quote:

---

Authorities said Monday they have taken legal custody of 401 children who lived on an isolated West Texas polygamist retreat built by imprisoned "prophet" Warren Jeffs.

The children are being kept at a temporary shelter at a historic fort in nearby San Angelo while authorities investigate whether a child bride gave birth on the ranch at age 15.

The children in state custody are joined at the shelter by 133 women, most of them mothers, who were taken during the past few days from the sprawling Yearning for Zion ranch, said Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the state's Child Protective Services agency.

The women are free to return to the 1,900-acre compound, officials said, but many have chosen to remain at the temporary shelter. At this point, officials said, the children's fathers are not permitted to see them.

---

Having been a part of Hatrack for several years now, it always pains me to see stories like this, as the inevitable flood of 'Mormons are sexual deviant nutjobs' comments make me sad.

Still, I'm glad the cops got there. It sounds like most of the women don't want to go back.

Edit: for thread clarity, the title of this thread was formerly "Authorities remove children from Fundamental LDS Compound."

Edit again: okay, we cool now?

[ April 07, 2008, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: erosomniac ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
The title of this thread is inaccurate. It should say FLDS not LDS.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
What does the F stand for?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Good point. It stands for Fundamentalist, which is in your title.

I still don't like to see LDS by itself in the title, but my "correction" was misplaced. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Fundamental, although I see it's already in the title.

These are not the "mormons" as most people would define that group.

I'm interested in hearing more about the legal justifications for the huge scale of the action taken by TX authorities here. I'd not be sad to see the sect broken up and most of the men in jail, but only if done through due process and actual crimes proven. I'm a bit taken aback that ALL the children in that compound were taken into state custody.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think that the term "Mormon" applies to these folks much more than the acronym "LDS", which refers to a specific organization, one which these people don't belong to.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
Porter, it sounds like it is a trigger point for you anyway.
I am trying to think if I would even key into FLDS. I don't think I would. I understand Fundamentalist LDS, but I wonder how many other people would? I also wonder how many people would even recognize LDS, as opposed to Mormon. I know I would not have, before joining this forum.
I kind of thought I had some kind of point there. I don't, really, except to say that words, and even single letters, can have so much power.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
(My post was in response to your first post, Porter.)
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 

quote:

---

It sounds like most of the women don't want to go back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scifibum:
These are not the "mormons" as most people would define that group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElJay:

quote:

---

It sounds like most of the women don't want to go back.

---

It could also be that they want to stay with their children until everything's straightened out. I mean, the police didn't say they could take their kids back with them, and I think most mothers, if given a choice between going home and leaving their kids behind in police custody or staying with their kids to comfort them and make sure they're not mistreated would choose to stay with their kids.

You could also be right, of course, but I think we need to acknowledge the other possibility.

---

quote:

---

mph, I didn't mean to step on any toes, which is why I deliberately included the Fundamentalist part, and I didn't know if FLDS was a recognizable or accurate abbreviation. Is there a way I could edit the title that you'd be more okay with?

---

The term FLDS is used on the web page you linked to.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I don't think any permutation is going to be acceptable to all. Former church president Hinckley famously stated "There is no such thing as a Mormon fundamentalist", and the church objects to any groups other than theirs being referred to as either "Mormon" or "LDS".

Jeffs' church refers to itself as "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" or "FLDS".
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Which is why FLDS is most acceptable to me-- it's what they call themselves and not directly associated with our church (as long as there's no space between the "F" and the "LDS.")
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
New title edit, hopefully divorcing it from the Church of LDS and focusing on the fact that 400 children were freed from polygamist nutjobs.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Um... I think the current title "Fundamental Polygamist" is misleading. "Fundamentalist" by itself indicates a certain branch of Christianity that is unrelated to LDS theology. FLDS would be better. Just "polygamist" by itself would also be OK.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
The title isn't Fundamentalist Polygamist.

Yeah, forget it. I don't know why I bother.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Of note, I also don't think polygamy is the problem-- I think the nutjob part and the coercion and forced underage marriages (aka, rapes) and incest are what is wrong in this situation.

I actually don't have a problem with polygamy among consenting adults, except that it is, to my mind, forbidden by God at this particular point in time. But if it wasn't I wouldn't be opposed, again, among consenting adults only.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
So far, this thread is going much better than the discussion accompanying the article, at least the one I read in the Washington Post.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Thanks for trying. I appreciate it.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
You know, in theory I don't have a problem with polygamy. In practice*, though, it usually ends up being a way for creepy old guys to legitimize raping young girls.

*in the United States.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I wasn't trying to be a pain. You'd indicated that you were altering the title to be more clear, so I offered some suggestions to help with that task. I wasn't aware you were near a point of frustration or I would have kept it to myself.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
eros, I'd either just say "polygamist cult" or "FLDS" or "FLDS polygamists" or just "polygamist nutjobs." If it were me.

Thanks for trying.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
I wasn't trying to be a pain. You'd indicated that you were altering the title to be more clear, so I offered some suggestions to help with that task. I wasn't aware you were near a point of frustration.

---

I'm over it, I was just momentarily very frustrated because both you and mph misread the thread title (it said "Fundamental Polygamist," not "Fundamentalist Polygamist").

kqueen, I theoretically don't have a problem with polygamy, either - but as kmb mentioned, it's got kind of a negative rep. I do know several polyamorous people and have encountered many others, and it's almost universally been an older couple that 'adopts' in a young girl into the relationship, with the exception of the porn star triad that I was hearing about on an HBO special.

Not that I watch those.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Oh, I'm not saying it always or even usually works. But if everyone consents, as an adult I think it should probably be their own rope to hang on if it doesn't work, not society's. There was an interesting show on TLC a while back, "My husband's three wives" or something (they weren't all legally married-- but polyamorous, for sure) and the problem didn't seem to be the polygamy-- it was the husband's selfish and uncontrolled behavior. (He first got married, then got another woman pregnant while married. They all decided for the sake of the child the best thing was to bring the second woman into the family. And that family setup actually really worked for them-- until he decided he wanted another woman brought in. That, the first two balked at. She ended up leaving. Again, I think ALL parties have to be consenting for it to ever work.)
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
(I think the main reasons they didn't like her was she disrupted household routines instead of trying to fit into them and refused to help with the chores/running of the household.)
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
So, really - the same reasons a monogamous relationship would't work.

I agree that it definitely needs to be something both parties are equally interested in and committed to.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
The only polygamist family I've got any sort of relationship to is Tom Green's. When he was in jail his family (wives and children) lived close to me and we had some mutual friends.

He did "marry" one of them at 13, though the others were substantially older. He was tried for child rape for the 13-year-old, though she refused to testify and she is now his legal wife. Overall, not nearly as dysfunctional as many of the polygamist groups we hear about and they all seemed to be very happy about their family situation and looked forward to their husband's release from jail.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by erosomniac:
So, really - the same reasons a monogamous relationship would't work.

---

quote:

---

*in the United States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by erosomniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scifibum:
These are not the "mormons" as most people would define that group.

---

Actually, I think these are exactly the "mormons" as most people would define that group, which is a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DevilDreamt:
Whenever someone in the real-world mentions that Mormons practice polygamy, I try to tell them that the LDS church strictly prohibits polygamy, and has for a long time now. And I am never believed. Sadly, I never have internet access when this comes up, so I can't show them any proof.
...

---

As a partial response to this, I must admit, between Porter's posts and the article, it seems to me that the "take-away" message I'm getting (don't shoot the messenger), for better or for worse, is that LDS and FLDS are just two different subsets of "Mormons" in the Venn diagram of Mormonism if you will. Also, the LDS group, specifically their president, rejects any other groups as being Mormons, in a similar way that certain Christian groups reject Mormons as being Christian.

So I guess my point is that, if you're trying to convince people that Mormons do not practice polygamy, this thread might not necessarily be the best place to start, because its not necessarily clearing up my level of confusion
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I share your concerns, ketchupqueen. I would also be surprised if it were even possible for local authorities to act without at least some prejudgment -- such cases are so highly publicized and so polarizing that prejudice would seem unavoidable. I think it's just human nature, whether that prejudgment ends up being accurate or misleading in the end.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I agree. And honestly I think I am prejudiced, too, but I do believe that it is not a healthy environment for those kids. Now, do they have legal grounds to remove most of them? I don't know. I do know that I am aching for those mothers, because whatever the circumstances of their marriages and families I am sure most of them have tried to care for their children to the best of their ability and probably done the best possible job they could, given the circumstances, and now they are at risk to be separated from their children. As a mother my heart breaks for them. And that's why I hope for a quick and happy end to this dilemma-- even though I'm reasonably sure it is not forthcoming.

The state has said they want to try to keep sibling groups together, but that can be close to impossible with 3 or 4 kids, much less larger families. And add in that children with the same father but different mothers may have been raised in the same home and consider themselves siblings, but are not necessarily so considered by the state, I see a lot of heartbreak in their future. Again, I'm not saying it's better to send them back, necessarily-- but it's a rough spot to be in.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Oh, and then there are my concerns with the TX foster care system to begin with. *sigh*
 

---

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
I was just reading about Waco the other day. Glad this didn't turn out the same way.

--j_k
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

I flat out don't believe that the state could determine with any level of certainty or fairness that 401 children need to be put into foster care in a matter of a couple of days. I think we're seeing evidence of prejudice. It troubles me to see this happening, even though I think the state is probably *right* I don't think it's using due process.

---

quote:

---

As a partial response to this, I must admit, between Porter's posts and the article, it seems to me that the "take-away" message I'm getting (don't shoot the messenger), for better or for worse, is that LDS and FLDS are just two different subsets of "Mormons" in the Venn diagram of Mormonism if you will. Also, the LDS group, specifically their president, rejects any other groups as being Mormons, in a similar way that certain Christian groups reject Mormons as being Christian.

---

This a fair assessment of the true situation. The "official" Mormon church doesn't recognize the other groups, but they do come from the same roots and they each have their own justification for why their own group is the valid modern incarnation of the church founded by Joseph Smith. The LDS church based in Salt Lake City is merely the largest (by far) of the extant religious groups of that lineage.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
"Fundamentalist Mormons" is a fair description of the FLDS.

Even though they have about as much to do with the LDS as the Phelps church has to do with the Baptists.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
See, I think that fundamentalist Mormons are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and people who are not cannot be said to be fundamentalist Mormons. But I've explained that on the last thread.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
But the LDS church says "there is no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon" so how can that be?
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
The LDS also says that anyone who's not part of the LDS cannot be called a Mormon.

Of course, the FLDS says the exact same thing.

So, nobody's a Mormon.

Or anyone who follows that whole Book of Mormon thing is.

Or whatever.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
Ultimately, the categorization of these churches is beyond the authority of the LDS church. They can call themselves whatever they want, and state their opinions on how others should be categorized, but in the end the people that belong to those other churches, as well as outsiders who belong to none of these churches, have a say in what these words mean.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
We had this whole argument before, I really don't want to type it up again... Anyone who wants can go see my previous thoughts on the subject in the other thread.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
First, what other thread is everyone talking about? Second, I find it disturbing that they were taken away in Baptist busses in the state of TX. That is like the LDS Church participating in the deportation of a minority religious group in the state of UT. Too close for my comfort to church and state mixing in police matters.

By the way, is there anyone who is representing this group in legal matters? Maybe not to the majority religious nutjobs, but for me the ACLU would greatly improve my perception of them if they stepped in to side with the polygamists; at the least as legal council to make sure the state isn't abusing the rights of the believers. This rounding them up like so much cattle is disturbing. The extent of democracy and freedom isn't measured with how we treat those we agree with, but those we don't.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
There is a large community of ex-polygamists who will probably be forthcoming with support for the mothers - those who wish to make a transition. Keep in mind a lot of them might have come along to protect the children from the authorities and not necessarily to flee. I could be wrong, but it's a possibility.

quote:

---

Also, the LDS group, specifically their president, rejects any other groups as being Mormons, in a similar way that certain Christian groups reject Mormons as being Christian.

---

quote:

---

Second, I find it disturbing that they were taken away in Baptist busses in the state of TX.

---

quote:

---

By the way, is there anyone who is representing this group in legal matters? Maybe not to the majority religious nutjobs, but for me the ACLU would greatly improve my perception of them if they stepped in to side with the polygamists; at the least as legal council to make sure the state isn't abusing the rights of the believers.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that even the ACLU would consider statutory rape a civil liberty.

---

quote:

---

I strongly disagree kmbboots. They can use excuses all they want and it seems to be working.

---

quote:

---

You better have a whole lot more public evidence than a phone call before rounding up an entire group of people.

---

quote:

---

Attorneys for the church and church leaders filed motions asking a judge to quash the search on constitutional grounds, saying state authorities didn't have enough evidence and that the warrants were too broad. A hearing on their motion was scheduled for Wednesday in San Angelo.

---

quote:

---

Then you should upgrade your perception now: "The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah told the paper that it plans to back the group's challenge to Utah's bigamy law."

---

quote:

---

"Living arrangements are really the most intimate kinds of decisions people make," said ACLU of Utah Legal Director Stephen Clark. "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives, and not live in fear because of whom they love. So certainly that kind of privacy expectation is something the ACLU is committed to protecting."

---

quote:

---

Its about time someone from the ACLU understood this logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:

By the way, when and how did we decide morally and legally the age of marriage? And by "we" who can that be defining?

---

quote:

---

Wow, if it has been 1999 then something tells me it was more a symbolic rather than practical statement of support.

---

quote:

---

Oh well, the United States is not a very religiously tolerant place to live anyway. Never has been. I shouldn't be surprised by this at all.

---

:snort:
Dude, you're off your rocker.

P.S. Is there intolerance in America? Sure, that's because there are people in America. But I can't think of a place where there is more tolerance.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I can
Although I don't think Occasional would be too happy with it either.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"Are you suggesting that society should not determine a legal age of consent?"

I think that what has determined the age of consent (particularly about marriage) is currently too arbitrary or undefined. By all accounts, it comes down to when you graduate from High School - although "age 18" is something that is used because it is more consistant. The law also indicates age 21 for drinking, although I am at a loss as to why for that one as well. Don't get me wrong, I have an idea of the arguments for those ages. It's just that I don't think they are very good reasons.


Where would you say Mucus? I guess with my U.S. comment I was saying that it might be "the most tolerant place on earth," but that doesn't mean it is tolerant enough.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I understand why you don't like an arbitrary cutoff like that, but I can't think of anything better than an arbitrary age.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
Wow, if it has been 1999 then something tells me it was more a symbolic rather than practical statement of support.

---

quote:

---

How about a more thoughtful reasoning than "can't think of a better way" for the decision. Perhaps there should be more thought about history, cultural, and nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
My personal belief is that 16 (with consent of both parties) is a more traditional and natural cut off date.

---

quote:

---

P.S. Is there intolerance in America? Sure, that's because there are people in America. But I can't think of a place where there is more tolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
Where would you say Mucus? I guess with my U.S. comment I was saying that it might be "the most tolerant place on earth," but that doesn't mean it is tolerant enough.

---

I was thinking Canada, maybe Australia. Rabbit pointed out one good place too.
Speaking for Canada, I know that I certainly feel more comfortable as an atheist in Canada rather than the US, whether it be in the political arena or the legal arena. I also have Middle Eastern friends that are definitely not big fans of travelling to the States when required to for their jobs. (In fact, personally, I think government policy is a little too politically correct/tolerant in some cases, but thats slightly different)

Things aren't perfect, but on the whole I think we have a slightly better balance.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I had a feeling it was Canada, but some of the laws that have been put into place in Canada seem to offset some of the more tolerant aspects of its laws. For instance, I would feel less comfortable as a conservative Christian in Canada than I do in the United States. I could be fined or go to jail for speaking my "intolerant" mind.
 

---

Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
 
As far as semantics go, read the Style Guide from the LDS Newsroom. The last bullet point says that the Associated Press Stylebook says "Mormon" only applies to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and not to any break-off groups.

Anyway, as far as the article goes, I'm glad that they are taking care of the problem, but I am also a little concerned. What's to stop the SWAT team from breaking into one of our temples if they thought someone was being held there against his/her will?

I guess it helps that we don't live in our temples.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
If there were credible evidence that the LDS church was holding people in temples against their will I hope the SWAT team would break in. Or other appropriate athorities.

A group's right to control their own private space ends at kidnapping, whether there are religious reasons for the privacy or not.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Probable cause? The need for a warrant?

Occasional, I might suggest that "intolerant" might be the wrong word here. For example, you would tolerate rather more sexual behavior toward and with adolescent girls than I would. Perhaps "differently tolerant"?
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Anyway, as far as the article goes, I'm glad that they are taking care of the problem, but I am also a little concerned. What's to stop the SWAT team from breaking into one of our temples if they thought someone was being held there against his/her will?

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, I can think of more than a few specific laws and policies in the US that *do* affect large numbers of people.

---

quote:

---

What I mean is that every arugment for gay and lesbian freedom of marriage has been counter argued it would allow for poligamy as legally recognized. That counter has always been countered by the ssm groups it is NOT the same thing. This is the first time I have ever known ssm supporters say it is the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Former church president Hinckley famously stated "There is no such thing as a Mormon fundamentalist",

---

Tell that to a Mormon Fundamentalist.

Hinckley did a great job at making the perception of Mormonism, specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more mainstream.

The church itself has made great efforts in appearing more Christian. Not that they are not Christian, I am just talking about the face of the church not the doctrine.

I remember when LDS faithful were encouraged NOT to use the word Mormon. I remember when the text on the Book of Mormon was changed so that Jesus Christ's name was bigger. I guess I don't get the hypersensitivity to polygamous groups being identified as Mormons. LDS faithful have distance themselves from the name. Even if the population identifies Mormonism with polygamy, I would think LDS Mormons are mature enough to deal with that without playing with semantics.

Is Mormon a legal name like the official name of the church? If not then anyone can be a Mormon if they identify themselves as such--particularly if they believe in the Book of Mormon.

Maybe there is no such thing as a "Fundamentalist LDS Mormon" because that very self defined individual would likely be excommunicated, but I don't think the LDS church has enough authority of the term "Mormon" to get to decide who can self identify as a Mormon.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
I recently read a paper that touched on the tolerance of differing customs/traditions and of differing religions in Europe & the US (paper as a whole was on attitudes towards immigration). The authors found that the US population is more open to both religious diversity and cultural diversity. The questions asked were:

It is better for a country if almost everyone shares the same customs and traditions.

It is better for a country if there are a variety of religions among its people.

I wish the article had included Australia, Canada, and the like in the data, but it was drawing on a EU -developed data set. You can find more about it (including some nifty graphs) here: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/03/the_imagined_community_in_euro.html
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Dagonee: I was referring to laws that affect people because of *other* people's religion.

The context of the discussion is still tolerance of religion. For me, that includes toleration of both people that are not religious or people that are "presumed" to be of one particular religion.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

was referring to laws that affect people because of *other* people's religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Occasional: Has that ever actually happened?
I can think of one case, a case that is still in progress where a conservative author criticised Muslims, but that case is still unresolved.

---

quote:

---

The Canadian prime minister, Jean Chretien, and other Roman Catholics in his cabinet have been warned they may pay the ultimate spiritual price if they push ahead with plans to legalise same sex marriages.

They could go to hell when they die, according to Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary. The outspoken church official has upped the stakes in the heated debate over same-sex marriages by warning that Roman Catholic politicians who push ahead with proposed legislation could suffer eternal damnation.

This includes Mr Chretien, who will resign in February, and his heir apparent, former finance minister Paul Martin. Mr Martin, a devout Catholic who attends mass almost every Sunday, will likely oversee implementation of the legislation after Mr Chretien steps down next year. He has a large lead in the leadership race that will take place in November.

Both men, however, seem prepared to risk the censure of their church in the name of equal rights for homosexuals.

Mr Martin has said that he wrestled with the concept of gay marriage. But he told reporters recently that his responsibilities as a politician "must take a wider perspective" than his faith.

Mr Chretien, whose father and grandfather fought with the Roman Catholic church in Quebec, has also made it clear that there must be a separation between church and state in Canada.

He moved ahead with legislation after a series of court rulings found that marriage cannot be defined only as a union between a man and a woman because that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

His government has drafted a bill that would not limit civil marriage to same-sex couples, but would still allow churches to decide if they will marry gay couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
The difference is what is done in marriage and what is done out of marriage. If a school teacher and a student wanted to get married, I would still be ok with it. It would be ethically problematic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by imogen:
I don't think Australia is particularly tolerant when it comes to religion.

Certainly there are no rights to religious freedom like there are in other countries.

---

quote:

---

Section 116 of the 1900 Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Constitution) provides that:

The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

---

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

That said, I cannot find the study that prompted my "Australia, maybe" comment so I'm not particularly attached to the idea.

scholarette:
First, I think thats a very big generalization from just one sample, not even quite one since you didn't ask them. I'd give good odds that my family would be disappointed if I did not have children, but opposing same-sex marriage legislation is very different and I know both my parents voted liberal (or Green, I wasn't sure if he was joking).

Another big issue, I remember a lot of grief when Leslie Cheung died
Secondly, I saw a good article on the issue and how it affected the Chinese when the issue was being debated in Canada:

quote:

---

Zaixin Ma, the Vancouver newspaper editor, says that many Chinese who arrived in recent years are "trying to find a new sense of who they are," and many are far more liberal-thinking than the previous generations who have more access to political power and the mainstream media.

"Personally," he said, "I cannot accept same-sex marriage, but I feel that if my community decides to accept it, then that's okay. It's not for me, and hopefully not for my family, but I would then accept it from other people."

Terry Lum, the 33-year-old head of the Community of Chinese Canadians, an organization that represents Chinese-Canadians under 40, is "neither against it nor for it," and thinks that this is the prevailing opinion of the younger Chinese community.

"There's a huge gap in the community," Mr. Lum said. "First of all there's the gap between the young and the old. But there's also a gap between the early immigrants and the late immigrants."

What bothers Mr. Lum, and others, is the presumption that there is this one huge community that speaks the same language and thinks along the same lines.


"You can say they're all Chinese if you like," said Mr. Lum, a fourth-generation Canadian. "But that's not much different, really, than me saying a Ukrainian who is here is the same as someone from England."

Where generalizations do hold true, Mr. Lum says, is that most members of the Chinese community are little different from other Canadians when they merely shrug their shoulders at an issue that doesn't particularly affect them.

"We do understand," he said with a sly smile, "what it means to be Canadian socially correct."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by imogen:
I don't think Australia is particularly tolerant when it comes to religion.

Certainly there are no rights to religious freedom like there are in other countries.

---

Are you sure?

quote:

---

Section 116 of the 1900 Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Constitution) provides that:

The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

---

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

---

Yeah, I'm sure. [Australian, and a lawyer].

While the Commonwealth cannot make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, nowhere does it say that people have the right to religious freedom.

In other words, what we have a negative clause prohibiting legislative interference, not a positive, right creating clause. (The Australian Constitution does not have many 'rights', unlike, for example the US one.) Despite calls for a Religious Freedoms Act by bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (in part to bring the laws in Australia into conformity with our obligations under the ICCPR), no such legislation has been enacted.

Further, this only applies to the Commonwealth government - there are no such restrictions on the State Governments.

Note also that there is no explicit freedom of speech in Australia, only an implied limited freedom of political speech. So there is no freedom of religious speech - something I am sure some people would consider intolerant of religion.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I don't think they are a significant factor. I just think that you can be opposed to ssm without it being a religious issue. I find that often by framing the issue as the evil intolerant Christians, it further entrenches people against ssm. I might be a bit skittish having had some nasty arguments about ssm (I am actually in favor of ssm but don't like a lot of the arguments people often use).
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

if she did manage to run away she would be forced by the "outsiders" to cut her hair, wear makeup and modern clothes, and have sex with many men.

---

quote:

---

I just think that you can be opposed to ssm without it being a religious issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
"Are you suggesting that society should not determine a legal age of consent?"

I think that what has determined the age of consent (particularly about marriage) is currently too arbitrary or undefined. By all accounts, it comes down to when you graduate from High School - although "age 18" is something that is used because it is more consistent. The law also indicates age 21 for drinking, although I am at a loss as to why for that one as well. Don't get me wrong, I have an idea of the arguments for those ages. It's just that I don't think they are very good reasons.


Where would you say Mucus? I guess with my U.S. comment I was saying that it might be "the most tolerant place on earth," but that doesn't mean it is tolerant enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
I don't think they are a significant factor. I just think that you can be opposed to ssm without it being a religious issue...

---

quote:

---

Although Hinsch ends his text with the fall of the Qing dynasty, his Epilogue provides a movingly written and powerful critique of contemporary Chinese homophobia. He concludes that the easy acceptance of same-sex love began to change in China with the coming of the Manchu rulers, who reacted against the opulent libertine lifestyle of traditional Chinese civilization. But what really revolutionized Chinese sexual attitudes, Hinsch argues, was the impact of Europeans. By the early 1900s, Chinese “progressives” had become so impressed with Western science and technology that they slavishly adopted a mystical faith in the superiority of all things Western. Sexual variance was suppressed, in favor of Christian notions that the only purpose of sex was reproduction. Since Western medical and psychological sciences in the early 1900s saw homosexuality as “pathological,” China's traditional patterns of acceptance of same-sex love disappeared. Progressive scholars (employed by Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the People's Republic alike) deleted references to homosexuality in new translations of Chinese classical literature. They simplified the writing style, meaning that most literate Chinese could no longer read the classics in their original uncensored form. Thus, modern Chinese have been cut off from an important part of their heritage. It is a great irony, Hinsch writes, that some contemporary Chinese claim that homosexuality is “a decadent practice” only brought into China from the West. They are ignorant of the fact that what really was brought into China from the West was an intolerance for same-sex love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by imogen:
...
In other words, what we have a negative clause prohibiting legislative interference, not a positive, right creating clause

---

quote:

---

It is a great irony, Hinsch writes, that some contemporary Chinese claim that homosexuality is “a decadent practice” only brought into China from the West. They are ignorant of the fact that what really was brought into China from the West was an intolerance for same-sex love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by imogen:
...
In other words, what we have a negative clause prohibiting legislative interference, not a positive, right creating clause

---

I'm afraid the practical distinction is somewhat lost on me, but I'll gladly take your word for it since as I mentioned, I can't find the reference for my earlier guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by imogen:
Further, this only applies to the Commonwealth government - there are no such restrictions on the State Governments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I just think that you can be opposed to ssm without it being a religious issue.

---

While I agree that it might be technically possible, I think it's highly unlikely.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

if she did manage to run away she would be forced by the "outsiders" to cut her hair, wear makeup and modern clothes, and have sex with many men.

---

THE HORROR!!!

But seriously, that's the scariest fate they could come up with? No wonder she made the call.

---

quote:

---

I imagine that a lot of women would not want to be forced to have sex with many men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Probably not many. But a possible list might be being forced to walk around in lingerie and have sex with many men, and it's possible that the haircut, makeup, and modern clothes are as problematic to them as lingerie in public would be to women outside the compound.

---

quote:

---

it's probably the equivalent of saying, "You'll be forced to dress and live like a whore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:



Man thats screwed up. We really messed up the Chinese more than I thought. Its convoluted, yes, but I don't think you can necessarily classify modern Chinese antipathy towards homosexuality as being non-religious without contradictory evidence.

---

quote:

---

n the Chinese literature I have read, there is an acceptance of homosexual relationships, however, there is still the expectation of producing heirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
Yes, modern marriage is just a shadowplay for the homosexual fulfillment of yesteryear.

:cough:

---

Shouldn't it be "modern marriage is just a shadowplay for the political and economical contracts of yesteryear"?

I only skimmed this thread, and not completely familiar with the term 'shadowplay'...so if my comment doesn't make sense, ignore it.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
... you also must do your duty to your family and make a baby. I am too lazy to go and check what era the books are written in

---

quote:

---

I'd give good odds that my family would be disappointed if I did not have children, but opposing same-sex marriage legislation is very different and I know both my parents voted liberal (or Green, I wasn't sure if he was joking).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
... I don't really think one needs to look back with great fondness on any pre-European golden age of Chinese sexuality. Not that European meddling has improved things greatly... just... uh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Face it, the traditional idea of marriage is much more like practical business arrangement for producing children and heirs than what we seek today.

---

quote:

---

I tend to find that people who are bothered by "non-traditional" marriage have either a very narrow idea of traditional marriage or a very limited idea of women as full human beings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I doubt they have any idea that marriage traditions changed between the days of Abraham and the 1950s. They've probably even conveniently forgotten that Abraham had concubines in addition to his wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I doubt they have any idea that marriage traditions changed between the days of Abraham and the 1950s. They've probably even conveniently forgotten that Abraham had concubines in addition to his wife.

---

Some have an idea. I had a conversation with someone online a few months ago, and I brought this up. So he knew...he just denied vehemently that it was true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
So did you point him toward the relevant biblical passages?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:
It certainly is ironic. I was just objecting to BlackBlade's mock horror. Just because most of those things don't sound bad to us doesn't mean that none of them do. And to those girls, it's probably the equivalent of saying, "You'll be forced to dress and live like a whore."

---

quote:

---

Many people would be surprised to learn that "Mormon" is not the name of any religious sect. It is a nickname applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1930 as a response to the religions new scripture called "The Book or Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Why do you suppose that the news media never called the "Branch Davidians" a "radical offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists?


Why wasn't it pointed out in every single news article that Jim Jones' "Peoples Temple" was an offshoot of the Disciples of Christ?

Why is it that no one has problems distinguishing between the Catholic Church and its breakaway group that committed mass suicide in Uganda "Movement for the restoration of the Ten Commandments of God"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
If they are rape victims, then the paper is publishing alleged rape victims. If they are not, then they are being exploited like animals in a zoo for the page views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Given the evidence, does this reaction seem a little heavy-handed to anyone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Why do you suppose that the news media never called the "Branch Davidians" a "radical offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists?

---

quote:

---

Since they don't know which if the fathers is the abuser, they took all the children from the compound.

---

quote:

---

I think they went way to far here, and the original justification for the search was pretty flimsy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
From the article:

quote:

---

Many people would be surprised to learn that "Mormon" is not the name of any religious sect. It is a nickname applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1930 as a response to the religions new scripture called "The Book or Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

---

*cries* I know it's a typo, but it's at the very beginning and it doesn't do much for the credibility of the article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Well, for one thing, I believe the girl who made the call has still not been located. It's still an anonymous phone call. Additionally, the initial search warrant and some of the following warrants named the wrong man as the alleged husband of the anonymous caller. The man named in the warrant lives in Arizona, not in the Texas compound.

---

quote:

---

Am I mistaken in the impression that he "lives" in an Arizona prison?

---

quote:

---

I don't really see physical abuse as an inadequate cause to deliver young women from systematic and ritualized statuory rape.

---

quote:

---

Why do you suppose that the news media never called the "Branch Davidians" a "radical offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists?

---

quote:

---

Given the evidence, does this reaction seem a little heavy-handed to anyone else?

---

quote:

---

I would like to see the evidence for ripping all 400 children away from their homes. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis - you don't one set of children away from their mothers because their cousins were taken away from theirs.

---

quote:

---

What's unfortunate is that I believe there is likely some abuse happening but all of the evidence which supports that allegation may now become inadmissible because of the lack of diligence in determining the validity of the original tip.

---

quote:

---

The man named in the warrant lives in Arizona, not in the Texas compound.

---

quote:

---

The other glaring factual errors didn't help either.

---

quote:

---

I also saw a Washington Post article that said that the FLDS Church split off from the main LDS Church in the 1990s. I can't imagine where they got that idea from.

---

quote:

---

The FLDS split from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints more than a century ago when the mainstream Mormon Church renounced polygamy. The Mormon Church excommunicates members who practice plural marriage.

---

quote:

---

I think the problem people are having is that it's not at all clear whether there was evidence of such abuse for all 400 children.

---

To summarize my previous monster post: there's no particular reason that it would be clear to those who only know about this from the press at this point.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Dag: That wasn't the article I was referring to, but I'm having a hard time finding it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't seen the 1990s error, just that I know they've gotten it right at least once.
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
Every time I hear anything about this story, I feel so grateful that I am not a child protection worker in West Texas. Imagine trying to find homes for 400 kids. Yeesh.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Imagine being one of the kids.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I would like to see the evidence for ripping all 400 children away from their homes. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis - you don't one set of children away from their mothers because their cousins were taken away from theirs.

---

quote:

---

You would if they all lived together, essentially under the same roof.

---

quote:

---

Why are people so quick to assume that child and family services didn't follow the laws? Do you have a general bias against child protective services and always assume they are guilty until proven innocent?

---

quote:

---

So perhaps the best analogy would be to a corporate industrial park where there are numerous buildings all owned and under the same management but still private office spaces within those buildings.

---

quote:

---

All the property, both houses and adjoining lands, belonged to the church. So perhaps the best analogy would be to a corporate industrial park where there are numerous buildings all owned and under the same management but still private office spaces within those buildings. If it were treated that way by the courts, how would that influence the 4th amendment concerns?

---

quote:

---

How is that different from the apartment building analogy? Because there are separate buildings? As they are all owned by the same entity, I don't think that would be a relevant distinction.

---

quote:

---

We have no evidence that they weren't considered on a case by case basis...

---

quote:

---

We certainly do-- the children were removed from their parents in an aggressive manner whose timetable belies the notion of case-by-case examination.

---

quote:

---

But the chain of charges exploding from that point is so incredible, the state needs to provide evidence to support their extraordinary efforts.

---

quote:

---

Simply put, I don't buy Dagonee's argument that this has been considered

---

quote:

---

I think that this affair was done with the best of intentions, but is a black mark against true justice for the victims.

---

quote:

---

I'm infuriated that the state is not allowing mothers of children older than four to stay with their children. Are the mothers a danger? And if they are, how? While its understandable that in ordinary circumstances parents of children in state custody do not get to go with their children, this is hardly an ordinary circumstance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Yeah, but they don't need to provide it to YOU. And you don't know what evidence was provided to the people they do have to provide it to.

---

I believe that this in part refers to the legal counsel that has been retained by those charged, who have a competence independent of that of the "state"
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Considering how this can affect the rights of everyone I think the State has a moral obligation, and dare I say a legal one, to provide the evidence to ME! After all, isn't that what all the fuss over Gauntanamo is all about?

Notes: I changed that glaring misuse of vocabulary.

ME is a generic rather than specific definition for all individuals.

[ April 15, 2008, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
'affect'
Also, why are you (or YOU!) in specific so special?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
Scott R:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Yeah, but they don't need to provide it to YOU. And you don't know what evidence was provided to the people they do have to provide it to.

---

I believe that this in part refers to the legal counsel that has been retained by those charged, who have a competence independent of that of the "state"

---

quote:

---

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

---

quote:

---

I'm not happy any time due process is violated.

---

quote:

---

While I understand the need to keep the evidence quiet, I'm not comfortable with the caretakers of the evidence; I'm not convinced of the state's competence.

---

quote:

---

I believe that this in part refers to the legal counsel that has been retained by those charged, who have a competence independent of that of the "state"

---

quote:

---

After all, isn't that what all the fuss over Gauntanamo is all about?

---

No. The fuss at Guantanamo is about not giving the evidence to the detainee or the detainee's counsel.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Dagonee, for what it's worth, you've said everything I'd want to say at this point, but with greater eloquence, attention to detail, and legal knowledge than I could. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It's worth an awful lot.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Fortunately, there's no evidence that [violation of due process] has happened here.

---

quote:

---

The state is accusing the sect of physically and sexually abusing the youngsters and wants to strip their parents of custody and place the children in foster care or put them up for adoption.

---

The state was able to determine within days, that all four hundred children were being physically and sexually abused? Or is this AP article over-simplifying things?

As much as we've heard about the inefficiencies of CPS, I find it extremely difficult to believe that they could put together enough evidence to warrant this kind of ...well, rendition. I find it much more likely, based on the history of CPS' inefficiencies, that they jumped the gun, became overzealous, and are now scrambling to cover their collective rear ends. Some of the patterns of miscommunication (as pointed up in the linked article) are NOT indicative of an organization that is efficient.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Scott R, I think what Dagonee is saying (and I agree) is that this is due process; i.e., this is the process established by the relevant laws and supported through many challenges in courts at many different levels. One may want to challenge whether "due process" should be different by challenging those laws, but this is the proper (or "due") procedure under law in warranted cases of suspicions of serious child abuse.

We talked about the timeframe earlier in the thread. I'm going to [post below] to quote myself out of convenience, but not out of any aggressive insinuation that you should have remembered or read it all in careful detail. ( )

I have a great deal of concern about potential abuse of the system and prejudgment (also as noted before), but that is a matter of watching how this plays out very very carefully, not a criticism of the process as currently detailed in the media.

[ April 15, 2008, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

There certainly is-- the emergency removal of 400 children is an admission, tacitly, of the fact that due process didn't happen.

---

quote:

---

Which is a completely different topic from whether or not emergency removal was warranted. The fact remains that we have given the government the power to override our rights through the use of the word "emergency."

---

quote:

---

Due process was OBVIOUSLY disregarded. Maybe it was warranted.

---

quote:

---

The state was able to determine within days, that all four hundred children were being physically and sexually abused?

---

quote:

---

"Quite frankly, I'm not sure what we're going to do," Texas District Judge Barbara Walther said after a conference that included three to four dozen attorneys either representing or hoping to represent youngsters.

---

quote:

---

I find it much more likely, based on the history of CPS' inefficiencies, that they jumped the gun, became overzealous, and are now scrambling to cover their collective rear ends.

---

quote:

---

Some of the patterns of miscommunication (as pointed up in the linked article) are NOT indicative of an organization that is efficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scifibum:
I flat out don't believe that the state could determine with any level of certainty or fairness that 401 children need to be put into foster care in a matter of a couple of days. I think we're seeing evidence of prejudice. It troubles me to see this happening, even though I think the state is probably *right* I don't think it's using due process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
When one child is deemed likely to have been or of considerable risk to be significantly abused, often the other children in that specific home environment are considered at risk and removed as well. Given the size and intermingling of many families on this particular site, it wouldn't take many children to have been deemed abused to justify removing so many other children until their safety could be established. ***

Not addressing ketchupqueen's critical concern, of course, but as a note as to why so many might be justifiably removed so quickly.

---

Edited to add:

*** This is the standard widespread practice to ensure safety in likely very volatile situations which cannot be resolved quickly without high likelihood of error, and it has been deemed by courts across the country to be both prudent [and] consistent with due process.

Of course, this does mean that children -not- being abused are removed, whether [actually in truth] at risk or not. However, it also saves lives and health while buying time to figure out exactly what is going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
The original number deemed abused or neglected was 18. I can see how they could decide that since they were all living in the same "home environement" they are all at risk. But I am a bit on edge here. So far the mothers who have left are being allowed to stay with the children, and are basically being treated as victims as well. I hope that as many as want support to leave the group are able to get support, help, and training in how to live outside their group (one of my main problems with this group is the lack of education, especially for girls; it's one thing if you're Amish and not expected to make a decision to join the group until you are an adult and have had a chance to see what a different lifestyle is like, but being forced into marriage at 14 without being told there is any other reasonable option is not okay.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
I share your concerns, ketchupqueen. I would also be surprised if it were even possible for local authorities to act without at least some prejudgment -- such cases are so highly publicized and so polarizing that prejudice would seem unavoidable. I think it's just human nature, whether that prejudgment ends up being accurate or misleading in the end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
...

Due process for removing children from familes (at least in most states) is quite strict. When children are removed from a home in an emergency situation (like this), the act is subject to judicial review usually with in 48 hours or less. In this situation, given the number of children involved it would not surprise me if that time table was stretch. But I don't think the time table itself is evidence that due process isn't being used. I'd be very interested over the next few days to see if the proper judicial reviews are done and the outcome of those reviews.

Despite all the complaining about the state removing children from homes without cause, I think there is far more evidence that the state is too likely to leave children in homes even when there is strong evidence of abuse and neglect.

So many people have an anecdote about a distant friend or relative who had their child taken unjustly. I'm quite skeptical of these stories for several reasons. How many parents would admit they were abusing their child rather than claim unfair treatment? Its easy for most people to believe that a faceless government organization made a big mistake than to believe that their friend or relative was abusing a child.

In the one case I'm familiar with, the whole neighborhood was up in arms over how this baby was taken from her mother. But once I learned the details of the injury the mother claimed was "an accident", I was quite relieved that the child was taken away from her. After a few weeks, the baby was given over to the care of the grandmother with the stipulation that the mother not be left alone with the baby. The mother was required to undergo therapy and training and eventually the child was returned to her care with close over sight from family services.

I consider it an example of the system working and I am told that it is typical of cases where children are put in foster care. In most cases, the goal is to return children to live with their parents.

In this case, the state has a big incentive to return these children to their mothers because of the burden they will put on the foster care system. I think its much more likely that these children will be returned to abusive mothers who can't care from them than that the state will keep them in foster care long after their mothers could have provided them adequate loving homes.

---

I also added [ketchupqueen's concern and] The Rabbit's full post because of [their] clarity and attention to detail and nuance. The rest of the conversation there is also a good read. Dagonee has been going into great detail on this from the beginning as well.

---

Also, you and I may disagree about whether it's justified/reasonable to take so many children away so quickly, or even whether it is justified in taking one child away in this manner (as in The Rabbit's related story). This may well (read, "is likely" ) be understandable given our backgrounds and experiences; e.g., I have no children but have been involved in many (and some dire) child abuse investigations of others, whereas you have children and thus a much more thorough and grounded idea of a parent's perspective in general.

That's okay. That's life, and that's good. Multiple perspectives should be not only welcomed but sought out -- it's necessary to deal with the justifiable concerns of fairness and our shared civic responsibilities in this matter. I just wanted to acknowledge that as part of the process of clarifying that I wasn't reposting the earlier conversation in order to show you that the matter had been settled. Rather, the earlier discussion may not have been seen or at the forefront of your mind, and I thought it was quite pertinant to the questions raised.

[ April 15, 2008, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(added ketchupqueen above)
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Dagonee:

Thank you for your patient response. Yes, I have a problem with the system.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Because...? I have had a problem with feeling like the system isn't zealous enough. Plus I don't harbor any sympathy toward polygamists.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
Because...? I have had a problem with feeling like the system isn't zealous enough. Plus I don't harbor any sympathy toward polygamists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
What process do you think would create a sufficient balance of parental rights while not letting children be harmed?

---

quote:

---

If religion weren't part of this equation, would you feel differently?

---

quote:

---

If in a large hippie commune parents were forcing or even allowing adolescent girls to have sex with older men in the commune would you want those men arrested?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
And I'd want to make sure that the state prosecution of them was thorough and legal and moral, and that they did not overzealously prosecute hippies for their ideaology, but for their actions against children.

---

quote:

---

Here is some examples of more abuses from the Texas thugs.

---

quote:

---

"But I am a die-hard supporter of religious liberties. If they can invade the FLDS temple, they can invade my temple."

---

quote:

---

They hear echoes of 19th-century salacious - and false - rumors about their Mormon forefathers seducing women and having sex on temple altars. And they worry about government officials having power to decide what’s best for children.

---

quote:

---

The women from YFZ Ranch said Monday the girl does not exist and the calls were a hoax. "It is a bogus person. It is a person they made up. That person does not exist on this land," said Joy.

---

quote:

---

Their children, they were told, were no longer theirs. “They told us the state is in charge of
them now,” said Donna.

Their children are no longer theirs? What?

---

quote:

---

Is CPS forgetting somewhere deep in the heart of West Texas someone is at least pretending some due process is scheduled, in the form of legal hearings to be held beginning this week. But, the hubris, arrogance, and callousness of Texas is indeed telling.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee can argue about "due process" all day, but I don't buy it and perhaps think some civil disobedience might be in order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
None of those actions that you've labeled cult-like are illegal.

---

quote:

---

I'm not, and will never be, comfortable with state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships.

---

quote:

---

Absolutely. And I'd want to make sure that the state prosecution of them was thorough and legal and moral, and that they did not overzealously prosecute hippies for their ideaology, but for their actions against children.
Why do you ask?

---

quote:

---

I don't honestly know that one can be made. I'm not content to buy into the administration's (any administrations) assurances that everything is being done by the book. I'm not, and will never be, comfortable with state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships.

Which should not indicate that I don't see its necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I don't understand what your point is, Javert.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Even the worst of the allegations have not indicated any prepubescent sexual abuse, so the removal of 5- and 6-year-olds seems unconscionable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I'm not content to buy into the administration's (any administrations) assurances that everything is being done by the book. I'm not, and will never be, comfortable with state-sponsored intervention in child-parent relationships.

---

quote:

---

Which should not indicate that I don't see its necessity.

---

Me, too. Unfortunately. There is no clear cut for this Gordian knot, but we are presented with it nonetheless, and we have to do our best by it. That will and must include accountability.

[ April 15, 2008, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Recently in the news a 16-year-old became pregnant after living with her older boyfriend - with her parents' blessing.

Why isn't anyone arresting the parents of Jamie Lynne Spears?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm merely asking/suggesting that maybe it's their cult-like behavior that is causing any singling-out.

---

quote:

---

Recently in the news a 16-year-old became pregnant after living with her older boyfriend - with her parents' blessing.
Why isn't anyone arresting the parents of Jamie Lynne Spears?

---

quote:

---

Does anyone have an idea as to why the police haven't named suspects or made any arrests?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
Here is some examples of more abuses from the Texas thugs. Dagonee can argue about "due process" all day, but I don't buy it and perhaps think some civil disobedience might be in order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Recently in the news a 16-year-old became pregnant after living with her older boyfriend - with her parents' blessing.

Why isn't anyone arresting the parents of Jamie Lynne Spears?

---

quote:

---

It may be that once pregnant, she is considered (roughly speaking) emancipated at that age, and so there may not be "imminent" danger as the statutes would not currently apply to her at this moment in time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
CT:

You're a beautiful individual. I'm not sure I agree with you. I want to agree with you, though, because you seem simultaneously intelligent and considerate of differing opinions.

---

quote:

---

The key element in all of this is the assumption that there was sufficient evidence to believe that the children were being abused.

Nothing in any of those articles answers that question. I find it interesting that so many people jump to the conclusion that because the media haven't reported the details of the evidence for abuse that the evidence doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

It may be that once pregnant, she is considered (roughly speaking) emancipated at that age, and so there may not be "imminent" danger as the statutes would not currently apply to her at this moment in time.

---

Why wouldn't this apply to the pregnant teenagers on the Texas ranch?

---

quote:

---

The two sides are those who want to wait and see and trust that the authorities are doing everything "by the book." Then there is those like myself who don't believe that is true and think bounds have been overstepped.

---

quote:

---

Since there is little to no proof either way, all we can go on is our beliefs

---

quote:

---

and some legal rhetoric.

---

It's not legal rhetoric. It's legal analysis. When one talks about whether due process has been violated, one is talking about a legal issue. When one talks about whether fourth amendment rights have been violated, one is talking about a legal issue.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Looks like the age of consent in Mississippi is 16 (male and female) but is 17 (male and female) in Texas, according to my offline sources. I bet this is listed in a state-by-state chart at a reliable site online somewhere.

---

Edited to add: Some states put the legal age of consent at 16, some 17, and many at 18. For many states it is the same age for boys and girls, but for some states the ages differ based on sex.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'd be kind of scared to run a search on "age of consent by state".
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
That's why I didn't. *grin

I already searched the KKK/Knight's Party official website to address a question elsewhere, and that will tide me over for many years.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
for pooka and CT: Ages of consent in North America--wikipedia
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I think the two relevant states for Jamie Lynn Spears were California and Louisiana.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Thanks! (go, you! )

Ahhhh, hmmm. From the into paragraph there, "In Missouri, the age is 14 years old with certain circumstances. The spouse/significant other must be 5 years older." That's more detail than my clinical cheat sheet goes into, and I'll modify for my records.

The snippet on Texas law with regards to differential ages of the two involved is also interesting and relevant.

---

Edited to add: There is a nice snippet on applicable federal law as well, not with age of consent per se, but in regards to communication with minors and transportation across state lines in terms of such cases.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
I think the two relevant states for Jamie Lynn Spears were California and Louisiana.

---

quote:

---

For Aldridge, his relationship with Spears could easily be viewed as a criminal matter. It differs from state to state. Charges can be brought in any state with sexual relations occurred. Yet, the two states with the most relevance are California (where Spears words) and Louisiana (where Spears lives). In California, it is a misdemeanor to have sex with someone younger than 18 if the offender is less than three years older. Someone more than three years older could be charged with a felony. In Louisiana, where Spears lives, it is a misdemeanor for someone age 17 to 19 to have consensual sex with someone age 15 to 17 if the difference between their ages is more than two years.

---

According to Wikipedia, Aldridge is slightly less than 2 years older than Jamie, so there seems to be no violation if conception occurred in Louisiana.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Gotta love a legal scholar blog.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
From what I've read, in both CA and LA it would be at most considered a misdemeanor for an 18 year old to have consensual sex with a 16 year old (aka Spears).

But regardless of the law, I think there is an enormous difference between a 15 to 16 year old having sexual relationships with a boyfriend/girlfriend who is within 2 or three years of their own age and a teenager having sexual relations with some one in their 30s or 40s. The former I consider natural although regrettable (and sinful if that matters to you), the latter I consider perverse and probably evil.

The disparity in power and authority between a teenage girl and a man in his 30s and 40s is so extreme as to call into question the validity of consent. This is even more true within these closed polygamous groups where the pressure the young girls get from their religious leaders, parents and community makes it difficult to believe that these girls truly have any choice in the matters. Even if the threats are never spoken, these young girls know that refusing to enter into these marriage will mean punishments ranging from ostracism to beating to expulsion from their homes to eternal damnation. If saying no isn't an option, what does consent mean?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Gotta love a legal scholar blog.

---

They are fun.

quote:

---

From what I've read, in both CA and LA it would be at most considered a misdemeanor for an 18 year old to have consensual sex with a 16 year old (aka Spears).

---

quote:

---

But regardless of the law, I think there is an enormous difference between a 15 to 16 year old having sexual relationships with a boyfriend/girlfriend who is within 2 or three years of their own age and a teenager having sexual relations with some one in their 30s or 40s.

---

quote:

---

Texas Children's Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the separation was made Monday after they decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

But regardless of the law, I think there is an enormous difference between a 15 to 16 year old having sexual relationships with a boyfriend/girlfriend who is within 2 or three years of their own age and a teenager having sexual relations with some one in their 30s or 40s.

---

This is an important point: there is a qualitative difference in JLS's situation and the allegations at the root of the FLDS situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
How does CPS go about making this kind of decision?

Link

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

Texas Children's Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the separation was made Monday after they decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around.

---

How does CPS go about making this kind of decision?

---

quote:

---

Even the worst of the allegations have not indicated any prepubescent sexual abuse, so the removal of 5- and 6-year-olds seems unconscionable.

---

quote:

---

One of the greatest harms caused by the use of such rumors against religious minorities - and they have been used extensively against my own religion - is that it causes people to doubt situations where such abuses actually occur and for people to circle wagons around the abusers. We certainly saw this within the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

I'm curious if anyone is considering the following as causing lasting emotional harm:
- being raised with the understanding that marrying multiple women (including adolescents below the legal age of consent) is acceptable behavior

---

quote:

---

It would be easier for outsiders to make the distinction between these two religions if LDS posters were able to maintain Dagonee's objectiveness with respect to this situation.

---

quote:

---

I'm not LDS.

---

quote:

---

it appears that in a forum frequented by LDS members, there is considerable sympathy for the perpetrators of child molestation, to the point of accusing those who are attempting to protect children from that molestation of being "heavy handed."

---

quote:

---

The evidence is that girls have been systematically taught from earliest childhood that by the time they are of child bearing age (about 13) sexual relations with middle age men is normal, and in fact, a religious responsibility.

---

quote:

---

Aside from the call from a victim who described being choked and beaten while being raped, there is the physical evidence that numerous girls in this compound had born children well before they had reached the legal age to give consent, and that these girls were living in polygamous relationships in which the husband is a middle-aged man.

---

quote:

---

Then there is the evidence of a bed within the temple. This is evidence that this cult has essentially made child molestation into a sacrament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

It would be easier for outsiders to make the distinction between these two religions if LDS posters were able to maintain Dagonee's objectiveness with respect to this situation.

---

I'm not LDS.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, I am LDS. So please don't presume that this discussion is breaking down along religious lines.

---

quote:

---

For the people questioning why they are removing the younger children from the compound. . . assuming that this group does, in fact, force 13 year old girls to marry older men, what would you have CPS do with the girls who have not yet reached that age?

---

quote:

---

I also wanted to emphasize that there was at least one LDS poster here who wasn't biased in favor of the FLDS group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

I also wanted to emphasize that there was at least one LDS poster here who wasn't biased in favor of the FLDS group.

---

I don't think anyone here is biased in favor of the FLDS group.

---

quote:

---

Probably because I am LDS, the idea of just polygamy doesn't bother me at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

I also wanted to emphasize that there was at least one LDS poster here who wasn't biased in favor of the FLDS group.

---

I don't think anyone here is biased in favor of the FLDS group.

---

I certainly hope not, but wasn't that the implication of Glen's original comment?

---

quote:

---

For anyone who disagrees with how Texas has behaved, help with a petition to send a message.
edit: should work now. I think.

---

quote:

---

We, the undersigned, urge Texan authorities to free the innocent women, children, and other members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church who are currently being detained. We demand that the Constitutional rights of the innocent be preserved, and that due process be served. As individuals are innocent until proven guilty, we call upon the Texas Governor to intervene in this matter and allow the women and children to return to their homes peacefully. We also demand an apology, most especially from the Texas CPS, for the heinous acts of aggression displayed in these recent events.

---

quote:

---

I don't think anyone here is biased in favor of the FLDS group.

---

quote:

---

Let people be prosecuted as individuals and not as a group, otherwise you are nothing more than a persecutor.

---

quote:

---

I always thought the above sentiments were liberal (knowing Dagonee is not one) ideals based on tolerance.

---

quote:

---

For those in the minority that is double. Wait, these are religious conservatives. They don't count.

---

quote:

---

I am surprised this hasn't happend to the Amish. There are stories coming out about them that touches on everything other than polygamy.

---

quote:

---

Well, people have signed it so I guess the answer to your question Dagonee is yes I do expect people to sign the petition. Yes again I am biased in favor of the FLDS group and others like them. Let people be prosecuted as individuals and not as a group, otherwise you are nothing more than a persecutor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Occasional certainly strikes me this way, and has from his entry into the thread.

---

I'm glad someone religious said it, I admit that I was going to say it, but was wondering whether someone would say that I said it only because I was an atheist and biased *against*
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, now he's said it himself, so all doubt can be put to rest.

For clarity's sake, Scott R has never struck me as biased in favor of the FLDS group.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 

quote:

---

Glenn, that sounds a lot like the "aid and comfort" language which we hear right-wingers use against people that are critical of the administration. Regardless of my own religious affiliations that really rubs me the wrong way.

---

quote:

---

Since I fear that I've been bunched into the "sympathetic to the FLDS church" side of things

---

quote:

---

I always thought the above sentiments were liberal (knowing Dagonee is not one) ideals based on tolerance. For those in the minority that is double. Wait, these are religious conservatives. They don't count. I am surprised this hasn't happend to the Amish.

---

quote:

---

How do lawyers for a two year old determine what is in the best interest of their client? How big is the risk of such a lawyer becoming an extension of the prosecution (or state), rather than an advocate for the child?

---

quote:

---

ere's a great breakdown of the applicaple Texas law and the likely ways that it was broken when the 415 children were seized

---

quote:

---

Yet, despite lacking facts sufficient to allow Texas to remove in excess of 400 other children, not the subejct of this affidavit, Texas removed them anyway.

---

quote:

---

I don’t think Texas has the facts sufficient to sustain its burden. I don’t think Texas had those facts when it went in with an armed paramilitary force.

---

quote:

---

Absolutely we were brainwashed. Over generations of this lifestyle it was not a low level brainwashing. This particular cult have found methods with mind control where they actually use a high level programming method that involves pain to program a person

---

quote:

---

Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.

But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse.

"This is a population of women who appear to have a problem making a decision on their own," Voss said.

---

quote:

---

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said courts have generally held that a parent's belief system cannot, in itself, justify a child's removal. He said, for example, that a parent might teach his child that smoking marijuana is acceptable, but only when he helps the child buy pot does he cross the line.

"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't" take the children, Volokh said.

---

quote:

---

Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.

---

quote:

---

But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse.

---

quote:

---

I wish she had been more specific. Brainwashing is a highly controversial idea. But unless I misunderstand, they are using physical pain likely on the very young as a method of indoctrination.

---

quote:

---

The groups share many aspects with organized crime gangs.

---

quote:

---

I think that there is a growing body of evidence that these people do abuse their children and their teenagers and that something needs to be done about. This kind of action will make it that much harder for anyone to intervene even when there is strong evidence of abuse. It is also likely to make these groups more closed and more secretive and more likely to abuse.

---

quote:

---

According to Voss, there have been no allegations of abuse toward the younger children, or toward any of the boys.

---

quote:

---

Gideon is one of the ''Lost Boys," a group of more than 400 teenagers -- some as young as 13 -- who authorities in Utah and Arizona say have fled or been driven out of the polygamous enclaves of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City over the last four years.

His stated offenses: wearing short-sleeved shirts, listening to compact discs, and having a girlfriend. Other boys say they were booted out for going to movies, watching television, and staying out past curfew.

Some say they were sometimes given as little as two hours' notice before being driven to St. George or nearby Hurricane, Utah, and left like unwanted pets along the road.

---

quote:

---

A witness for the parents who was presented by defense lawyers as an expert on the FLDS disputed the state's contention that a bed in the retreat's gleaming white temple was never used to consummate the marriages of underage girls to much older men.

Instead, W. John Walsh testified, it is used for naps during the sect's long worship services.

"There is no sexual activity in the temple," Walsh said.

---

quote:

---

What concerns me the most are the reportst that the women seem incapable of making decisions outside the group, that they aren't exercising independent thought and evidence of free will to make decisions about their own lives. That just isn't right...and it isn't right for boys to be raised in an environment that treats that as okay.

---

quote:

---

How is that a positive environment for a boy to grow up in, an environment in which he comes to respect women as individuals with rights? It seems more to me that this group treats girls as the property of men, and in my opinion, raising boys in that environment is not healthy for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
And also-- as long as I'm posting--

quote:

---

How is that a positive environment for a boy to grow up in, an environment in which he comes to respect women as individuals with rights? It seems more to me that this group treats girls as the property of men, and in my opinion, raising boys in that environment is not healthy for them.

---

It's not a good environment, if what we've heard is true. But neither is the ghetto. Or many trailer parks. Or small towns. Or any number of environments with high poverty, low formalized education, low job rates, etc.

Is the environment criminal? That's the question CPS needs to answer.

---

I don't know the answers to this from a law perspective. I know that I grok where you are coming from.

Someone used an illegal drug use analogy. "What if a person raised a kid to believe that illegal drug use was morally okay? We couldn't take their kid away for teaching them something." But it's not QUITE that here, at least from what I'm reading. It's more like someone raising the kids in the community to EXPECT that at age 14 they would start taking the drugs. And year after year, each kid sees exactly that happen. Their friend Biff and their cousin Angie and their older sister. So at age eight, such a kid is not taking part in anything illegal. But he fully expects and the adults remind him and the older kids are doing it -- they all PLAN for this to happen.

What is our responsibility to this kid?
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I can't believe anybody is actually defending underage marriage. I mean, sure, my great-great grandmothers were probably all married and pregnant by age 14 or 15, but...that's not any reason to cut these people any slack, is it?
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Scott, it's an AP story. Although the rest of the site is totally anti-Mormon. A different link.

It's a sad story.

[Replaced link to same article from (I think) more neutral party. --PJ]

[ April 20, 2008, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

The groups share many aspects with organized crime gangs.

---

"Eh, Jedediah. You take care of that thing?"

"Just 'bout. Look, me and the old woman we're going to go milk the cows. Then I'll take care of it."

"Which?"

"What?"

"Jedediah, which o' your old ladies're you going out milking with?"

"Penelope."

"All right. You got what you need to take care of that thing?"

"Sure, sure. No problem. Badda-bing."

---

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Your are just showing your ignorance of the issues. I know nothing in particular about the finances of this particular group but The Kingson Organization (a polygamist group whose leader has been convicted of incest, accessory to rape and other crimes) has a financial empire worth over $200 million dollars. No one knows exactly how much sense many of the groups holdings are deliberately hidden. Their businesses include a coal mine that was grossing of 1 million dollars per day in 2002, a vending machine company, a bail bond company, a grocery store, pawn shops and dozens more.

Perhaps you are old enough to remember Ervil LaBaron who ordered two of his wives to murder the leader of a rival polygamous group, Rulon Allred.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I'd bet my next paycheck none of the FLDS people actually have/use their own milk cows. I know some Mennonites who do, but they're a little too busy milking twice a day to murder and steal, so far as I can tell.

Really, Scott...
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think that there is a growing body of evidence that these people do abuse their children and their teenagers and that something needs to be done about. This kind of action will make it that much harder for anyone to intervene even when there is strong evidence of abuse. It is also likely to make these groups more closed and more secretive and more likely to abuse.

---

According to Voss, there have been no allegations of abuse toward the younger children, or toward any of the boys.

---

quote:

---

This really pisses me off not just because of the religious persecution involved (although that is of concern) but also because it will make it harder to prosecute these rapists.

---

quote:

---

I know nothing in particular about the finances of this particular group but The Kingson Organization (a polygamist group whose leader has been convicted of incest, accessory to rape and other crimes) has a financial empire worth over $200 million dollars. No one knows exactly how much sense many of the groups holdings are deliberately hidden. Their businesses include a coal mine that was grossing of 1 million dollars per day in 2002, a vending machine company, a bail bond company, a grocery store, pawn shops and dozens more.

---

quote:

---

This is a fraction of the money that the LDS church has in various business interests. If you had left the dollar figures and specific businesses out of your description, it could have applied to either organization, or any number of others.

---

quote:

---

Your are just showing your ignorance of the issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

Your are just showing your ignorance of the issues.

---

Er...that's an interesting reaction.

I think your farce-o-meter isn't functioning.

---

quote:

---

Is the environment criminal? That's the question CPS needs to answer.

---

quote:

---

are you so petty that you can't even graciously win an argument?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

are you so petty that you can't even graciously win an argument?

---

I don't understand how I'm being petty. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Scott, What was your point in stripping this out of my post. You give a completely wrong impression of what I said and the point I was making.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
"I've worked with families (through Church) to help them get their homes clean and get their kids' on a livable schedule in order to keep the parents from losing custody."

LDS families?

---

quote:

---

my point was that Scott's characterization of these groups as quaint farmers who still milked their own cows didn't quite fit the picture.

---

quote:

---

D*#@N, This is what people have feared. If this is indeed the grounds on which the children were taken into custody the the Texas CPS has indeed overstepped their bounds.

---

quote:

---

But even if I could imagine a case where parents teaching their children their beliefs amounted to abuse, I can not possibly see how that could justify emergency removal of the children. Certainly the children were not in immediate danger.

---

quote:

---

Even if prepubescent children were not be sexually abused, they may have been physically abused. In fact based on what I know about several polygamous groups, I think its likely that the group encouraged severe corporal punishment of its children. At this point that is just speculation but it is no more unfounded than the speculation that there was no abuse of the younger children.

---

quote:

---

How soon will they make the transcripts publicly available?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Rabbit:

I think that you're reading a hostility in my posts that isn't there.

I don't understand how you think I've mischaracterized your arguments. From my point of view you said something (for example, "...these polygamist groups systematically abuse their children.") that seems to be contradicted by Voss' statements-- that no allegations of abuse have been leveled on behalf of younger children and boys from this group in Texas.

---

quote:

---

I disagree with you, ElJay.

Rabbit specified "children and teenagers." Assuming she means what she says, and that by 'children' she means prepubescent children (otherwise, why delineate "teenagers") her statement contradicts what Voss said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElJay:
I also don't think you're being petty, vindictive, or persecuting, for the record. Just that there's a miscommunication. And I don't think that her speculation from page 5 can still be held relevant after new information became available.

---

quote:

---

This really pisses me off not just because of the religious persecution involved (although that is of concern) but also because it will make it harder to prosecute these rapists. I think that there is a growing body of evidence that these people do abuse their children and their teenagers and that something needs to be done about. This kind of action will make it that much harder for anyone to intervene even when there is strong evidence of abuse. It is also likely to make these groups more closed and more secretive and more likely to abuse.

---

quote:

---

The only issue I had with it was that you maintained that there was abuse of children and teenagers, and Voss' testimony appears to contradict that.

---

quote:

---

You were making statements about the polygamists' lifestyle that may be contradicted by things the CPS witness was testifying.

---

A statement that CPS was making no allegations of abuse of the younger children and boys says at most they did not find evidence of such abuse in this case. If your point is solely that evidence for this does not appear to have been found in this raid, then we are in agreement.

If your point is that all allegations that these groups abuse their children have been disproven by Voss' testimony, you need a course in logic.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
A Judge has ordered the kids begin moving to foster homes.

Though how in the world a foster system that, in most states, is already overworked, is going to absorb 437 kids, I have no idea.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Belle, Texas will have an easier time with this than most states simply because of its size. As I posted earlier, this is only a 1.5% increase in the number of children in Foster Care in Texas.

The bigger problem I see is the difficulty in keeping syblings together. One of the reasons that they state for continuing to hold all the children is that they can't verify familial relations.
 

---

Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
There's an interesting (sad) problem for the state there regarding how they define familial relationships for purposes of organizing the children into homes.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Even if they go with simply defining all children with the same mother as syblings, many of these women have alot of children. How many foster homes would be able to take 8 or 10 children?
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

The bigger problem I see is the difficulty in keeping syblings together. One of the reasons that they state for continuing to hold all the children is that they can't verify familial relations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

How soon will they make the transcripts publicly available?

---

I don't know if they will. Someone will have to order the transcripts (and pay for them) and then post them. Since it seems to have been public, I'm pretty sure it's allowed. But it's not clear it will happen absent someone deciding to make it happen.

---

If the children (and/or adult women) are considered victims of a crime, I doubt those transcripts will be made public anytime soon.

I've been out of the victim services field for a while, but I seem to recall that this information, particularly in the case of children, was not made public.

The federal VOCA might offer some ideas about if and when we could see transcripts.

*toys with the idea of reviewing VOCA and decides not -- too tired -- maybe tomorrow*

Do you know, Dags, how the victim-witness protections are applied these days?

Edit: so, I'm looking at this website WCSAP which talks about the loss of privacy for victims bringing suit . . . but that's not the case here, at this point . . .

*wanders off to dig a wee bit more*

So much for tired.

Hmmm . . . well, here's WA state statute on "rape shield" laws for criminal and civil cases:

rape laws

Interesting . . . wonder what Texas laws are . . . texas victim rights

Hmmm -- that doesn't answer my questions either . . . perhaps under privacy rights?

A-ha: victim right to privacy

quote:

---

State Statutes
States may restrict the release of the name or other identifying information about the victim. More common is the confidentiality of the victim's address or phone number. Laws also exist to protect financial, medical, employment and other records. States have laws regarding the release of information by courts, law enforcement, medical facilities, social service agencies and other government agencies . . . There are state laws that prohibit the media from publication or broadcast of a victim's identity, photo, address or similar identifying information.

Privacy Rights of Sexual Assault Victims
In many states, the identity and the address of a victim of sexual assault is confidential. Many states prohibit the publication of such information. These laws exist in part to encourage the reporting of an offense which has historically carried much stigma to the victim. . . . In Texas, the victim is given a pseudonym on request to the court (although the victim's name is still released to the defendant and the defense attorney). . . . After indictment, a minor victim may still have his or her identity protected upon request to the court.

---

quote:

---

If the children (and/or adult women) are considered victims of a crime, I doubt those transcripts will be made public anytime soon.

I've been out of the victim services field for a while, but I seem to recall that this information, particularly in the case of children, was not made public.

---

quote:

---

they are trying to keep all of them in a five-county area, so that they are all within easy driving distance of therapists, lawyers, and social workers that they have to all meet with weekly. So, we're not talking about the entire state of Texas absorbing these kids, but rather a small section of Texas.

---

quote:

---

CPS said in its placement plan — attached to Walther's order — that it will try to place mothers under 18 with their children and to keep sibling groups together. Some of the families may have dozens of siblings.

Boys ages 8 and older will likely be placed in a setting similar to that where dozens of teen boys were taken last week, a Boys Ranch near Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle some 250 miles from Eldorado.

The CPS document lists facilities all around Texas — as far as Houston, about 500 miles away — where the children may be placed in what is one of the largest custody cases in U.S. history.

---

quote:

---

Texas officials believe another 25 moms at sect are under 18

1 hour ago

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — The number of children in Texas custody after being taken from a polygamist retreat now stands at 462 because officials believe another 25 mothers from the compound are under 18.

Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says the girls initially claimed to be adults but are now in state custody. Earlier they had been staying voluntarily with their children at a shelter at the San Angelo Coliseum.

The official number of children taken from the ranch controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been rising since a state raid three weeks ago. One reason is that some mothers under 18 claimed to be adults.

Roughly 260 children remain at the coliseum. The others were bused to foster facilities.

---

quote:

---

It is totally uncredible that those women could have been unaware that 31 of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are pregnant and/or already have children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
The state needs to start justifying their extraordinary actions. To this point, I don't feel that's been done.

---

quote:

---

But this isn't an ordinary circumstance. This is a high profile case that's all over the news. The nature of the group involved alone arouses suspicions of unfair prejudice. Under these circumstances, I think that Texas does need to justify its actions to the general public. If they don't the public backlash is likely to hurt the ability of the state to protect children who are in imminent danger.

---

quote:

---

The doctrine of the group makes it impossible to have unfair prejudices.

---

quote:

---

The sect, which broke from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints more than a century ago, believes polygamy brings glorification in heaven. Its leader, Warren Jeffs, is revered as a prophet. Jeffs was convicted last year in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl into marriage with an older cousin.

---

quote:

---

they should be the head of the household but should lead by loving example and gentle persuasion, never force or coercion, and should turn to their wives as equal partners in the marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Being head of my household means being wise enough to recognize that the heart of my household has an equally important role.

---

Ah, so 'head' as a body part as opposed to meaning 'boss'?

In that case, I want to know who the kidney of the household is.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
:points at aspectre's first link:

That kind of explains the state's press, here. From what I understand, there is definitely a widespread, culturally approved, system of abuse within the compound in Texas.

I'm not approving their [EDIT]the state's[/EDIT] actions, but they make a bit more sense now.

[ April 29, 2008, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Is that true or are there other areas?

---

That was the essential that broke them off, but after a hundred years apart, there are many other differences.

First, there are all the things that have come out in the past one hundred that the FLDS have not been a part of. The revelation on the priesthood, family home evening, the change into a worldwide church, correlation, area authorities, the creation of a couple more quorums of the seventies - all that stuff.

Then, there are all the practices that the FLDS have developed that are not part of the Church. I don't know hardly anything about the FLDS, but looking at the pictures, regular Mormons don't dress like they are from Little House on the Prairie and it seems like the FLDS don't have a lot of talks about equality in marriage.

So, while polygamy may have been the original difference, after a century others have surely arisen.

Contrast that with the Community of Christ church. This is the group that split with the main body of the church when Brigham Young took everyone West, and their contention is that polygamy was Brigham's idea, not Joseph's. I'm not sure what they do with the many, many accounts from and concerning Joseph's plural wives. In 150 years, although they started from the same place, the Community of Christ downplayed the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, and many other distinctive historical events and doctrines and become more and more like non-Mormon Protestant churches.

For a Mormon perspective on the differences between the groups and why, see Mormon Mentality.
 

---

Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 
Thanks KQ and kat. I figured it was something like that, but the CNN.com quote made it sound like this is the only difference. I knew that probably wasn't the case though.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
It is so nice when people ask instead of assuming that we're otherwise the same. Thank you for asking.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
brojack, FLDS is a cult that broke away from the Church of Latter Day Saints and has essentially remained a cult, most recently a cult of personality around Warren Jeffs.

What makes it a cult is its attempts to become a state in itself, cutting itself off from all other people and ideas, then forcing belief on all others. These beliefs are only partially documented, but mostly come from the "prophet" himself, sometimes on whim.

One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.

I listened to and interview on NPR yesterday when they talked to one of the "homes" (facilities, not a person's house) that was taking care of over 20 of these kids. The procedures that they were using seemed to be very well planned, emphasizing the well being of the children and not well being of the case against the cult. Trying to make things as similar as possible to the kids lives before they were removed was the goal (minus the pedophilia and statutory rape of course).
 

---

Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
It is so nice when people ask instead of assuming that we're otherwise the same. Thank you for asking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:
One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.

---

quote:

---

One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:
One thing I heard was that they teach the children to be scared of the color red. It is the Devil's color and anything red is to be feared as Satanic. Homes where these children are going must remove all the red that they have showing, and the caretakers must not wear red or it upsets the children greatly.

---

quote:

---

"The color 'RED' is not acceptable for clothing," the memo stated. FLDS church members believe red is reserved for Jesus Christ because when he returns, he will be wearing red robes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

"The color 'RED' is not acceptable for clothing," the memo stated. FLDS church members believe red is reserved for Jesus Christ because when he returns, he will be wearing red robes.

---

quote:

---

The long dresses, cowboy shirts, communal living, fundamentalist temple and child brides are all developments within the last couple of decades.

---

quote:

---

the court hasn't decided if they can have book of Mormons yet

---

quote:

---

I'm just enraged that the state would take children away without even CHECKING the source first.

---

quote:

---

I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group

---

I haven't seen this anywhere.

---

quote:

---

41 of 63 teenage girls (ages 14-17) were found pregnant, or were found to have been pregnant; that's significantly higher than the national average, I think.

---

quote:

---

Texas law was changed in response to FLDS. The age of consent for marriage with parental permission in Texas was changed from 14 to 16 in 2005, the year after the FLDS came to Texas.

---

quote:

---

If they don't find solid proof of the necessity of wrenching babies from their mothers, I hope the FLDS sue the pants off of Texas.

---

quote:

---

NEW YORK - Breaking with standards widely followed by the mainstream news media, the celebrity Web site TMZ posted a story Wednesday about a 14-year-old who's a movie star's son and an alleged sex crime victim, and it ran the boy's picture.
...

Almost all news organizations refrain from identifying sex crime victims, let alone show their picture, because of the stigma often attached to it, said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the journalism think tank Poynter Institute. The Associated Press' policy is not to identify people in such cases.

---

quote:

---

You mean, does the language of the law include "especially if you're one of the dirty FLDS"?

---

quote:

---

You can certainly pretend the timing was purely massively coincidental.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group

---

I haven't seen this anywhere.

---

Neither do I. But the law making the practice of polygamy illegal across the country definitely was designed with that thought in mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why is it that polygamists of this sort need to have sex with such young girls? I would not have a problem with any of this if the women involved were grown ups. And I don't think that I am alone in that. What is the religious significance of middle-aged men having sex with 15 year olds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DDDaysh:
Scholarette - just curious about where you're from. Not SA by any chance?

---

quote:

---

This isn't exactly true. While it is the case that there are a at least half a dozen polygamist sects that have split off from the main branch of the Mormons over the past hundred years, and that there are more independent polygamists than there are affiliated with any of those sects (there are around 75k, according to an Anne Wilde presentation I saw a year or so ago), the FLDS have been officially around since the 1930s, complete with a priesthood hierarchy and temple rites (though unlike the SLC Mormons, they've not softened the patriarchal thrust of the nineteenth century ritual.

---

quote:

---

Why is it that polygamists of this sort need to have sex with such young girls? I would not have a problem with any of this if the women involved were grown ups. And I don't think that I am alone in that. What is the religious significance of middle-aged men having sex with 15 year olds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

I'm angry that my state passed a law forbidding the marriage of under 16-year-olds solely to deny the religious rights of a group

---

I haven't seen this anywhere.

---

Neither do I. But the law making the practice of polygamy illegal across the country definitely was designed with that thought in mind.

---

Why is it that polygamists of this sort need to have sex with such young girls? I would not have a problem with any of this if the women involved were grown ups. And I don't think that I am alone in that. What is the religious significance of middle-aged men having sex with 15 year olds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DDDaysh:
17-year-olds CAN consent to sex in Texas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
The government does not make having multiple sexual partners illegal as far as I know. It does not sanction more than one marriage at a time. I would not have a problem if it did, again as long as the parties were adults.

---

quote:

---

I would tentatively agree, but multi spouse marriages would probably have a lot of messy ramifications in other areas of law that were created with the assumption that a marriage only included two people.

---

quote:

---

The government does not make having multiple sexual partners illegal as far as I know. It does not sanction more than one marriage at a time.

---

quote:

---

The undisputed facts establish that Holm stood before an official of the FLDS Church, Warren Jeffs (son of then-FLDS prophet Rulon Jeffs), with Stubbs at his side and responded affirmatively to a vow asking the following question:

Do you Brother [Holm], take Sister [Stubbs] by the right hand, and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise, on your part that you will fulfil all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy bond of matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and choice?

¶ 30 At the ceremony, Stubbs wore a white dress, which she considered a wedding dress. Throughout her testimony at the trial court, Stubbs referred to the ceremony as a marriage. As mentioned, the ceremony was officiated by a religious leader and involved vows typical of a traditional marriage ceremony. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-6(1) (Supp.2004) (stating that religious officials who are older than eighteen and “in regular communion with any religious society” are empowered to solemnize a marriage). In short, the ceremony in which Holm and Stubbs participated appeared, in every material respect, indistinguishable from a marriage ceremony to which this State grants legal recognition on a daily basis.

¶ 31 At trial, Stubbs testified that following the ceremony she considered herself married. The facts show that Stubbs lived in a house with Holm, that Holm and Stubbs considered themselves husband and wife, and that Holm and Stubbs regularly engaged in sexual intercourse. Although no one of these factors is itself indicative of marriage, looking at the cumulative effect of the factors present in this case it is clear that the relationship formed by Holm and Stubbs was a marriage, as that term is used in the bigamy statute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
However, I think selectively enforcing the laws (taking away ALL of the FLDS children while leaving the children of 12-year-olds in San Antonio with their mothers) is definitely religious persecution.

---

quote:

---

More than that, however, is the simple fact that they had no good reason to go in there. Even the most routine investigation of their source would have told them it was a hoax.

---

quote:

---

The truth is, they didn't bother to investigate because they WANTED to go in and take the kids away.

---

How, exactly, did you arrive at this "truth"?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Via the Truth Train of Capital Letters, looks like.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
I am not actually ready to committ to this view, but I am not sure if the girls are capable of consenting, even the older women. They are told that saying no means condemning their souls to hell. If you believe it, then that is a far worse punishment then just threatening to kill someone.

I also am still waiting for more information before making a judgement about the police. The anonymous tip was made from a prepaid cell phone, so no name attached and the choice of words were appropriate for an FLDS woman. While the number was later shown to be connected to a women in Colorado, that is a different jurisdiction so that information taking some time to get is believable to me.

There are other aspects that concern me, but like I said, I am waiting for more information.

CT-
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think that if you start saying that adult women do not have the capacity to choose because of their religious beliefs, then that is a horrifying precedent.

For that matter, then the men don't have the capacity to choose because of what they are being told. They don't have a choice but to take plural wives because if they don't, they are failing in their faithfulness and will be under condemnation. If the adult women have their agency dismissed, so should the men.
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Like I said, I am not yet ready to committ to that view. Though if a man told a women he would kill her if she didn't have sex with him, even if he wasn't holding a gun on her at that moment, it still would be rape (assuming she believes that he is indeed capable of killing her). And hell seems like worse then just getting killed. If saying no isn't an option, I don't think you can say yes either.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

I am not actually ready to committ to this view, but I am not sure if the girls are capable of consenting, even the older women. They are told that saying no means condemning their souls to hell. If you believe it, then that is a far worse punishment then just threatening to kill someone.

---

quote:

---

I think that if you start saying that adult women do not have the capacity to choose because of their religious beliefs, then that is a horrifying precedent.

---

quote:

---

in some states it's illegal for clergy to have sexual relations with their congregants

---

quote:

---

Using religious authority to pressure someone into sex (even if there's a wedding first) is vile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

in some states it's illegal for clergy to have sexual relations with their congregants

---

In those states, would it be illegal for an LDS bishop to have sexual relations with his wife if she's a member of the ward he's bishop over?

---

quote:

---

The anonymous tip was made from a prepaid cell phone, so no name attached and the choice of words were appropriate for an FLDS woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Yeah, Paul said a lot of things. (Not a big fan of Paul.)

I was referring to the Church Handbook.

---

quote:

---

When you have a significant number of respected older clergy who married either the church organist, the church secretary, or a member of the congregation and have been happily married and partners in ministry with their wives for 40 years, they don't take well to hearing that dating within the congregation is now considered wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
"Those states class clergy acting in a counselling role in the same category as psychologists/psychoterapists."

There is seriously laws that make dating clergy illegal? I see this going against the Constitution on freedom of religion and right of assembly grounds. Has this ever been challenged?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
Rabbit, I pretty much agree with everything you've said. But in addition to the power/authority issue there is another issue (or whole set of issues) when clergy date within the congregation -- what happens in the event of a breakup? What if the clergy person dates more than one person in the congregation? (Not at the same time, but serially.)

---

quote:

---

I wish you wouldn't say "Mormon women think"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
I don't know anyone who considers a home teacher to be anything like a counseling relationship. And while a home teacher could tell a girl that God has revealed that she should marry him, any man in the church could make such a claim just because they all have the priesthood. It would be "unrighteous dominion" of course, and I think the church curriculum does a good job of making sure people know that.

---

I didn't mean to say that Home Teachers held any position of authority or had anything like a couseling relationship with the people they were assigned to visit. I was responding specifically to Dana's comment about how dating or having dated members of the congregation, might adversely affect a minsters ability to minister to the people even when power and authority issues aren't involved.

Power and authority issues are not involved with home teachers. But I can still see how dating or even the possibility that one of the two people involved wanted to date could adversely affect a home teachers ability to minister to the person he was called to home teach. I know that when I was a young single woman, if I had thought one of my home teachers was interested in a romantic relationship (and I wasn't), it would have made visits uncomfortable. It would have made me very hesitant to ask him if I need help with something for fear my action might be misinterpreted. I probably would have made excuses to avoid being visited. If I had dated and then broken up with a home teacher, it would be even worse. I'm not saying that this is anything remotely like sexual harassment or is something sinful. I'm just saying that I can see how dating or even the possibility of dating could interfere with a persons ability to minister to people even in a situation, like home teaching, where power and authority are not an issue.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I've actually never seen or heard of it firsthand. Sorry I was so upset - I think I'm still ashamed of the time when I was 14 that my bishop told me my mother taught us a lot of false doctrine growing up in front of the whole class.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
That wouldn't be fun at any age, but 14 seems like it would be a particularly bad time to have something like that happen.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Well, I'm glad someone said something and I didn't go on that way indefinitely.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
But there is a away of saying that that doesn't involve public embarrassment....
 

---

Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Unless your mom was preaching false doctrine to the ward, any statement should have been made privately. At one ward, we had someone who managed to include a lot of interesting rhetoric into her testimony and so just about every other month, she would give her testimony and the bishop would stand up after her and remind us that her views were not those of the church. Since the women's statements were so public, it made sense for the bishop to publically refute them. But assuming the teachings were not being publically preached, a public repudiation of them is completely inappropriate. A private meeting should have occured.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
We were repeating her speculations to the whole class. I could see a systematic private squelching of our credibility possibly just as problematic. Anyway, we had a new bishop by the end of the year.

I'll try to be more careful about ascribing attitudes to Mormons in general, though I did mean "apparently widespread" and not "universal." I don't know if you want to discuss this, katharina, but would it had made any difference if I had specified that I was discussing Mormonism as a culture as opposed to the church? I know my statement didn't clarify that in any way, I'm just wondering if you find that a valid distinction. I find Mormon culture overlying the actual church to be problematic more often than not.

I suppose I could elaborate with problems I've had in terms of promulgating Mormon culture, like with R-rated movies and working moms. It seems to be that things get carried over from past prophecies, and conditions change, the application of prophecy changes, but in my case, I failed to follow the change in application. I think that may be part of how it springs up.

[ May 07, 2008, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Just to clarify my earlier statement, I don't care if it is laws against dating or laws against sexual encounters. I don't care if it is (at least with clergy, although college classroom also seems questionable) about time between or during counceling. I am still opposed to the idea of laws governing relationships with parishoners. It still goes against my belief that such laws are un-Constitutional.

Part of it is because I don't see "power issues" as punishable by the law. As someone said before, there have always been power issues in relationships even if nothing more than physical strength. Now, if sexual encounters happened *in* the office or at work there are serious ethical questions. Laws against *place* seem sufficiant, although still problematic. Best to be up to the place of employment if actions should be taken.

That isn't to say I am *for* extra-marital affairs. What I am for is free association and religion.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

We were repeating her speculations to the whole class. I could see a systematic private squelching of our credibility possibly just as problematic.

---

quote:

---

Is the difference really that I see a cultural pattern while you see individual jerks?

---

quote:

---

It's a modern-day Frankenstein of everything that is good.

---

Yes, I think you are right. I have let my own bitterness color my perception of things, and focused on the flaws. I'm actually really glad we had this argument.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
Well, I don't know what we can do about the general phenomenon of Mormon women seeing singleness as an unhappy outcome that they would be greatly blessed to avoid.

---

Kat, Perhaps I'm confused but it seems that this statement by pooka is the one you were objecting to originally. If so then I think you have been seriously over reacting. First, she never said that most or even any "Mormon women were desperate to get married at any cost".

Second, I think what she said is accurate. There is a general phenomenon among Mormons (both men and women) to view marriage as highly desirable and singleness as a problem. That view isn't just held by jerks and those who don't really understand the gospel, its rooted in the doctrine that temple marriage is an essential ordinance for exaltation.

If don't think its common for Mormon women to think being single at 30 (or 40 or 50) is an undesirable state, I could find you a boat load of general authority talks directed to the single women of the church that address that specific issue.

Quite frankly, I don't see how you could possibly have grown up in the church, attended young women's meetings and relief society and never heard the message that marriage and motherhood are righteous desires that every Mormon woman should have.

The LDS church teaches that marriage and parenthood are the highest callings to which a person can aspire. When a church teaches something like that, its a pretty natural outcome that many of its members would view being single as a problem. That may not equate to "Mormon women being desperate to get married at any cost" but those were your words, not pooka's.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
In the first place, I do think that it isn't as big of a deal as some say that it is. I've lived in a lot of places, and the Mormon experience isn't the same on the East Coast as it is in Salt Lake City. I don't think either location has a monopoly on the culture.

Of course I've heard it. I don't think it is inevitable or descriptive of everyone.

Secondly, it came right after the discussion of jerks abusing the priesthood. She may not have said "desperate to get married at all costs" but when it is offered up as an explanation as to why guys try to get away with acting like jerks, the idea is there.

EVEN IF I accepted it as true, it would be the wrong way to tackle the problem. You don't stop people from abusing relationships by making the others involved not want that relationship anymore.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I can't believe I'm going to quote Weight of Glory again, but it starts right at the beginning saying that "unselfishness" is not the same as "love." So indeed "marriage is a righteous desire" is not the same as "singleness is a curse." He was bemoaning that 19 out of 20 good people will tend to say the principal virtue of Christianity is unselfishness.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I completely agree.

If you'd said that Mormons see getting married as something greatly to be desired, I'd be fine. Well, no, because of what I said above about ways to deal with those fond of trying to excercise unrighteous dominion, but I wouldn't have objected to your phrasing.

The idea that singleness is something to be avoided is so strange. We all start out not married. It's like trying to avoid having non-tattooed skin. And life is not a race.

[ May 07, 2008, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
The interesting thing is that I don't think American Mormon women are all that different from other American women in their desires to get married and have children. I think it would be completely fair to say there is a general phenomenon among women to view marriage as desirable and singleness as a problem to be solved. Certainly not all women feel that way and some are completely satisfied being single, but it is a sufficiently wide spread phenomenon to be the topic of popular movies, TV shows and even comic strips. Even those women who are depicted as being completely satisfied with the single childless life are routinely depicted being nagged by parents about it.

If there is a significant difference in the Mormon culture, it is with how men view marriage not women. In my experience, its much more common for Mormon men to view being unmarried as an unhappy state than is general among Americans at large. Outside the Mormon church, the stereotype is that men try desperately to avoid commitment at all costs while women (and their mothers) try to pressure them into marriage. And while I've known Mormon guys who fit that stereotype, it does seem less common among Mormons than in the general American population.

If some Mormon men use jerkish behavior to pressure women into marriage, its more likely because Mormon men feel pressured to marry at any cost than because they think Mormon women are groomed to respond to that kind of idiocy.

After all, when the LDS general authorities address the issue of singleness among women, the message is usually to find ways to be productive and happy as single women while focusing on the eternal perspective and not to lower their standards. But when they address the issue of singleness among men, the message is often that they need to get off their buts and find a wife.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I was going to raise that difference earlier, the whole "a single 30 year old man is a menace to society" thing. Though the age and the prophet it is ascribed to vary quite a bit.
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
I'll soon be celebrating three years until becoming a menace.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't know if they meant single men in general. It was more to say that a man who is a member of the church and doesn't get that he should be actively seeking marriage/overcoming obstacles is a concern.

But I'll call you a menace if it makes you happy. I also apologize if I mistook that you were not a church member, if you are.
 

---

Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
 
Nope, not a member. Just thought this looked funny. Move on, nothing to see here.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corwin:
I'll soon be celebrating three years until becoming a menace.

---

Pfft. You're a menace right now.
 

---

Posted by Hume (Member # 11457) on :
 
Just noticed a CNN alert that said an appeals court ruled that Texas had no right to take the children.

I haven't actually seen the story yet, though.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Good. According to Texas law, removing the children is supposed to be done at the very last resort after everything else has been done.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Link

No word on what the ruling will actually do.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Send them back and then take the girls away again when they hit puberty?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Send them back and have social workers monitor them?

A majority of children in in the Texas foster care system do not graduate from high school. It is doing them no favors to make that the first option without making every other effort first. What I don't understand is why it was the children who were snatched and scattered across the state instead of the men, who presumably have the power to change things.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Those poor girls.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Agreed. It would be terrible to have your state have as its central goal the breakup of your family.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Almost as terrible as having your parents offer you up as a sexual sacrifice.

But to each her own, I suppose.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
kmboots, are you referring to me? I can't quite parse the last bit unless you are making the outrageously rude and disingenuous suggestion that I support statutory rape.

Could you clarify?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I was not referring to you in the last sentence. Rather that this seems to be the choice that is facing those girls.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Now that the state is involved, that doesn't have to be the choice. If it still is, then Texas screwed up again.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
kat, even with the revised numbers on pregnant minors removed from the ranch (down to, I think, 32 rather than 41, of 60 odd teen girls removed to state custody), returning the kids to their biological parents may not be in their best interest.

~30 of ~60 minors pregnant? That's still a lot higher than the national average, I think, and merits scrutiny and caution.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It absolutely merits scrutiny and caution and it would criminal of the state to just walk away, and I hope it becomes impossible for single other teenage girl to become pregnant from a male over 21 without the male going to jail for it, no matter what they claim their marital status is. That's for everyone, not just the FLDS, by the way.

However, foster care is hell. I don't have the numbers with me and I'm too lazy to find them again, but the vast majority of children in foster care don't graduate from high school. Almost half become addicts at one time or another. All foster children automatically get free tuition at any university in the state system, but still less than 20% go to college. They are rootless, homeless, cared for and loved only intermittently and usually bounce from one home to another unless they are adopted young. It is no refuge unless the danger is immediate and pressing. There's a reason it is legally the absolute last resort.

If the state was concerned about the best interests of the children and clearly didn't care about due process, they'd leave the mothers and children in the homes and arrest all the men.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The mothers are complicit*. Scrutiny is going to be even more difficult because the community is united to protect the rapists.

I imagine that at least part of the reason that kids in foster care do so poorly has something to do with the reasons they ended up in foster care.


*edit to add: those that are themselves adults.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I'm all for taking the men away. Texas clearly has no problem violating laws and breaking up families.

Foster care is not a permanent solution. Breaking up families - even dysfunctional ones - does so much damage that unless the danger is immediate, the "cure" is worse. Scrutiny may be hard but it isn't impossible, and it shouldn't be abandoned because it's easier to just steal the children and ignore family ties.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
"Dysfunctional" is, in my opinion, far too mild a word for what these parents were doing to their daughters. It is, in my opinion, worse than if they had been peddling them on the street because, for these girls, having been raised to believe that this is what is supposed to happen to them, there is no escape. "Family ties" of parents who encourage the rape of their daughters should be disregarded.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
It absolutely merits scrutiny and caution and it would criminal of the state to just walk away, and I hope it becomes impossible for single other teenage girl to become pregnant from a male over 21 without the male going to jail for it, no matter what they claim their marital status is. That's for everyone, not just the FLDS, by the way.

However, foster care is hell. I don't have the numbers with me and I'm too lazy to find them again, but the vast majority of children in foster care don't graduate from high school. Almost half become addicts at one time or another. All foster children automatically get free tuition at any university in the state system, but still less than 20% go to college. They are rootless, homeless, cared for and loved only intermittently and usually bounce from one home to another unless they are adopted young. It is no refuge unless the danger is immediate and pressing. There's a reason it is legally the absolute last resort.

If the state was concerned about the best interests of the children and clearly didn't care about due process, they'd leave the mothers and children in the homes and arrest all the men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
So it is your position that the rights of American citizens don't apply to parents who are accused of encouraging illegal behavior?

No one has been arrested. No one has been convicted. There has not been due process. There was an accusation, and five hundred children were taken away and scattered across the state. That should send CHILLS down the spine of every American.

How can you object to, say, President Bush seeking illegal wiretaps but be fine with destroying families without even bothering with due process?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
No one benefits by stopping one evil by committing another.

---

quote:

---

No one benefits by stopping one evil by committing another.

---

quote:

---

No one benefits by stopping one evil by committing another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
If the state can prove that all 450 children were in immediate danger of being abused, that'd be great. They haven't.

If the danger is not immediate, then the removal was inappropriate and due process should occur.

---

quote:

---

If the children are about to suffer, then removing them is not unlawful and is not evil.

---

quote:

---

If there is no evidence that the children are about to suffer and none can be found, then removing them is.

---

quote:

---

If the point is their religious beliefs are repugnant and therefore the members of that religion should lose rights even if there is proof that the individual has done anything illegal and the state can find no legal justification for it, then you've got the wrong country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Have we been reduced to calling for eugenics?

---

Since we've already been reduced to strawmen, I'll let you decide what we're reduced to next
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, because of your deceitfulnesses in deliberately misrepresenting my feelings about the underage pregnancies, I have no interest in conversing with you.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

Mr. Squicky, because of your deceitfulnesses in deliberately misrepresenting my feelings about the underage pregnancies, I have no interest in conversing with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I think most people have good intentions when they ignore due process and violate rights. I have no doubt that the executive branch had good intentions when it ordered all those illegal wiretaps.The good intentions don't justify it.

---

quote:

---

If the state oversteps their bounds in taking a child out of a place where they were going to get abused, I think the child still benefits.

---

quote:

---

ONE child may benefit. But what about the precedent that is set by the state if their illegal actions go unchallenged? This is the point I've been worried about all along.

---

quote:

---

Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse ... there is no evidence that this danger is 'immediate' or 'urgent'," the court said.

"Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal."

The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children. Half the youngsters taken from the ranch were 5 or younger. Only a few dozen are teenage girls.

...

Of the 31 people the state initially said were underage mothers, 15 have been reclassified as adults, and one is 27.

---

quote:

---

They did this BADLY.

---

quote:

---

In this particular case, they were raping children

---

quote:

---

raising their daughters to be raped, and raising their sons to think that it was good and righteous that they rape children.

---

quote:

---

CPS maintains that there is evidence showing that 5 of 31 girls have been/are being sexually abused. If I understand the latest statistics, 7 of 10 girls have been/are being sexually abused in the wider American society.

---

quote:

---

I'm having trouble seeing a 70% sexual abuse rate in the general population

---

quote:

---

1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.

---

quote:

---

I'd quibble with the evidence of 5 out of 31 by saying that these are the cases where they have enough evidence to strongly establish this

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure how this is relevant.

---

quote:

---

Not sure where I picked up that number; I guess I need to revisit my paranoias.

---

quote:

---

The court went on to reject the two central arguments proffered by the state: that evidence of a handful of pregnant minors was enough to prove that all the children were endangered, since they lived under a single "umbrella of belief," and that all the children reside in an abusive "household" because the entire ranch constitutes a single home. Nope, said the court. The raid swept too broadly in seizing prepubescent children who were in no imminent danger. Minors residing in different households faced no immediate physical danger, either. In the end, most of the 400-plus children were grabbed merely because they shared a "pervasive belief system," and in the eyes of the appeals court, that simply doesn't rise to any kind of imminent physical danger. Some of these children may well face harm someday, but that wasn't reason enough to grab all of them on April 3.

You may well be horrified by the prospect of hundreds of children being returned to a compound in which a girl's highest aspiration is to be married, at age 15, to a guy born when Harry Truman was president (a guy whose other wives are old enough to be your grandmother and—in some cases—may even be your grandmother). But what the Texas appeals court found today was that your horror alone, or the horror of the incredibly well-meaning folks at Child Protective Services, does not rise to the legal standard of imminent physical danger to that child. There are formal legal steps to be taken before removing a child from her home and family, and you don't get to cut corners in the interest of grand symbolic gestures, even when the grand symbolic gesture is that incest, abuse, and polygamy have no place in America.

A long history of eliding detailed legal rules and procedures is the reason we've yet to see a single trial end in a conviction at Guantanamo Bay. Let's hope it will not now prove the reason we don't see a single conviction at the Yearning for Zion Ranch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
Scott, from the site you linked only 30-40% of that 1 in 4 are abused by a family member. It includes situations where the parents either don't know that anything untoward has happened or the parents are the ones who find out and report it. Since the allegations in the YFZ case are that the abuse is happening with full knowledge and collaboration of the parents, your numbers don't line up.

---

quote:

---

having found that they were raping children, people would be quick to decide that this systematic, culturally approved rape was more widespread than they had hard evidence for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElJay:
An unwelcome pat on the rear may not be sexual abuse, but it is decidedly sexual assault. And when you're 12 and don't understand what's going on, it is definately not benign.

---

quote:

---

It's a whole different level than fondling or rape, which is what the terms "abuse" and "assault" tend to evoke in the imagination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Nope. You're absolutely right, Scott. They should have left them there to be raped. Or somehow otherwise magically pregnant at fifteen. If that is how their parents want it, hey, who are we to care about what happens to those girls. The only possible reason we would want that stopped is so that we can persecute people with "weird" religious beliefs.

---

quote:

---

What would you have preferred they do?

---

quote:

---

This seems like saying that because "assault and battery" brings to mind an image of someone being shot, it is inappropriate to use those words to describe someone being punched. What word would you use, other than "assault," for being slapped on the ass by a stranger?

---

quote:

---

Personally, I'd rather just call it a slap on the ass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

What would you have preferred they do?

---

Hello, follow the law? Use due process? Get warrants, collect evidence, arrest the perpetrators?

There was an avenue where everyone could have been protected. It isn't like there isn't laws against statutory rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Honestly, I don't know why I am even talking to you about this.

---

quote:

---

What would you have preferred they do? Again. The burden of proof for convicting someone of a crime is different than that of removing a child from possible harm.

---

quote:

---

If that guy in Austria had religious reasons for keeping his daughter in the basement and had raised her to share those beliefs, would the state have had any right to step in?

---

quote:

---

And in a situation where the entire community, including the victims, is bound to protect the perpetrators, you can't see how that isn't as simple as you want to make it?

---

quote:

---

And, one more time, the burden of proof for convicting someone of rape is less than it is for removing a child from possible harm.

---

quote:

---

And the appellate court maintained that CPS had no reason to remove all 450+ kids.

---

quote:

---

Considering CPS doesn't have proof

---

quote:

---

From what I can tell, this was the case in the FLDS compound.

---

quote:

---

The state, as I understand things, only removes children when there is imminent danger.

---

quote:

---

If you do mean child abuse, how do you reconcile the appellate court's findings with your own views? Or do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Are you expecting people to join the chorus of McCarthyists in order to prove they don't approve of underage marriages?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Agreed. It would be terrible to have your state have as its central goal the breakup of your family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
...
I also think that this prejudice was formed more from the structure of the situation and not in its religious nature. A non-religious separatist compound set up in similarly "weird" way that practived polygamy and was also raping children in a culturally sanctioned way would have been treated similarly.

---

quote:

---

It is correct. By Texas law, children are only to be taken from their homes when they are in immediate danger and after a reasonable effort has been made to solve the problems through other methods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

The state, as I understand things, only removes children when there is imminent danger.

---

Honestly, I don't know, but I doubt that this is correct.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

If what seems to be the case, i.e. these kids are raised to be raped and believing that this is right and just, I believe that the parents should ultimately lose their rights to them, even though it can't be proved that a specific child is in imminent danger. Do you disagree?

---

quote:

---

Has the appellate court shown that there was not culturally condoned, deliberate raping of children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
If this was a Marxist commune which shared children's bodies rather than commodities and goods, the debate wouldn't last nearly as long.

Even the remote possibility of religious persecution with no corresponding evidence seems to be enough to hit nerves and set off a rather disproportionate response.

---

quote:

---

If they had invaded an atheistic hippie commune, I think I would be just as incensed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

The state, as I understand things, only removes children when there is imminent danger.

---

Honestly, I don't know, but I doubt that this is correct.

---

From the article I posted last page:

quote:

---

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

---

---

quote:

---

If the government can take away children for the ideology that their parents teach-- without actual action on that ideology-- then we have given the government far too much power.

---

quote:

---

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

----

While it's not conclusive, doesn't that strongly suggest that the state does take children away when they are not in immediate danger?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I can't speak for anyone but myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
What are you basing that on? To me, the indicative part is that this is noted as the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action. This strongly suggestes to me that there are grounds for taking children away from their parent with court action that are not limited to showing that they are in immediate danger.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I can't speak for anyone but myself.

---

Indeed, however, in your case I am willing to entertain the possibility that if we could somehow rate indignation as a real number, your indignation in that case would be in the same neighbourhood or the same order of magnitude as it is currently.

However, I am rather dubious that you would be *more* indignant, thus you would probably be less indignant, albeit in the same range.

However, in many other cases, Occasional's being the most obvious, I am almost certain that the level of indignation would be in a completely different order of magnitude if not totally reversed.

---

quote:

---

If you're talking what sort of people should be allowed to keep their children based on what they are teaching them, that's an entirely different debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

If you're talking what sort of people should be allowed to keep their children based on what they are teaching them, that's an entirely different debate.

---

As I've pointed out numerous times, this isn't merely a matter of teaching, but of actual case of child rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
How about you take the easy way out, and just decide not to rate other people's motivations at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
How about you take the easy way out, and just decide not to rate other people's motivations at all?

---

Erm, why?
I'm not sure how that kind of intentional ignorance would help me. Everyone has an agenda of some kind or another.

---

quote:

---

if CPS can show conclusively that there ocurred community approved/encouraged, deliberate rape of children and that the community (including the parents we're talking about) continues to advocate this rape, would it (or rather, in your opinion, should it) potentially be within the authority of the state to take these kids away from their parents?

---