posted
kat, I have already determined that you are unlikely to understand me in this case. Your reading of my last post confirms that. There is no point in my discussing this with you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, I am running into the same problem that we had before. This is a different situation. These people advocate sex with young girls. Their leader is in jail for that. They live in one large compound where it is easier to hide things. I think that they should be under some degree of scrutiny.
For example, I think that because of the way the Catholic Church has handled the sexual abuse scandal, we need to be absolutely transparent than ordinary about priests and their dealings with children. Our history demands that even though it is not part of our doctrine.
FLDS not only has a history that demands such transparency, they also have a doctrine that demands it.
Yes, we disagree. Should the FLDS be transparent about their dealings? YES.
Should the government be allowed to force them to take DNA tests against their will, simply because the FLDS believe what they believe?
Not a chance. If there's cause; if there's a legal, ordinary, formalized need for it, sure. Otherwise, the citizen-- despite their beliefs-- maintains their right to privacy.
You keep saying it's not the same; you seem to imply that these people's beliefs make extraordinary measures justifiable. How do you propose to arrange it so the government doesn't abuse the power you're seemingly handing over to them?
I would LOVE it if there were a more lovable group of people to defend. That they AREN'T lovable; that the FLDS' beliefs (as they've been reported) are despicable doesn't warrant the removal of rights you seem to be arguing for.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should the government be allowed to force them to take DNA tests against their will, simply because the FLDS believe what they believe?
I'm pretty sure boots was not talking about the government forcing them to give up this DNA, but rather that they should, in that situation, volunteer it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll let her clarify. However, my impression of the interview was that the FLDS bishop and the reporter were talking about forced DNA extraction without a legal warrant.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, given the history and the doctrine, that, given any accusation of doing what they have done before and what they proclaim to be part of their religion, warrants should not be difficult to get.
I think that they should, in the interest of transparency, volunteer such evidence and documentation. Such as birth certificates which are considerably less intrusive than a DNA sample. ("Extraction", BTW, sound like this requires something rather more violent than it really entails.)
Just as I believe Catholic priests should. "Yes, we understand why this suspicion exists and we want to do whatever we can to clear ourselves."
And again, the burden of proof for the state is less when removing a child from possible danger than it is to lock someone up or convict them of a crime.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:again, the burden of proof for the state is less when removing a child from possible danger than it is to lock someone up or convict them of a crime.
...and the appellate court found that CPS didn't meet the burden of proof required.
quote:I think that, given the history and the doctrine, that, given any accusation of doing what they have done before and what they proclaim to be part of their religion, warrants should not be difficult to get.
As long as each warrant issued meets the same legal requirements of consideration, evaluation, and concern for the rights of the citizen that other warrants must meet, I agree.
There should be no bypassing the consideration, evaluation, or concern however, just because these people believe something despicable.
On that note-- the CBS bit last night covered a monogamous FLDS family, where the children were all pre-teen boys, who were taken from their parents. Another child (a boy) was born a few days after the raid-- that child was removed as well.
This is one of those cases where the abuse of power seems so obvious-- the boys were not in any immediate danger; there was no court order (per the laws of Texas) enabling CPS to remove the boys; there was no (as far as I know) evidence of them being abused.
So when you seem to say that "warrants should not be difficult to get" in order to support a system that abuses power in this way...yeah. Gotta disagree with you. I think that upholding a system that treats its citizens like this is extremely dangerous to everyone's civil rights.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When they are suspected of doing something despicable they fact that they believe that same something despicable and have done that same despicable thing before should be taken into account.
Especially when it comes to children.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definitely, it should be taken into account.
kmboots, the appellate court ruled that CPS overstepped its bounds in the seizure of children from the YFZ ranch. Do you agree with the court that in this case, the mere beliefs of the FLDS church were not enough to warrant CPS' actions?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay...it has seemed to me from this conversation that you want them to be treated just like everyone else. And the comparisons that you make seem to indicate that, too. Treating them like everyone else, in my mind, means that there would be no more cause to suspect them than there would be to suspect anyone else.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, do you believe that it is okay to treat people differently when you don't like their beliefs?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: do you believe that it is okay to treat people differently when you don't like their beliefs?
Personally, in some cases yes, and in some cases no. It all depends on a bunch of factors that probably can't get accurately coded into a law. While I do think it's important to be very cautious and concerned over what kind of precedent is being set, I don't think the precedent should be the primary concern.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay...it has seemed to me from this conversation that you want them to be treated just like everyone else. And the comparisons that you make seem to indicate that, too. Treating them like everyone else, in my mind, means that there would be no more cause to suspect them than there would be to suspect anyone else.
I want those who enforce the law to enforce it equitably.
That doesn't mean turning a blind eye to factors like paid membership in NAMBLA, or participation in the FLDS church.
I think that's part of "consideration."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same laws should apply to everyone, regardless of their beliefs. Even when their beliefs are despicable, the laws should be enforced and interpreted equitably, with the circumstances as part of the consideration.
I'm really surprised that any American thinks differently. Did no one read To Kill a Mockingbird? Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, so asking for a DNA sample from an FLDS member would not be the same thing as asking me for a DNA sample. Asking for birth certificates for the "wives" would not be the same as asking for that documentation from the reporter. Which makes
quote:"If I were part of a group that advocated sex with minors, yes."
a legitimate answer for that reporter to give to Jessop's question.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same laws should apply to everyone, regardless of their beliefs. Even when their beliefs are despicable, the laws should be enforced and interpreted equitably.
Except when those beliefs carry over and infringe on the rights of others. And I believe this is one of those situations.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm really surprised that any American thinks differently.
If you are referencing anyone who participated in this thread as opposed to outside Americans like, say, many members of the Christian Coalition, I think you have done a poor job of reading this thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except when those beliefs carry over and infringe on the rights of others. And I believe this is one of those situations.
I don't think beliefs can really do that. It takes actions. That these people hold these beliefs and members of this interconnected community have acted on them by raping children makes it much more likely that these beliefs have been and will be transformed into action, though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
If someone had accused the FLDS of arson or bank robbery, I don't think that their belief in sex with minors should be taken into account. Since the despicable belief that we are talking about is relevant to what they are accused of doing, I think it should be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except when those beliefs carry over and infringe on the rights of others. And I believe this is one of those situations.
Even then - of course there are laws against criminally infringing on the rights of others.
There's a laws against everything that is despicable in the actions of the FLDS members. I support acting within the law to prosecute those who perpetuate the atrocities, and I support that the laws concerning custody and seizure of children also be followed.
There is definitely a lower bar and a lower standard for taking children away than for convicting someone, but there is still a standard. Taking the need for the CPS to act within the law to justify its actions is giving CPS enormous power - power over people, over families. Power that is unchecked. Every American should be worried about a scenario where their family could be torn apart by an anonymous phone call and they would have no recourse in that.
I support America being ruled by laws rather than by a mob, however righteous the anger of the mob.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, Yeah, that's kinda my point. If a system of belief promotes illegal and harmful actions, and if members have taken that action while other members have given consent as well as continue to propagate those beliefs, then I am going to treat those people differently, even if they haven’t committed the illegal action themselves.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between being treated differently by private citizens and being discriminated against by the state.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kate, do you believe that it is okay to treat people differently when you don't like their beliefs?
I'm going to treat a white supremecist differently than I would treat a non-white supremecist.
Wouldn't you?
I treat any supremecist with disdain, regardless of their skin color. The government, however, should treat any supremicists with the same due process of law as an inferiorist.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's a matter of discrimination, rather, it's an attempt to weigh the rights of the parents against the rights of the children. Are the children being harmed mentally or emotionally? If so, then yes, I absolutely think the state should step in to protect the rights of the children.
What constitutes emotional harm? The fact that I can't draw a specific line in the sand separating what is harmful versus harmless doesn't mean that emotional harm doesn't exist. This is one of those examples where I can see that it exists even though I can't create a specific set of criteria to determine what constitutes harm for every possible situation.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a difference between being treated differently by private citizens and being discriminated against by the state.
Right, but you asked if it was okay to treat people differently, not if she thought if the government could treat people differently.
For that matter, the enforcers of the law often do treat members of practicing white supremecist group differently. I don't think this is primarily because of their beliefs so much as it is they belong to a group that advocates and has members who carry out illegal actions, much like the FLDS advocates and has members who carry out illegal actions.
---
edit:
quote:I treat any supremecist with disdain, regardless of their skin color. The government, however, should treat any supremicists with the same due process of law as an inferiorist.
In the workings of the legal system, I agree with you. As to whether they are regarded with more suspicion and as more liekly to be a potential threat, I do not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Scott, let me try one more way to clarify.
If someone had accused the FLDS of arson or bank robbery, I don't think that their belief in sex with minors should be taken into account. Since the despicable belief that we are talking about is relevant to what they are accused of doing, I think it should be.
Yes. That said, "taking into account" does not mean "inordinately giving weight to their beliefs without consideration of other factors."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So perhaps our disagreement is mostly about what defines "inordinately" in this situation and what the other factors are and how much weight should be given them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the state might have had justification in taking the boys as well as the girls. In an individual family, if you treat one child well and abuse the other, CPS will often take all your children. If a man is sexually abusing his daughter, there is a good chance CPS would take his sons away too. Also, there have been some claims of physical abuse and abandonment for the boys (the whole Lost Boys issue). Listening to interviews with Lost Boys, I am as concerned for the boys as the girls.
I think that the group's beliefs should factor into the response, though it shouldn't define it. If I posted an essay on why it is good to beat children, and my children showed up to school with bruises, I expect a different response then if I had not posted that essay.
In this particular case, I still am not sure I have enough evidence to judge.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Texas Supreme Court just upheld the ruling that the kids should be returned. No link yet, it's just in the breaking news banner on the CNN website.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if CPS will be able to keep the 30 or so children who have children in protective custody.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean the girls who are underage who are also mothers. I think the last number I read was that there were around 30. I would think that there would be a much stronger case that those children are in danger of immediate harm with their parents than there is for the 400 boys and younger girls. My question is if the methods used to conduct the raid initially will mean that all the children will be returned, even if there is evidence that some of them shouldn't be.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed that the three dissenting-in-part judges said that the teenage girls were in immediate danger, but they upheld the lower ruling because it was wrong to take all of the children including the boys and the babies.
I hope CPS gets someone in charge of the cases that has wisdom in addition to zeal.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Texas officials claimed at one point that there were 31 teenage girls at the ranch who were pregnant or had been pregnant, but later conceded that about half of those mothers, if not more, were adults. One was 27.
Of the 15, then, that were allegedly pregnant, CPS only alleged (in the arguments at the appellate court) that 5 of them were subject to sexual abuse.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thirty-eight mothers petitioned the court of appeals for review by mandamus, seeking return of their 126 children. The record reflects that at least 117 of the children are under 13 and that two boys are 13 and 17. The ages of the other seven, at least two of whom are boys, are not shown. Concluding that the Department had failed to meet its burden of proof under section 262.201(b)(1), the court of appeals directed the district to vacate its temporary orders granting the Department custody. In re Steed, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
The Department petitioned this Court for review by mandamus. Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us, we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals’ decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted. The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children’s safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child,”[4] including an order “restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court.”[5] The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home[6] and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.[7] The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,[8] and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.[9]
While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children, as the mothers involved in this proceeding concede in response to the Department’s motion for emergency relief. The court of appeals’ decision does not conclude the SAPCR proceedings.
Although the SAPCRs involve important, fundamental issues concerning parental rights and the State’s interest in protecting children, it is premature for us to address those issues. The Department’s petition for mandamus is denied.
quote:I'm SO glad... this whole thing was heartbreaking!
See, and that's the thing that bugs me here. Yes, the state far overstepped its bounds in taking the kids, but you're glad that these kids are being returned to an environment where some of them are likely to be raped and they are going to be taught that this sort of rape is fine and righteous. This isn't something that I think is a call for celebration.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can be sad about the situation without rejoicing that babies, toddlers, and little kids were thrust into the crappy, crappy foster care system.
It isn't necessary to demonize anyone, and saying that the children should rejoice at being ripped from their mothers is not treating them like human beings.
I am glad about it. The lawyers were right when they said emotional harm was being done every day that the children were separated from their families and cast adrift into state custody. That's an emotional disaster for everyone involved.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're glad that some girls are going to get raped?
I don't think you are, but I think that you are completely ignoring this unpleasant reality of the situation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not. I agree with the three dissenting judges - teenage girls ARE very likely to be in immediate danger and I hope action is taken immediately that is lawful to protect them.
I am, however, thrilled that the babies and young children are returned to their mothers. There has been no evidence that they were abused, and the emotional harm from the continued separation is very real.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. There's nothing in this specific situation that I'm finding...even mildly gratifying.
It's just a horror, all the way around.
Here's what I hope for:
1) Texas' CPS has been slapped down. They undergo a massive overhaul, examining processes, procedures-- and someone wise and zealous (as Kat pointed out) is appointed to head the department.
2) The FLDS reform. The doctrine of child rape/spiritual marriage (which, if I understand things correctly was largely instituted by Warren Jeffs) is officially repudiated.
posted
When people respond to all the kids being returned with "I'm SO glad." it appears to at least some people that they are at best indifferent to the rapes that are made likely to occur because of this court decision (which I agree with).
While I see the foster care as being a terrible solution, right now we've got a case where the community can go back to raping kids. I think this needs to acknowledged and hopefully dealt with.
Also, what's our solution for the non-sexually mature kids in the future? "We'll let you raise them until they start to get sexually appealing to the 50 year old men in your community, and all the time let you teach them that they should be grateful to get raped by them."?
I don't know what is even a good solution here. Definitely, I want the authorities to act according to the law. I want these kids to have the best chance to live a healthy, happy life. I also don't want 13 year old girls getting raped.
It bothers me that people aren't addressing all sides of this issue, especially when their characterizations of the CPS actions ("They're doing this because they don't like the FLDS beliefs.") ignore important aspects like the whole raping of children thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you are doing such a good job at expressing horror and repulsion and desire for the destruction of these family groups that others feel that's been covered.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
