Re: The Government's Double-Standard about the FLDS

by TerryRC Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:44 am

Since we are on the subject of parental rights and the place where religion intersects the edge of legality, what do you all think about this:

Jehovah twins to get transfusion

I know it is in the UK and not the US but the issue is still relevant.

by TerryRC Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:55 am

What reports? It seems to me that Texas officials have presumed these people guilty, based solely on their religion. Much to my dismay, some of the staunchest defenders I know of individual liberty and privacy seem to have well. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

There is no presumption of innocence. The parents in that compound are guilty of child endangerment. From my post above:

Child endangerment. People were knowingly putting their children in the company and care of a sex offender and fugitive from justice [Warren Jeffs].

That is all the evidence the state needs.

Passing on one's religious beliefs is a far cry from ordering your barely pubescent daughters into someone's bed.

The men in the compound have tacitly admitted to it, using the "we didn't know it was illegal" defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/21/polygamist.retreat.ap/index.html

"Rulan" said sect members are reconsidering whether girls under 18 should have sex with adult men.

"Many of us perhaps were not even aware of such a law," he said. "And we do reconsider, yes. We teach our children to abide the law."

That might be a step past "individual liberty", Steph.

If I did that with my daughter, because it was my "right as a parent", would you defend or revile me?

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:39 am

ziggy wrote:
Stephanie wrote:What reports? It seems to me that Texas officials have presumed these people guilty, based solely on their religion. Much to my dismay, some of the staunchest defenders I know of individual liberty and privacy seem to have well. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

No one has been arrested, to my knowledge- other than Jeff what's-his-name, and who was found guilty.

The presumptuion of innocense is alive and well. But that does not mean that allegations of crimes should not be investigated, and which is going on now.

Texas was worried before about another "Branch Davidian" type standoff? Well they should sure as hell be petrified of it now. I still say Texas sucks and this is a violation of the rights of both the parents and the children.

And if 50 year old men are found to have fathered the children of 13, 14, 15 year old mothers, will you still feel that the rights of those fathers have been violated? Will they still be presumed innocent?

You seem to be saying that people should not be persecuted because of their religion. The flip side is that people should not get a free pass from the laws because of their religion, either.

What is happening is Texas is not unique- other than the scale of it. Hundreds of children all over this nation are taken from ther homes every day- for the same kinds of suspected abuse we see suspected here.

You can be sure that if WV child welfare agencies had what they considered credible reports that you were allowing your below marriage aged daughters to "marry" and have babies by old men, they would first come and take your children away, and THEN do an investigation.

You may presume them innocent, but obviously our friend RC does not. He continues to insist these parents all are guilty of placing their minor children in the care of a sex offender. I can't even get him to acknowledge there is a world of difference between being in someone's presence and "in their care".

Back to the issue of "presumed innocent". How do you figure these folks are "presumed innocent"? The state of Texas just took all of their children from them and dispersed them all around the state. All of this on a phoned in "tip" full of lies. That's right, full of lies.

Furthermore, nobody is addressing the issue of what is best for these children. By their own admission none of the boys were abused or were in danger of abuse. None of the prepubescent girls were abused or in danger of being abused. The parents in question have been described as "loving parents".

The "scale" of the situation is precisely the reason I am so outraged over these actions. What went on in that Texas courtroom was a circus. These children were treated like cattle by the state of Texas. They are not being treated as individual human beings. These kids deserve better, and I'm convinced they were treated better by their parents.

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:47 am

TerryRC wrote:What reports? It seems to me that Texas officials have presumed these people guilty, based solely on their religion. Much to my dismay, some of the staunchest defenders I know of individual liberty and privacy seem to have well. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

There is no presumption of innocence. The parents in that compound are guilty of child endangerment. From my post above:

Child endangerment. People were knowingly putting their children in the company and care of a sex offender and fugitive from justice [Warren Jeffs].

That is all the evidence the state needs.

Passing on one's religious beliefs is a far cry from ordering your barely pubescent daughters into someone's bed.

The men in the compound have tacitly admitted to it, using the "we didn't know it was illegal" defense.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/21/polygamist.retreat.ap/index.html

"Rulan" said sect members are reconsidering whether girls under 18 should have sex with adult men.

"Many of us perhaps were not even aware of such a law," he said. "And we do reconsider, yes. We teach our children to abide the law."

That might be a step past "individual liberty", Steph.

If I did that with my daughter, because it was my "right as a parent", would you defend or revile me?

Terry,

Tell me, exactly when were these 400+ children "in the care" of a sex offender?

Are you aware that in most states a man of any age can have consensual sex with a 16 y/o girl? That's the law in WV. It's the law in RI. It's the law in the vast majority of states.

How about this......a 13 y/o girl can walk into an abortion clinic in nearly any state in the nation and obtain an abortion without parental notification, forget about consent. Nobody ever investigates if that child is a victim of rape, or molestation, or statutory rape.

It seems to me that you, and those responsible for "child welfare" are very selective about the circumstances they wish to investigate.

by TerryRC Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:53 am

You may presume them innocent, but obviously our friend RC does not. He continues to insist these parents all are guilty of placing their minor children in the care of a sex offender. I can't even get him to acknowledge there is a world of difference between being in someone's presence and "in their care".

Jeffs taught these kids in the compound's school! How is that NOT IN HIS CARE?

They were also harboring a KNOWN FUGITIVE. That makes for a child-friendly environment.

Did you read this quote:

"Rulan" said sect members are reconsidering whether girls under 18 should have sex with adult men.

"Many of us perhaps were not even aware of such a law," he said. "And we do reconsider, yes. We teach our children to abide the law."

They have freaking ADMITTED that this has been going on.

If I pimp out my daughter will you be as forgiving, Steph?

Freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can break the law.

Furthermore, nobody is addressing the issue of what is best for these children. By their own admission none of the boys were abused or were in danger of abuse. None of the prepubescent girls were abused or in danger of being abused. The parents in question have been described as "loving parents".

We have been through this, Steph. The state deemed there was a danger to minors in the compound. They then had to remove ALL of them. The rules do not allow them to pick and choose.

I'm all about giving people the benefit of the doubt but must we wait until it results in another Jonestown?

by TerryRC Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:03 am

How about this......a 13 y/o girl can walk into an abortion clinic in nearly any state in the nation and obtain an abortion without parental notification, forget about consent. Nobody ever investigates if that child is a victim of rape, or molestation, or statutory rape.

The clinic doesn't because it violates doctor/patient privilege. If there was a complaint by a third party, as there was in this case, there most certainly would be an investigation by child services and/or police.

Are you aware that in most states a man of any age can have consensual sex with a 16 y/o girl? That's the law in WV. It's the law in RI. It's the law in the vast majority of states.

Except the FLDS made it clear that any girl past menarche was fair game and there were minors running around with 3 and four-year olds.

Also, in WV, if you have sex with a minor, AOC at 16 or not, you can still be charged with "endangering the welfare of a minor" if you are 18 or older.

It seems to me that you, and those responsible for "child welfare" are very selective about the circumstances they wish to investigate.

I don't care, investigate every case, if you like. Just don't ask the physicians to do it.

These people have as much as admitted their guilt.

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:35 am

Terry,

I want to do a little bit of research on a couple of the issues you have brought up. I already know that Texas took the 17 y/o's and are kicking up a storm about 17 y/o's. The age of consent in Texas is 17 so I fail to see how that should be an issue.

As far as they "had to remove all the children", I'm not so sure about that one. I think the law allows them that option, that isn't the same thing as requiring them to. Also, does the fact that some of these "families" included girls under the age of 17 "married" to older men give the state the right to remove the children from the families that do not? Are you insisting that all of the families had married off their 15 y/o girls?

by TerryRC Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:51 am

I want to do a little bit of research on a couple of the issues you have brought up. I already know that Texas took the 17 y/o's and are kicking up a storm about 17 y/o's. The age of consent in Texas is 17 so I fail to see how that should be an issue.

I wouldn't know about that. They are still minors in the sense that they can be endangered by an adult.

As far as they "had to remove all the children", I'm not so sure about that one. I think the law allows them that option, that isn't the same thing as requiring them to. Also, does the fact that some of these "families" included girls under the age of 17 "married" to older men give the state the right to remove the children from the families that do not? Are you insisting that all of the families had married off their 15 y/o girls?

Since none of them are telling the truth about their age or who the respective fathers are, I don't see how the state could have done otherwise, in the absence of DNA tests.

Check CNN and FOXNews. Texas officials extract additional 25 mothers believed to be under 18 from a polygamist ranch..

I think we have some pretty compelling evidence, already, that there has been hanky-panky with girls under the AOC

by ziggy Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:36 am

Stephanie wrote:Back to the issue of "presumed innocent". How do you figure these folks are "presumed innocent"?

Well, no one has been charged with a crime yet- other than Warren Jeffs, who was found guilty.

The state of Texas just took all of their children from them and dispersed them all around the state. All of this on a phoned in "tip" full of lies. That's right, full of lies.

If the DNA tests show that it was all "lies", then I will agree with you. But I don't think that either you or I believe that the DNA tests will show that.

Furthermore, nobody is addressing the issue of what is best for these children.

Of course not. But what represents the rule of law, and what represents what's "best for the children", or best for people in general, are two different things.

By their own admission none of the boys were abused or were in danger of abuse. None of the prepubescent girls were abused or in danger of being abused. The parents in question have been described as "loving parents".

The potential permutations for the palpable irony of that phrase are nearly endless here.

The "scale" of the situation is precisely the reason I am so outraged over these actions. What went on in that Texas courtroom was a circus.

That's what courtrooms are- circuses. Barnun & Bailey couldn't invent a show such as we see in local courtrooms all over the country. Such clowns and jackasses as operate in our nation's courtrooms could not be tamed into a tent circus wortthy of respect in any town in America. But we overlook it as OK because we have been taught to see it that way.

These children were treated like cattle by the state of Texas. They are not being treated as individual human beings. These kids deserve better, and I'm convinced they were treated better by their parents.

That may be. But again, we are talking about the law here. And often, as the man says, the law is a ass.

by TerryRC Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:44 am

That's what courtrooms are- circuses. Barnun & Bailey couldn't invent a show such as we see in local courtrooms all over the country. Such clowns and jackasses as operate in our nation's courtrooms could not be tamed into a tent circus wortthy of respect in any town in America. But we overlook it as OK because we have been taught to see it that way.

The FLDS lawyers are the ones that have turned it into a circus in an effort to garner public sympathy.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:28 pm

IF children were not born to underaged mothers, do you think that the mother and child will be reunited?

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:09 pm

TerryRC wrote:That's what courtrooms are- circuses. Barnun & Bailey couldn't invent a show such as we see in local courtrooms all over the country. Such clowns and jackasses as operate in our nation's courtrooms could not be tamed into a tent circus wortthy of respect in any town in America. But we overlook it as OK because we have been taught to see it that way.

The FLDS lawyers are the ones that have turned it into a circus in an effort to garner public sympathy.

So the parents aren't entitled to legal representation now? How about the children, they aren't entitled to representation? The courtroom was a circus because they treated well over 400 children as one entity. That should never be allowed to happen. They are individual human beings.

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:14 pm

Armon Ayers wrote:IF children were not born to underaged mothers, do you think that the mother and child will be reunited?

Sadly, I don't think any of those women are likely to get back any of those children anytime soon. Well, the exception would be the older children who run away from foster care. If they are clever, and I suspect many of them are, they will not return to the ranch. They'll seek help from relatives and church members outside of that ranch.

What I'd like to know is if a woman had children while underage, isn't the state viewing them as victims? Should the state victimize these women again? Now they've taken custody of some females they suspect to be underage, that's why the number keeps going up, up, up. What happens when those girls turn 18? Do they get their children back?

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:20 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Armon Ayers wrote:IF children were not born to underaged mothers, do you think that the mother and child will be reunited?

Sadly, I don't think any of those women are likely to get back any of those children anytime soon. Well, the exception would be the older children who run away from foster care. If they are clever, and I suspect many of them are, they will not return to the ranch. They'll seek help from relatives and church members outside of that ranch.

What I'd like to know is if a woman had children while underage, isn't the state viewing them as victims? Should the state victimize these women again? Now they've taken custody of some females they suspect to be underage, that's why the number keeps going up, up, up. What happens when those girls turn 18? Do they get their children back?

If an under aged mother can decide to have an abortion, why can't an under aged mother decide to keep her children--no matter how they were conceived?

by **Stephanie** Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:31 pm

Funny how a pregnant minor seeking an abortion has all kinds of privacy rights that suddenly disappear once she gives birth!

by **SheikBen** Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:27 am

The difference between fathers' rights is stark, as well. A father has no say in whether someone gets an abortion, but if a baby is put up for adoption, all of a sudden his opinion matters again.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:05 am

TerryRC wrote:Why, Sam, you were right, Thirteen year-olds CAN marry in NH.

Of course this did happen in Texas where they can't...

Regardless, you showed me wrong.

Being wrong, however, is not the same as being dishonest.

Rave on...

But being "intellectually dishonest" ....... is still being dishonest.

And there is no such thing as a "selective character trait" when a person's actions are being discussed.

.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:13 am

Well GEEEEEEZE, ...... it is better that the State of Texas take those 400+ children and put them in foster care ............. rather than "burning them in place" like they did at Waco. tongue

.

by **SheikBen** Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:40 am

True enough Sam. I guess "baby steps," ya know. The government has gone from murder to kidnapping. I suppose I'd rather have syphilis than AIDS, so I'd rather my kids be taken than murdered.

Maybe that should be McCain's new slogan: "we will merely take your children, not burn them."

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:14 pm

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) - The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect's ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.

But the broad sweep - from nursing infants to teenagers - is raising constitutional questions, even in a state where authorities have wide latitude for taking a family's children.

The move has the appearance of "a class-action child removal," said Jessica Dixon, director of the child advocacy center at Southern Methodist University's law school in Dallas.

"I've never heard of anything like that," she said.

Rod Parker, a spokesman for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, contends that the state has essentially said, "If you're a member of this religious group, then you're not allowed to have children."

by TerryRC Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:27 am

So the parents aren't entitled to legal representation now? How about the children, they aren't entitled to representation? The courtroom was a circus because they treated well over 400 children as one entity. That should never be allowed to happen. They are individual human beings.

Relax, Steph. I said no such thing.

Someone pointed out that the courtroom has turned into a circus. I agree. Do a little google search and see who is summoning the clowns...

The FLDS and their lawyers are using the media and are not above pitching the crazy to do so.

It is their right. Just give them the credit they deserve for the fact that this has become a circus.

by TerryRC Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:30 am

If an under aged mother can decide to have an abortion, why can't an under aged mother decide to keep her children--no matter how they were conceived?

Who has said that they can't?

The state now has their hands tied. The kids will not be put back into a potentially unsafe environment until a court is able to make some rulings.

As long a the mothers in question are found innocent of crimes, the state will give them their kids back.

These young girls are the victims, not the criminals.

by TerryRC Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:34 am

Funny how a pregnant minor seeking an abortion has all kinds of privacy rights that suddenly disappear once she gives birth!

Do you want to get rid of doctor/patient privilege? You do know what that would lead to, do you not?

After the baby is born (or late term), it gets it's own set of rights. These come, to some extent, at the expense of the privacy of the parent(s).

She can't just leave it in a dumpster, for instance, and tell people to mind their own business.

by TerryRC Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:37 am

But being "intellectually dishonest" ....... is still being dishonest.

And there is no such thing as a "selective character trait" when a person's actions are being discussed.

You make no sense.

People make errors, Sam. That isn't the same as being dishonest.

You probably do not understand that, seeing as how you would rather eat white arsenic than admit to an error.

by TerryRC Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:39 am

Rod Parker, a spokesman for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, contends that the state has essentially said, "If you're a member of this religious group, then you're not allowed to have children."

Tripe.

There are many FLDSers. This has only happened to one group of them.

Way to over exaggerate.

They are allowed to have children. They just can't rape and pimp them out.

by Sponsored content