[wmbwinn]

It appears clear that the magnitude of the seizure and action is beyond the response to the supposed initial call/possible crime.

It appears clear that the cause of the seizure/action is to protect against what might have happened or what might occur in the future based on the judgement that the teachings of the church/group are harmful.

So...

When will the state seize children raised by adults who practice sodomy, homosexuality, adultery, "open marriages", or who commit other crimes that might harm children physically such as feeding them from McDonald's or letting them watch "sex and the city" or "nip/tuck"? Surely we should seize children allowed to play video games for more than 30 minutes per day. Surely, children whose Dads own guns should be seized before they teach those children to own and use guns. Surely those dads who own guns and play paintball or air soft "paramilitary" games should be seized. Surely, if parents consume alcohol, then there is a danger that the child might learn that it is ok to consume alcohol. Surely, if parents keep ice cream in the house, there is risk of obesity. Surely if parents have condoms in the house, then the children might learn to view sex as fun and without consequences.

Law enforcement has overacted in this case. I hope the courts fix it.

I do not support polygamy. I do not defend the persons charged.

But, when the law is abused and we ignore it because we hate the charged/abused, then we allow precedent to be established that will allow similar disregard for law and civil rights to hurt us later.

By the way, how can we hold polygamy as basically wrong and yet have a national debate about accepting gay marriage? How can we call polygamy wrong and accept Bill Clinton's infidelity as "ok"?

I agree with Dalmations202 who basically said that he did not separate out "crimes" such as polygamy away from "crimes" like adultery. All such "crimes" are defined as "crimes" by morality. The tradition of our morality in the Western World is Christianity.

Now, isn't it funny that the social workers of the world (the most militant type) are far left anti-religion liberals??? Funny that these militants are quoting morality (in its Christian roots) as the justification for their assault while they assume the mantle of Secularists?

Debates about morality are divisive and challenging. But, there is no debate that the government over acted in this case. I hope that the courts set it right.

The executive branch screwed up here. If the courts set it right, this hated little group might own a much larger plantation to practice on after they receive their compensation for the wrongs committed against them.