses. The girls themselves have repeatedly insisted they had a choice.
We need to remember that Carolyn Jeffs words are the words of one person who just happens to be contradicted by nearly all the other FLDS girls, as well as the witnesses who testified so far. Why do you think that is???
Is it possible that all the girls and all the witnesses are lying and this is some kind of conspiracy against Mrs. Jeffs???

Remember it is Mrs Jeffs who claimed that the church practices "placement". But she is contradicted by most other sources. They can't both be right.

Though it must be acknowledged that Mr. Jeffs, the prophet not one of the current residents since everyone seems to have the same last name. did engage in placement. However, you will notice that since Mr. Jeffs was not at the ranch, there was no placement occuring and the witnesses have testified to that fact.

To say that that the FLDS members should be punished for the crime of their leader is the same as saying that all Germans should be punished for the crimes of Hitler or all Americans should be punished for the crimes of Nixon, Clinton or Bush.

Once you start doing that, you're heading down a dangerous slope. Like opening a pandora's box.

Hmmm...do you really feel there are any innocent parents in this? I have a hard time with that, I have issue with the entire sect knowing full well what was going on and obviously condoning it. You cannot remain a member if you do not adhere to the laws they have deemed acceptable.

To me knowing abuses are taking place and keeping quiet about it makes a person an accomplice. I'm not convinced any adult there is innocent.

I see your example of the apartment complex, but in this case they all adhere to the same beliefs and practice the same in-house laws. You won't find that in an apartment complex though.

No. They don't all practice all the beliefs. The court has found that ranch is composed of many households, not just one.

The other issue, is that in the one or two cases of child rape that did occur, a lot of the adults did not agree with it but when you are isolated from the outside world and you don't know any one on the outside, what are you going to do?? You can't do anything other wise you risk "hell fire for eternity".

When looking at these things we have to look at them from their perspective, rather than ours. IT's always an easy thing to condemn in hindsight or when you're on the outside. It's something else entirely when you are on the inside at the time the event is happening.

And even if there WERE evidence proving that, it's still ridiculous to want to ban homosexual marriage based on that. Unless you're also in favor of banning any kind of sexual activity without use of a condom.

/continuation of off-topic debate

I agree. I think some people prefer Bush's policy that we teach children that all sex is bad. Then people wonder how we end up having so many sex predators. More predators than countries whose sex laws are more lax than ours. By lax I mean they don't teach that sex is evil.
With Bush policies, its not about if its consensual its about all sex being evil. LOL

That may, or may not, be true. Regardles:



So. If any girl was younger than 16 and pregnant, a statutory rape has been committed, and that was probably used as probable cause to investigate further, which means taking the children into custody for their own protection, until such time as the sect has been found to be innocent of abusing the children, if in fact they are innocent.





I never said I was in favor of states' rights. I just said you are wrong, because you are.


The court said that none of the girls under 16 were pregnant. CPS said there was a pregnant 13 year old. That 13 year old turned out to be 22. The earliest pregnancies they found were a girl who was late 15. But the appeals court noted, in that case, it is not statutory rape if you are married to her. The court said that the CPS did not have sufficient evidence that a crime had occured that would warrant the total mass removal of 465 children, even from families who were not involved in the investigation.

On the establishment clause, SCOTUS has, on several occasions, ruled that it did apply to the states.

I just noted this as regards any claims that the women of the FLDS are simpletons who are not allowed to do anything.

It has been noted that almost all of them have college degrees. Accordign to this, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-polygamy24-2008may24,0,4452061.story
at least one is a EMT (emergency medical technician) which requires a lot more brain power and independence than is required for occupations such as waitressing or hairstyling or teaching. You have to know what you are doing otherwise people die. I note that EMT's tend to make good money in American society at large.

"Among the mothers who was set to be reunited with her children was Lori Jessop, an emergency medical technician whose son turned 1 year old last week"

Apparently these women are not as backward or as oppressed as we thought they were.

What I would like to know is how you mistake a 27 year old for a 12 year old.

The court said that none of the girls under 16 were pregnant. CPS said there was a pregnant 13 year old. That 13 year old turned out to be 22. The earliest pregnancies they found were a girl who was late 15. But the appeals court noted, in that case, it is not statutory rape if you are married to her. The court said that the CPS did not have sufficient evidence that a crime had occured that would warrant the total mass removal of 465 children, even from families who were not involved in the investigation.

Ok. What's your point? You were still wrong on how common law marriage works.

On the establishment clause, SCOTUS has, on several occasions, ruled that it did apply to the states.

Wiki disagrees. And I don't particularly care enough to look further.

"She and other lawyers say some of the seized people, especially those who it turns out are 18 or older, have potent federal civil rights lawsuits against the state."

Who is going to pay to defend the state against those lawsuits? It's not like the state of Texas has a whole lot of money they can just throw away.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5800274.html

Texas made huge legal errors:

1. It did not properly investigate the phone call that lead to the raid.
2. It did not even try to find out if children were actually in danger.
3. Treated the whole ranch as one household even though there are at least 19 seperate households on the ranch.
4. Seizing all children from all households instead of just those from the hoouseholds where abuse had occured. Much like the state seizing your children because some guy in your apartment complex was a pedophile. But then again, the argument goes that because you lived in the same apartment building you should have known about what your neighbor was doing therefore you get punished for being in the same building as him.
5. CPS presented no factual evidence at the initial hearing.
6. The FLDS parents are being tried as a group rather than as individuals. Shades of the Salem Witch Trials. Then again some people claim the Constitution doesn't apply to the states. I say if it doesn't apply to the states then it doesn't apply at all. America is just dictatorial as the Taliban were in Afghanistan and evil as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were.
7. The state has completely denied the parents' rights to be treated innocent until proven guilty. But then again, the Constitution is a farce because it doesn't apply at the state level.

CPS seems to be arguing the US Constitution does not apply to Texas.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5800274.html

I hope Texans don't have their hopes up about free speech, free religion, or innocent until proven guilty. Those are all in the US Constitution and the state of Texas seems to be saying they don't apply in Texas.

Ok. What's your point? You were still wrong on how common law marriage works.



Wiki disagrees. And I don't particularly care enough to look further.

really? Which wiki were you looking at???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause

"the Court has prevented states from directly funding parochial schools, it has not stopped them from aiding religious colleges and universities."

"In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not "excessively entangle" with religion. The case involved two state laws"

"In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law whereby students in public schools would observe daily a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer"

In 1992 SCOTUS found that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

"Applying a new standard of "strict scrutiny" in various areas of civil rights law, the Court began to apply this standard to the First Amendment religion clauses as well, reading the free exercise clause to require accommodation of religious conduct except where a state could show a compelling interest and no less burdensome means to achieve that end. One example was Sherbert v. Verner, where the Court overturned the state Employment Security Commission's decision to deny unemployment benefits to a practicing member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was forced out of a job after her employer adopted a 6 day work week, which would have required her to work on Saturdays against the dictates of her religion."

"In the Barnette case, however, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities ... One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote."

"The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963)."

"Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional."

"The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the free exercise clause. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the Free Exercise Clause in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional."

Hence even though a law, at face value, may appear to be religiously neutral, if it only affects say FLDS members, then it is not neutral toward religion at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

"The First Amendment "establishment clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well"

" If you were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect your belief in vampirism, but not the practice"

You are allowed to believe in polygamy and marriage at any age even if you are not allowed to practice those. Texas is prosecuting the beliefs not the actions.

"During the World War II era, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses in several landmark cases that helped pave the way for the modern civil rights movement. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946.

Significant cases have affirmed rights such as these:

Right to Refrain from Compulsory Flag Salute
Conscientious objection to military service
Preaching in public (proselytizing) "

SCOTUS ruled in the Jehovas Witness cases that you do have a constitutional right to stand on the street preaching to whoever is walking or driving by. That is you have the right to prosylitize.

"The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:

Had a secular purpose
Neither advanced or inhibited religion
Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. "

The CPS actions against the FLDS parents fail all three tests.

"In 1981, the Court ruled that a Missouri law prohibiting religious groups from using state university grounds and buildings for religious worship was unconstitutional.[citation needed] As a result, Congress decided in 1984 that this should apply to secondary and primary schools as well,"

"In 1990, the Court upheld this law when it ruled that a school board's refusal to allow a Christian Bible club to meet in a public high school classroom violated the act."

"Under the doctrine of Incorporation, the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. Therefore the states must guarantee the freedom of religion in the same way the federal government must"

"Religious Liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents;"

The case where SCOTUS ruled that the first amendment's religious freedom clause applicable to the states was Everson vs Board of Education found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education

"Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.[28]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Who do Texas' actions against the FLDS fail this test:

1. Before the FLDS moved to Texas, Texas law was that the age of consent for marriage was 14. It was only upon learning about the bizaare religious beliefs of the FLDS that the law was changed. Not because they were concerned about the safety of children but because some legislators wanted to restrict a particular religious practice.

More immediate however:

2. The CPS, rather than trying to regulate practices, has openly said it seeking to change the religious teachings of the FLDS faith. They have said on repeated occasion that the reason they seized the children was because of the parents religious beliefs, not because of anything the parents did.
By doing so they are:

a. taking a stance against a particular religion by trying to ban its teaching to children
b. the CPS stance is not neutral toward religion. CPS position is that people who are FLDS members have no rights. In fact, CPS is prosecuting the case on the grounds that the religious beliefs of the FLDS are "evil".
c. The CPS actions toward the FLDS parents constitutes an excessive entanglement of religion because they only asked the Baptist ministers for help in sezing the children. They did not ask for or accept help from non Baptist groups. Further, they allowed the Baptists to attempt proselytization of the FLDS children which violates the rights of the parents and the children's own rights to religious freedom.

That's true. Because according to the establishment clause of the US constitution, the state cannot decide who religious group's leader can be. If the Catholic Church wanted to, they could have elected Charles Manson to be their Pope and there is nothing the states could do about it.
Neither the government, nor the courts which are a branch of the government, are allowed to decide who a religious group can have or not have as its leader(s).

I think it is culturally relative. What strikes me is that most people, through history, who have held views similar to your own and then tried to enforce them on others, have been responsible for most of the wars and misery the human race has been through.

How do you know they practice placing? The witnesses CPS tried to use to bolster its claims said, under oath, that the CPS was wrong on its interpretations. They said clearly that not all of the FLDS members engaged in the activities their religion teaches. We can only prosecute actions that have happened. We cannot prosecute belief systems.

As for the placing, the witness, other than Carolyn Jeffs, have said that the girls do have the right to say no. So its her word against the everyone elses. The girls themselves have repeatedly insisted they had a choice.
We need to remember that Carolyn Jeffs words are the words of one person who just happens to be contradicted by nearly all the other FLDS girls, as well as the witnesses who testified so far. Why do you think that is???
Is it possible that all the girls and all the witnesses are lying and this is some kind of conspiracy against Mrs. Jeffs???

Remember it is Mrs Jeffs who claimed that the church practices "placement". But she is contradicted by most other sources. They can't both be right.

Though it must be acknowledged that Mr. Jeffs, the prophet not one of the current residents since everyone seems to have the same last name. did engage in placement. However, you will notice that since Mr. Jeffs was not at the ranch, there was no placement occuring and the witnesses have testified to that fact.

To say that that the FLDS members should be punished for the crime of their leader is the same as saying that all Germans should be punished for the crimes of Hitler or all Americans should be punished for the crimes of Nixon, Clinton or Bush.

Once you start doing that, you're heading down a dangerous slope. Like opening a pandora's box.

First I am not basing any of my information from Carolyn Jeffs, nor is she the only person saying FLDS practices and has always practiced the law of placing. There are several books and articles written by former members. Not to mention the Lost Boys who are suing FLDS. Do you know how many former members have pending law suits against the church for everything from loss of income to child molestation? All of these people are lying? No law of probability would even support that thought.

So you think the one current witness is the only one telling the truth? The current witness that is a member of the same said group who advised their children to lie to CPS about who their parents were, to lie about their ages etc? :rolleyes:

I stand by the fact that those children need to be out of there. That isn't a punishment at all , that is about the safety of those children. I dont' give a rats ass what the parents do with each other, I do care about those children though. I am all for the state taking them and then following up with a thorough investigation. All this judge did was place those children back in a situation that maybe harmful to them.

One thing though, your personal attacks on "my way of thinking" are uncalled for and juvenile. I simply do not agree with your defense of these people. I think how they are raising these children is wrong and illegal. I also think drug dealers who prostitute their children out for money and drugs are wrong too.

As a society we have standards that are legal requirements for how a child is to be raised. You and I are held to those standards daily, this group should not be expemt simply based on religion or the fact that they live differently than others. I don't care what their religion is at all, I care that it appears (with good cause) that they are using those children to satisfy their sexual deviancy.

Now you may not like that statement. But we are not free to practice whatever sexual rituals we think we want to practice and involve children in said practices. Consenting adults is another issue. But, is an adult a consenting adult if they have never been taught that they have a choice? If they have been taught that anything outside their world is evil and only their lifestyle is right? There is no 'consent' in such a case. How can you consent when you don't know the difference?

If I were to say that all people should only be taught one set of standards, my way is the only way and everything else in the world is evil and will harm you. That we must instill fear into the generations (a control tactic). You would absolutely call me on it, you would (and rightly so) say that I was controlling and brainwashing society. Yet you will defend what these people are teaching and have been teaching for decades?

It isn't that these girls don't know what they want....they don't know what there IS to want.

First I am not basing any of my information from Carolyn Jeffs, nor is she the only person saying FLDS practices and has always practiced the law of placing. There are several books and articles written by former members. Not to mention the Lost Boys who are suing FLDS. Do you know how many former members have pending law suits against the church for everything from loss of income to child molestation? All of these people are lying? No law of probability would even support that thought.

So you think the one current witness is the only one telling the truth? The current witness that is a member of the same said group who advised their children to lie to CPS about who their parents were, to lie about their ages etc? :rolleyes:

I stand by the fact that those children need to be out of there. That isn't a punishment at all , that is about the safety of those children. I dont' give a rats ass what the parents do with each other, I do care about those children though. I am all for the state taking them and then following up with a thorough investigation. All this judge did was place those children back in a situation that maybe harmful to them.

One thing though, your personal attacks on "my way of thinking" are uncalled for and juvenile. I simply do not agree with your defense of these people. I think how they are raising these children is wrong and illegal. I also think drug dealers who prostitute their children out for money and drugs are wrong too.

As a society we have standards that are legal requirements for how a child is to be raised. You and I are held to those standards daily, this group should not be expemt simply based on religion or the fact that they live differently than others. I don't care what their religion is at all, I care that it appears (with good cause) that they are using those children to satisfy their sexual deviancy.

Now you may not like that statement. But we are not free to practice whatever sexual rituals we think we want to practice and involve children in said practices. Consenting adults is another issue. But, is an adult a consenting adult if they have never been taught that they have a choice? If they have been taught that anything outside their world is evil and only their lifestyle is right? There is no 'consent' in such a case. How can you consent when you don't know the difference?

If I were to say that all people should only be taught one set of standards, my way is the only way and everything else in the world is evil and will harm you. That we must instill fear into the generations (a control tactic). You would absolutely call me on it, you would (and rightly so) say that I was controlling and brainwashing society. Yet you will defend what these people are teaching and have been teaching for decades?

It isn't that these girls don't know what they want....they don't know what there IS to want.

If you really read up on all those third party books, I'm sure they would have mentioned that the FLDS is secretive and often lies to authorities because of an intense history of religious persecution by authorities in Utah and Arizona. Had CPS bothered to investigate first instead just going in with guns blazing like Texas' hometown hero cowboy George Bush has been doing around the world, the state would not be in the mess it is in. I know for a fact that other states would have handled it a lot differently. Especially without violating the groups first amendment rights. But the normal thing to do in Texas is to go in guns blazing first then find out the facts later.

So you support letting the state seize children based on the parents religious beilefs and nothing more?
There certainly is no evidence of illegal underage marriages having been committed while they were in Texas. You can't include the 16 year olds because under Texas law, it is legal to wed a 16 year old if the parents consent to it. So any illegal marriages would have to refer only to girls under 16. Though courts can authorize marriages to girls younger than 16, the FLDS certainly did not seek such authorization. (making such marriages null and void in the eyes of the law).
Remember, Texas can only prosecute for actual crimes that occur in Texas. They are not allowed to prosecture for things people might have done before they moved to Texas unless any of the male members were previously registered as sex offenders in another state. But then the only allowable action is to ban the person in question from the ranch.
But by barring all the families from the ranch, they are barring the group from holding religious services.

Is it really sexual deviency to not want sex until after marriage? Is it really harmful to children to live in voluntary polygamous families?
While we do have legal standards for who can be a parent, having politically correct religious beliefs is not one of those standards.

You are repeating the now discredited CPS statement that bizaare beliefs were taught and practiced by the FLDS. The evidence points strongly against those accusations and even CPS has been forced to recant them. Admitting that the accusations were based off a hoax and on deliberately misleading information.

So you think it is ok for the state to continue treating the adult mothers as if they were children. Many countries don't allow the internet. So many people don't know about the democratic form of government yet they support thier governments. By your argument, their consent doesn't count because its uninformed consent. They should not have any right to make their own decisions.

Just who are you to impose your values on this group? Even in the US there are subcultures who avoid contact with the rest of society. Maybe we should raid them and take their chkildren too.

It is neither our job nor our right to seize children from a group just because of their beleifs or their isolation from the rest of society. Unless the CPS has hard factual evidence that a child has been abused, it has clearly abused its powers by seizing the children. Even when abuse has occured, you only take the children from that household, not from every household in the apartment complex.

You punish the person who committed the crime, not his next door nieghbors.
If a guy in Waco has abused or raped 10 year olds girls, you prosecute and punish the guy who committed the crime. You don't seize every child from every family in Waco just because they went to the same church or lived in the same city as he did. You don't punish the neighborhood for the crimes of one man. That has always been the legal standard for all cases in the USA.

Oh goodness! This thread is still alive?:eek:

Oh goodness! This thread is still alive?:eek:

Sorry. I just feel really strongly about the importance of religious freedom and the idea that you are answerable only for your own crimes, rather than the crimes of your neighbors or your big brother or your preacher.
Those two of the big freedoms our country is known for. And to just toss them out because a prank call is made pointing a false finger of guilt is just reprehensible.

The idea that the government is not required to prove guilt in order to punish parents by seizing their children because they hold the wrong religious beliefs is equally abominable.

Many things about this case go against what America stands for and represents. How can we say we are founded on religious freedom when the government can just take your children because you believe in the wrong religion?
How can we claim to be based on due process of law when we allow the state to punish an entire city for the crimes of 2 people????

If people knew and did nothing to stop it, yes they should be punisehd for being accomplices. But to also punish the people who didn't know either the crimes or the people involved????

What does that say about the US and America's style of justice? With stuff like this happening who are we to criticize the Iranians or the Chinese? Or the North Koreans or the Saudis?

Are reputation as a country is at stake in this case.

Sorry. I just feel really strongly about the importance of religious freedom and the idea that you are answerable only for your own crimes, rather than the crimes of your neighbors or your big brother or your preacher.
Those two of the big freedoms our country is known for. And to just toss them out because a prank call is made pointing a false finger of guilt is just reprehensible.

The idea that the government is not required to prove guilt in order to punish parents by seizing their children because they hold the wrong religious beliefs is equally abominable.

Many things about this case go against what America stands for and represents. How can we say we are founded on religious freedom when the government can just take your children because you believe in the wrong religion?
How can we claim to be based on due process of law when we allow the state to punish an entire city for the crimes of 2 people????

If people knew and did nothing to stop it, yes they should be punisehd for being accomplices. But to also punish the people who didn't know either the crimes or the people involved????

What does that say about the US and America's style of justice? With stuff like this happening who are we to criticize the Iranians or the Chinese? Or the North Koreans or the Saudis?

Are reputation as a country is at stake in this case.

Knock yourself out, mate.;) I posted this for a reason.

Don't know if you've heard about this but looks like the raid has succeeded in opening up the FLDS. They've been holding more media interviews to explain more of their beliefs and apparently they've all registered to vote. Supposedly they're trying to get other FLDSers from other states to move to Texas to register to vote. Something about trying to take over the state government. LOL
Course being the governor of Texas won't give you any special powers to overturn the state supreme court.

It's official.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/

The Texas State Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the FLDS parents, saying their civil and constitutional rights were violated.

"The Texas Supreme Court agreed with a lower court's ruling, that Child Protective Services did not present ample evidence that the children were being abused"

""We are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals' decision," the ruling said. "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted"

"And even if the children do return to the YFZ Ranch, the case may not be over. The justices noted that Texas law gives the district court "broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4958876&page=1

"The Texas Supreme Court Thursday ordered hundreds of children from a polygamist sect who have been held in state custody for the past month to be returned to their parents, agreeing with a lower court decision that the state had not proved that the children were in immediate danger of abuse. "

"A Child Protective Services spokeswoman had no immediate comment."

because CPS got bitchslapped for the second time.

"The state Supreme Court, denying an appeal from Child Protective Services, found that child protection workers had other options short of taking the children away from their families, such as ordering alleged sexual offenders to stay away from the children's homes."

Which I note that CPS has refused to do. So much for their claim they're protecting children.

"the state's case has been plagued with problems from the start."

"Texas officials claimed at one point that there were 31 teenage girls at the ranch who were pregnant or had been pregnant, but later conceded that nearly half of those mothers, if not more, were adults. "

"the state Supreme Court was stymied by the fact that it had not provided evidence that each child was in immediate danger of continuing abuse. "

hmmmm.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/29polygamy.html?em&ex=1212206400&en=9517b1d28d244231&ei=5087%0A

"Many child-welfare experts across the nation, who have as a group watched the high-profile Texas case closely, say the raid on the polygamist ranch diverged sharply from the recommended practices both in Texas and elsewhere in the country.

They say a growing body of research supports the contention of the mothers that forceful removal can have both significant short-term and long-lasting harm, particularly for younger children. Some studies have found that the wide-ranging effects include anxiety, extreme distrust of strangers and, in the future, higher rates of teenage pregnancy and juvenile incarceration.

Through their lawyers and in personal interviews, the mothers have been spilling tales of toddlers who have forgotten toilet training and 3-year-olds who cling to them frantically during visits. Ms. Fischer’s child became dehydrated as a result of a fever.

It is because of the growing national consensus about the scarring effect of removal on children, even if only temporarily, that federal law — to which all state law must defer — demands that children be removed only if “reasonable efforts” to keep them at home have been made. "

"Some experts in Texas state law and procedure say the state not only violated minimum national standards, which are written into the Texas Family Code, but they also violated due process considerations. These were essentially the findings of the appeals court. "

"Steven D. Cohen, a senior associate at the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, a national child-advocacy organization, said that while he could not say whether Texas officials acted improperly in taking the children from their mothers, he did think that they had violated numerous standards of best practice widely used elsewhere.

“Breaking all of the ties to several parental figures and siblings, and taking them to a remote and unfamiliar place raises many red flags about trauma and its effect on children,” Mr. Cohen said"

"Shelly Greco, a court-appointed lawyer for a 14-month-old girl removed from the ranch, says the child had been up crying uncontrollably many nights because she was so abruptly weaned."

"Ms. Jessop said her three children were suffering from night terrors and a fear of strangers, among other problems. She said that when her 4-year-old daughter recently saw a picture of a bus, like the one used to transport the children when they were in foster care, she started to cry. "

Ms. Jessop said. “Everybody that she sees, especially adult men, she calls them policemen.”


What do you say to that? It sounds like CPS is the one abusing the children according to the nation's other Child Protective agencies. What recourse can the parents take against CPS? What recourse can the children take when they get older?????

WOW. Um.. What CPS did to those poor kids was just wrong.

Maybe Congress needs to pass more laws to protect children from government abuse? Or something?

If a government agency, whose goal is protecting children, is going around abusing them, what is the recourse?????

It sounds like a worst nightmare scenario.

Nobody cares anymore, USofA-.

Then I win.

Then I win.

No one cares.

Nobody cares anymore, USofA-.Then I win.

Best form of victory ever… victory by default!

Best form of victory ever… victory by default!

you remember that comparison between internet debate and the special olympics....

you remember that comparison between internet debate and the special olympics....

Yeah, but once they're past the finish line I bet most of them stop running. Eventually.

Yeah, but once they're past the finish line I bet most of them stop running. Eventually.

You might want to give USofA- a heads-up...he looks like he's ready to keep going.

Yeah, but once they're past the finish line I bet most of them stop running. Eventually.

yeah. so winning the special olympics by default is....not special.

yeah. so winning the special olympics by default is....not special.

An un-special special event? Watch out, you are this close to blowing my mind.

Sounds like some people can't get over the fact they were suckered into believing that all those people were pedophiles despite all the evidence that proved they were not.

lol

Don't be too upset. We all make mistakes sometimes. CPS mistake was they believe the misinformation given to them by people with personal grudges. one of the rules of thumbs in any investigation is you don't give a lot of credence to people with grudges. Everyone knows that.

Instead of investigating they said "look an evil religion that needs to be wiped out" then ran in shooting their guns like gang busters in a John Wayne movie.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363341,00.html

So, USofA-, it turns out that the criminal investigation is still ongoing and members of the sect may still face criminal charges, and evidence suggests that Warren Jeff, the prophet of the sect, may have inappropriate relationships with several underage girls.

So. Child abuse is still very much a possibility, and authorities still had every reason to suspect the sect and investigate, even if their attempt to protect the sect's children was overzealous.

Yeah, but once they're past the finish line I bet most of them stop running. Eventually.

<Crowd> "STOP FORREST!"