Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2008, 05:22 PM   #1
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default El Dorado's Mormon Thing

Anybody following the.....how do you put it????? Anybody following the confiscation of several hundred kids by the Texas CPS?

I refer you to this article....link

Let me clarify that I'm not an advocate of polygamy -- I think if God had meant for men to have more than one wife than surely he would have given us some super human powers.........and I'm certainly not an advocate of sex with underage girls...(and I swear to god, she told me she was 18).....

It's just that the early returns on this thing reak of some ghastly unconstitutional type stuff. I mean, we may all have a deep and abiding suspicion that these dudes were using little girls as breeders, but I think there's a thing or two between abiding suspicion and due process of law. This looks to me like exactly what the mormon fundies say it is --state sponsored persecution of a religious sect.

beware, be very wary of the mainstream media framing of this story -- time and time and time again you will read of "teenaged girls, married and pregnant", but whether these teenaged girls are 16 and over, and therefore quite legal in the state of texas, or under 16 will be scarcely discussed. you will read frequently of polygamy, but whether any of these men had more than one wife will be scarcely mentioned.* you will read of local El Doradan's who are quite suspicious of these folks, but rarely will you read of the local fellow who had nothing but good interactions from them.


(*let us note, for whatever it's worth, that the state in particular and society in general has a big double standard when it comes to so-called polygamy....if it's mormons doing it because god tells 'em to do it, it's awful....if it's a hedonist who does it in a playboy mansion, it's called The Girls Next Door).
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-10-2008, 05:29 PM   #2
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

speaking of how the mainstream media will frame this story, I take note of the headline on the afore-linked article:

Quote:
Polygamist men cry during temple search
Authorities defend decision to leave sect alone for four years
whether intentional or not, that's a very carefully framed argument....see, the authorities do not defend the fact that they used one anonymous cell phone call (from an area with no cell phone service, no less) as a pretext to nab 400+ kids, but rather they defend the fact that they didn't do this sooner.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-10-2008 at 05:31 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 06:55 PM   #3
ribosoma
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greater Nowheres
Posts: 1,189
ribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond reputeribosoma has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Interesting thread. The government's chief responsibility seems to be to necessitate the existence of the government. At least they didn't burn the kids alive this time like they did in Waco. Now that's progress!

I am sure that there is a great deal more to this story than will be told in the mainstream press.

Props on the critical thinking and analysis and thanks for the info.
ribosoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 07:02 PM   #4
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ribosoma
Interesting thread. The government's chief responsibility seems to be to necessitate the existence of the government...
well, that and protect children from abuse.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2008, 08:26 PM   #5
jefelump
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
jefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to alljefelump is a name known to all
Default

Originally Posted by alexamenos
Quote:
This looks to me like exactly what the mormon fundies say it is --state sponsored persecution of a religious sect.

if it's mormons doing it because god tells 'em to do it, it's awful....
Let's clarify one fact here. This is NOT the "Mormon" church discussed in this article. This is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is a group who broke away from the aforementioned Mormon church when polygamy was ended over a century ago. The article mentions this as well. There is no association of the FLDS church to the LDS (aka Mormon) church.

And yes, I have been watching this story too. I have no "due process" concerns here. The raid was conducted with court approval (ie., they have warrants). I have read articles where a 16 yr old girl was mentioned having already had 4 children. If she had 1 child per year, she started when she was 12. That is sick.

And as for whether or not these men had more than one wife, the man who is alleged to be the husband of the 16 yr old girl who made the secret cell phone call was reported to have 7 wives.

Knowing about the activities in this community and knowing they were actively practicing polygamy and under-aged forced marriage for four years and doing nothing is also sick. I don't see how they can defend that. If they had proof of a law being broken, it seems to me they could have made arrests sooner. Just my two cents worth.
jefelump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 09:33 AM   #6
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jefelump
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Let's clarify one fact here. This is NOT the "Mormon" church discussed in this article. This is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is a group who broke away from the aforementioned Mormon church when polygamy was ended over a century ago. The article mentions this as well. There is no association of the FLDS church to the LDS (aka Mormon) church.
Apart from polygamy, are there other doctrinal distinctions or theological differences? I know the mainstream LDS church always tries to look shocked-shocked about the polygamists, but it almost always sounds like Holy Rollers looking down on Snake Handlers.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 09:47 AM   #7
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
Apart from polygamy, are there other doctrinal distinctions or theological differences? I know the mainstream LDS church always tries to look shocked-shocked about the polygamists, but it almost always sounds like Holy Rollers looking down on Snake Handlers.
even if there's not, I think that distinction is big enough to warrant keeping the two groups of people separate. That is, if the LDS church really gives more than lip service to the distinction.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 10:00 AM   #8
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
even if there's not, I think that distinction is big enough to warrant keeping the two groups of people separate. That is, if the LDS church really gives more than lip service to the distinction.
Right, but making that kind of distinction cuts both ways. It's why the LDS church has problems making a convincing case that they are just like other Protestant denominations. ......Apart from Joseph Smith. And that angel Moroni thing. And the book of Mormon. And the Magic Underwear. And the Secret Rituals.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 04-11-2008 at 10:01 AM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 10:10 AM   #9
MavsX
Diamond Member
 
MavsX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 7,031
MavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond reputeMavsX has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I've been watching and reading about this story. I find it very interesting. It's crazy really. I agree with letting these people live on their own, and do their own thing. But if kids are getting abused, sexually or physically...then the state has got to step in.

It does seem to be quite a coincidence, that the two main guys in this church are sex offenders....hello~! that is what they are doing right now. (i am talking about that dude in Arizona. and the leader who is awaiting trial i believe in Utah?

get r done

Last edited by MavsX; 04-11-2008 at 10:10 AM.
MavsX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 10:59 AM   #10
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MavsX
I've been watching and reading about this story. I find it very interesting. It's crazy really. I agree with letting these people live on their own, and do their own thing. But if kids are getting abused, sexually or physically...then the state has got to step in.

It does seem to be quite a coincidence, that the two main guys in this church are sex offenders....hello~! that is what they are doing right now. (i am talking about that dude in Arizona. and the leader who is awaiting trial i believe in Utah?

get r done
It is an interesting story. Touches on many issues, from the very specific to the very abstract, and strong points can be made from widely divergent points of view.

For example, 1) Sexual abuse. It seems like it's pretty easy for people to agree that it is appropriate for authorities to intervene when there is clear evidence of culturally-imposed, institutionally-supported, ritual sexual abuse of minors. You might even be led to ask why it's taken four year for authorities to act. Should they not have been able to acquire evidence sooner? They certainly seem to have had a plan in place to act quickly, and on a large-scale. Nominee for ironic image: The First Baptist Church van taking away a load of LDS women and children.

Which leads to: 2) The evidence in this case. A sixteen-year-old girl makes a call, or a series of calls to a Battered Women's Shelter, on a cellphone alleging sexual abuse, and on the basis of that, the authorities step in and take custody of....400 children? Okay, so surely they have some level of verification. Right? But they haven't located the caller yet, haven't even identified her yet. Do they know the cellphone number from which the call was placed? This point really hasn't been addressed. They do have a suspect, of whose status many people could've been aware. But on the one hand media accounts portray these women and children as being very sequestered from the outside world, and yet a young girl was able to get in touch with a Battered Women's Shelter hotline number? Something doesn't add up, or at least it doesn't add up easily. Bottom line: Until they are able to say with certainty that they have the person who placed the call, there is going to exist a question as to whether the call was legitimate, or whether someone opposed to the FLDS (for whatever reason) placed that call and perhaps made false charges, which undermines the whole basis for the raid. And this is where you start to get on (perhaps) very uncomfortable ground about government undertaking action against unpopular groups, and in particular against specific religious groups.

People who don't want to look at the bigger questions and the bigger threats (from government) will focus on the sexual abuse. For them, any instance or act of coerced sex is going to justify the police action. But you can also look at the sexual abuse that has gone on in the Catholic church, not just the acts of sexual abuse, but the institutional response of denial and cover-up and keeping things secret so as not to make the Church look bad. Did the government go into diocese headquarters and seize records? You can also "know" that within certain communities/neighborhoods, there is a lot of sexual activity going on between minors and adults, and yet you will NEVER see the government going in and seizing children, placing them in the custody of the state, and interviewing them to determine which adult males should be arrested...not on the scale that it was done in this case.

So we see that the government (at least in Texas) will intervene intrusively when there is (some) evidence of sexual abuse within a small, and let's be frank, unpopular religious community.

What about terrorism? Will we see the government raiding churches of faiths thought to be fomenting terrorism? Or supporting it at least?

What about churches that preach and teach hateful or oppressive beliefs against specific groups?


Random questions that occur to me:
Do the children in the FLDS communities receive Social Security numbers?
Do women and/or children receive any government benefits?
Do they receive medical care through Medicaid or other state-funded programs?
How do births happen---hospitals or midwives? What kind of pre-natal care is there for mothers? If there are 13, 14, 15 year olds being impregnated, what would a physician's responsibility be for reporting to authorities a large number of observed pregnancies within a community a specific population?
How are children in the FLDS communities educated?
Do they have to attend school? Or are they all home-schooled?
Would there not be any educational records that would help in the identification of these children?
What are the educational credentials of the people who are home-schooling these children? What is their responsibility to report evidence of abuse within the community? What are the implications for the larger home-school movement?

It's definitely a hairy question, with some profoundly unsettling implications. Most probably though, not much will come of it, but it is an ugly precedent from every angle. The state acted (possibly over-reacted), not just because it should, but because it could.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 04-11-2008 at 11:15 AM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 11:06 AM   #11
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jefelump
Originally Posted by alexamenos


Let's clarify one fact here. This is NOT the "Mormon" church discussed in this article. This is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is a group who broke away from the aforementioned Mormon church when polygamy was ended over a century ago. The article mentions this as well. There is no association of the FLDS church to the LDS (aka Mormon) church.

And yes, I have been watching this story too. I have no "due process" concerns here. The raid was conducted with court approval (ie., they have warrants). I have read articles where a 16 yr old girl was mentioned having already had 4 children. If she had 1 child per year, she started when she was 12. That is sick.

And as for whether or not these men had more than one wife, the man who is alleged to be the husband of the 16 yr old girl who made the secret cell phone call was reported to have 7 wives.

Knowing about the activities in this community and knowing they were actively practicing polygamy and under-aged forced marriage for four years and doing nothing is also sick. I don't see how they can defend that. If they had proof of a law being broken, it seems to me they could have made arrests sooner. Just my two cents worth.
a) I try not to make theological judgments as to whether any particular sect is or is not the true adherent of Jesus' ministry to native americans as told to us via magical plates discovered in the 1800's....

2) nobody knows who the 16 yr old girl who made the cell phone call (from an area which has no cell phone service) is....if they don't know who she is, I don't know how they know how many children she had.

3) as noted earlier, the only time the state gets its undies in a wad about someone "actively practicing polygamy" is when that someone says god is ok with it....i have a bit of trouble understanding why such a thing is sufficient reason for the state to confiscate 400 children out of one community;

4) as for your dirth of due process concerns, yes the raid was conducted under the aegis of a warrant....

......notwithstanding the fact that even a wee bit of critical thinking skills will cause one to wonder how a 16 year old mormon fundie girl imprisoned on a compound a) gets a cell phone; and b) manages to make a cell phone call from an area that has no cell phone service (and, for the record Alex knows Schleicher County fairly well).....

I can't quite see how such a warrant could be applied to anyone other than the household and family of say, Mr. and Mrs. (and Mrs.) Jones...the household of Mr. and Mrs. and Mrs. Jones, it seems, ought to be the extent of the due process.....

How, then, does CPS manage to confiscate not only the children of Mr. and Mrs. and Mrs. Jones, but the children of Mr. and Mrs. and Mrs. Smith and Young and Bradly and Romney as well?????
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 11:33 AM   #12
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ribosoma
Interesting thread. The government's chief responsibility seems to be to necessitate the existence of the government. At least they didn't burn the kids alive this time like they did in Waco. Now that's progress!

I am sure that there is a great deal more to this story than will be told in the mainstream press.

Props on the critical thinking and analysis and thanks for the info.
and yes, to date the government has not killed any of the children they are saving. this is excellent progress.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 11:43 AM   #13
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
...you will NEVER see the government going in and seizing children, placing them in the custody of the state, and interviewing them to determine which adult males should be arrested...not on the scale that it was done in this case..
This seems like a case of large scale suspected abuse, in which a religion happens to be involved. You see the state act similarly all the time in cases that don't involve religion. Children are taken from abusive homes fairly regularly. Where there are foster and adoptive parents that abuse or are suspected of abusing a larger number of children - those children are taken from the home at a larger scale. The only reason you so rarely see something like this done at such a scale is because it's rare to see abuse suspected at a scale like this. If abuse was suspected at an orphanage with 400 kids, you'd see the same thing as you see here.

I haven't been following the case as closely as some of ya'll. For those who have been following it, it sounds like the raid was precipitated by an anonymous phone call? Who made the phone call - was it the 16 year old girl, or was it a guy who is suspected of fathering children by a 16 year old girl?

Last edited by Usually Lurkin; 04-11-2008 at 11:43 AM.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 11:48 AM   #14
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
...The evidence in this case. A sixteen-year-old girl makes a call, or a series of calls to a Battered Women's Shelter, on a cellphone alleging sexual abuse, and on the basis of that, the authorities step in and take custody of....400 children? Okay, so surely they have some level of verification. Right? But they haven't located the caller yet, haven't even identified her yet. Do they know the cellphone number from which the call was placed? This point really hasn't been addressed. They do have a suspect, of whose status many people could've been aware. But on the one hand media accounts portray these women and children as being very sequestered from the outside world, and yet a young girl was able to get in touch with a Battered Women's Shelter hotline number? Something doesn't add up, or at least it doesn't add up easily.
this is what I figure happened....

between her chores of milking the cows and squeezing out her 9th kid in 7 years, the sixteen year old girl in question is doing some online shopping when she receives a txt message from one of her many friends from other towns which reads something like:

"wudup grl...ru goin to the tannin slon ltr?"

and she replies:

"n, gettin raped l8r by brigham 4, n i have to wash sacred undrwr"

at this point, she turns off her computer and wanders down to the community women's center where she sees posters for Women's Shelters in the Planned Parenthood display. she jumps in her kia sophia, drives into town, hits the starbucks for a tall americano and then makes her calls.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-11-2008 at 11:53 AM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 11:50 AM   #15
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
You see the state act similarly all the time in cases that don't involve religion.
Can you name a case where the state has taken children from multiple families on the basis, basically, that all of those families shared the same religion?
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 11:55 AM   #16
Ninkobei
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 2,227
Ninkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant future
Default

if the government wants to intervene in anything illegal that has a nut-job saying that "god told him to do it," then I say its the state's right- no, responsibility- to throw those bastards in jail or whatever else they want to do to them. I dont care if its a church, government official, school, holiest of holies or otherwise... there is no argument that can make me think that what the state did was constitutionally wrong.
__________________

Last edited by Ninkobei; 04-11-2008 at 11:56 AM.
Ninkobei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 12:08 PM   #17
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninkobei
if the government wants to intervene in anything illegal that has a nut-job saying that "god told him to do it," then I say its the state's right- no, responsibility- to throw those bastards in jail or whatever else they want to do to them. I dont care if its a church, government official, school, holiest of holies or otherwise... there is no argument that can make me think that what the state did was constitutionally wrong.
of course there is no argument that would make you think otherwise....put "child abuse" in the same sentence with "religious fundamentalist" and any fleeting concerns about such trivialities of due process of law fly out the window.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 12:30 PM   #18
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
of course there is no argument that would make you think otherwise....put "child abuse" in the same sentence with "religious fundamentalist" and any fleeting concerns about such trivialities of due process of law fly out the window.
those trivialities fly out the window when you mention "child abuse."
When you add "religion," people complain about it.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 12:37 PM   #19
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
those trivialities fly out the window when you mention "child abuse."
When you add "religion," people complain about it.
exactly....people respond with prejudice and emotion rather than with a regard for the rule of law. apropos of the sentiment, a quote from the article linked earlier....

Quote:
We are aware that this group is capable of" sexually abusing girls, Sheriff David Doran said. "But there again, this is the United States. We are going to respect them. We're not going to violate their civil rights until we get an outcry.
yes, this is the united states where we generally prefer to violate civil rights when people shout loudly enough.

-----------------------------------

someone with a decent perspective on things is following this -- link.

interesting comment there that the language allegedly used by the 16 year old girl who made the cell phone call isn't the language of an FLDS 16 year old girl.....

Quote:
Why? Much of the verbage is wrong for the FLDS sect. For example, they don't refer to ''the outsider's world.'' Non-FLDS members are ''gentiles,'' the caller pointed out.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-11-2008 at 01:23 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 02:02 PM   #20
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

FWIW, I'm retracting my suspicions about a mystery girl making cell phone calls from YFZ...as it turns out: a) a coworker reassures me that he can get a cell signal in the area (so long as it isn't T-Mobile, which apparently has the worst coverage on earth); and b) as a matter of fact, cell phones are very common accoutrements among teenaged girls in fundamentalist LDS sects. Who woulda thunk it?

Quote:
Can you name a case where the state has taken children from multiple families on the basis, basically, that all of those families shared the same religion?
the answer to this question, btw, is YES! I can name such a case.

and not only did the government confiscate children from multiple families within a community on the basis that these families shared the same religion, but also the government confiscated 100% of the children in that community, ala our little mormon utopia outside of El Dorado.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 02:14 PM   #21
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninkobei
if the government wants to intervene in anything illegal that has a nut-job saying that "god told him to do it," then I say its the state's right- no, responsibility- to throw those bastards in jail or whatever else they want to do to them. I dont care if its a church, government official, school, holiest of holies or otherwise...
Didn't our president start an illegal war in Iraq because God told him to do it?
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 02:32 PM   #22
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
El Dorado's Mormon Thing
TO is dating a devout lady from Utah?

You may now return to your regularly scheduled discussion on balancing individual rights with the government's responsibilities.
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 04:15 PM   #23
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

One thing many of you don't seem to understand is that "women" around the world really only have the "rights" that men give them. This isn't a religious thing, and yet it is.

In some of the middle east, women cover their heads and walk behind their husbands. Why? Because the laws written by men say they can do nothing about it. If they try to retaliate, then they are going against the "pick the religious book" and men have the right to physically do "this" to them. Women are reared to think that -- to be a good (wife, girl, etc) this is how I am expected to act. Brain washing goes a long way. (It happens to men and women in other areas as well).

Women here in America would tell you that they wouldn't do this, and this can't happen. I have heard many people argue me saying this before, and all once they think about it, admit that it is the truth. Women only have the rights that men allow them to have and will enforce.

Men can be done the same way. Might still makes right, until you know truth. See slavery.
Just as a note Jesus is truth, but I won't go into that right now.

My point is that the determination of what is going on being "right" or "wrong" depends on who is doing it, and where they are coming from.

IMO, these 40-50 year old guys who are impregnating teenagers in the name of taking on multiple wives is wrong. Period. Why, because it has nothing to do with Love, but everything to do with selfishness, power, and lust.

Everyone here focuses on the "letter" of the law, and I believe firmly on the constitution, but I also believe in "right" and "wrong". Slavery was wrong regardless of the law. Polygamy is wrong regardless of any law. Could they have executed the warrants better and maybe had a better legal stance? I am guessing yes.

Question, by letter of the law people. Can a group of women open up a "chicken ranch" bar where they have a $100 cover charge to get in, but all parties once in have consensual sex? Would this be prostitution or not? Could a woman on a street corner sell you a $50 condom and offer free class on how to use it? Laws are funny when you look at the letter of the law, compared to the spirit.

Let's say that you call the first part illegal because it is prostitution -- then if a guy goes into a bar, pays the cover charge, picks up girl who is looking for a man, and has consensual sex with her, is that prostitution and can both be charged?

Just some food for thought.

I have tried to stay on top of Ruby Ridge, and Branch Dividians (actually went by and saw the burned out complex), and now this one, and I am still concerned on both sides. I guess my biggest question is where do individual rights end, and who makes that determination? I know who makes the rules I live by, but I question the laws of "man" and the motives of "government".
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 05:38 PM   #24
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
IMO, these 40-50 year old guys who are impregnating teenagers in the name of taking on multiple wives is wrong. Period. Why, because it has nothing to do with Love, but everything to do with selfishness, power, and lust.

.....

Polygamy is wrong regardless of any law.
i've several quibbles with the foregoing....not necessarily out-n-out disagreements, but problems nonetheless.

hmm......

the first thing is this: I certainly can't say for certain that the reason these dudes are banging teenagers is because of "selfishness, power, and lust." I have to allow for the possibility that they sincerely believe that being fruitful and multiplying is part and parcel of path to salvation. let's not forget that however silly they may be, mormons have been asserting this for a long, long time....whether I agree or not, I certainly owe them the benefit of the doubt that they are being sincere. Plural marriage, in their view, is a religious act.

the second thing is this: we, mostly people other than me*, say that polygamy is "wrong", and I'm not sure that this is self-evident (and ok, even if polygyny is wrong because it oppresses women, is polyandry necessarily wrong as well, even in the absence of anything resembling oppression?)

Polygamy in one form or another has been around since the dawn of man, and such a practice is hardly inamicable to the survival of the species. Even in the west today it's most harshly decried (or only decried) when it is *religious* polygamy.....Swingers arguably have multiple spouses, Hugh Hefner has what amounts to 3 wives and a Reality Show, the line between *serial monogamy* (marriage to and childbearing with multiple spouses in succession) and polygamy is paper thin, especially from a moral standpoint. That is to say, polygamy is polygamy whether it is a hedon with a reality show or a fundie mormon with instructions from an angel.

But, you're not going to open the papers tomorrow and read "children of couples with open marriages were confiscated because mothers were found to have had on-going sexual relations with more than one man." That is, "polygamy" can take multiple forms, but the state is nevertheless very selective about whom it prosecutes for polygamy.

alternatively I might say that polygamy is just one form of many non-monogamous relationships, and I'm not sure morally how it is so different from others.

thirdly: even if it is conceded that polygamy is objectively wrong, how does it follow that confiscation of children is an appropriate punishment for polygamy, rather than (say) a $50 fine and a weekend of picking up trash?

Or I might ask, is adultry any less objectively wrong than polygamy, and if not would it be appropriate for the state to take the children of an adultress?

finally: it's all about the abuse, right? kids are being abused, hence these kids need to be taken by the state for their own protection. and we know that all of the children of mormon fundamentalists are being abused because they're children of mormon fundamentalists, and that's what mormon fundamentalists do....abuse children.

right?

it's not as if i'm suggesting that this is a classic case of prejudice in action, where we take the worst actions of a few members of a given group and make the knee-jerking ugly assumption that these bad actions must apply to the entire group.....

....oh, wait....that is exactly what I'm suggesting. and I believe this is exactly what is happening in El Dorado.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if one, or two, or more dudes out there were hittin' (in multiple senses) 14, 15 or 16 year old girls. If so, they ought to be arrested and prosecuted.

But, it does not follow from this that the state ought to confiscate children who aren't being abused from mothers and fathers (father?) for no reason other than the transparently obvious and odious reason that these people belong to the same religious sect. This is almost certainly happening, and it sucks.



(*I should add here that alex has one wife and that is all he shall ever have. moreover, he takes fidelity quite seriously in practice, if not in comedic rantings. )
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 09:06 PM   #25
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
i've several quibbles with the foregoing....not necessarily out-n-out disagreements, but problems nonetheless.

hmm......

the first thing is this: I certainly can't say for certain that the reason these dudes are banging teenagers is because of "selfishness, power, and lust." I have to allow for the possibility that they sincerely believe that being fruitful and multiplying is part and parcel of path to salvation. let's not forget that however silly they may be, mormons have been asserting this for a long, long time....whether I agree or not, I certainly owe them the benefit of the doubt that they are being sincere. Plural marriage, in their view, is a religious act.
The pharisees called for Jesus head because he might change things. He called for the loving of neighbors and helping them, not killing indiscriminately. He asked for people to love thy neighbor as thyself. Religious leader of the day thought that stoning was and acceptable form of punishment, and even called for Jesus to be put on the cross. Is what the pharisees did, in the name of the bible, correct? Should Jesus have been crucified?

Just because they want to do something sincerely, doesn't make it right. I do realize that Jesus gave his life though, not that they took it.


Quote:
the second thing is this: we, mostly people other than me*, say that polygamy is "wrong", and I'm not sure that this is self-evident (and ok, even if polygyny is wrong because it oppresses women, is polyandry necessarily wrong as well, even in the absence of anything resembling oppression?)

Polygamy in one form or another has been around since the dawn of man, and such a practice is hardly inamicable to the survival of the species. Even in the west today it's most harshly decried (or only decried) when it is *religious* polygamy.....Swingers arguably have multiple spouses, Hugh Hefner has what amounts to 3 wives and a Reality Show, the line between *serial monogamy* (marriage to and childbearing with multiple spouses in succession) and polygamy is paper thin, especially from a moral standpoint. That is to say, polygamy is polygamy whether it is a hedon with a reality show or a fundie mormon with instructions from an angel.

But, you're not going to open the papers tomorrow and read "children of couples with open marriages were confiscated because mothers were found to have had on-going sexual relations with more than one man." That is, "polygamy" can take multiple forms, but the state is nevertheless very selective about whom it prosecutes for polygamy.

alternatively I might say that polygamy is just one form of many non-monogamous relationships, and I'm not sure morally how it is so different from others.
While I will agree with the concept of what you say. I have kids I tell every day that they don't get to judge themselves by what others do. I don't care if someone else lets their kid stay over at a boyfriends house alone, when they are 16. My kids are not allowed. Saying that they don't do this to someone else, is a comparison, and while you may be very correct, it doesn't change the first act. Right is right and wrong is wrong -- no matter how gray it is to your understanding. While a person may think that stoning a woman for adultry is correct and I can find it in the Bible, Jesus told us to let the man with no sin throw the first stone.

Quote:
thirdly: even if it is conceded that polygamy is objectively wrong, how does it follow that confiscation of children is an appropriate punishment for polygamy, rather than (say) a $50 fine and a weekend of picking up trash?

Or I might ask, is adultry any less objectively wrong than polygamy, and if not would it be appropriate for the state to take the children of an adultress?
Adultry may be more wrong than polygamy, but it isn't by law. A sin is a sin though, but some sins are definitely in the eyes of man, worse than others. In the eyes of the Lord, I don't know. A thief is a thief, and a sinner a sinner -- of which I am chief.

Quote:
finally: it's all about the abuse, right? kids are being abused, hence these kids need to be taken by the state for their own protection. <snip>

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if one, or two, or more dudes out there were hittin' (in multiple senses) 14, 15 or 16 year old girls. If so, they ought to be arrested and prosecuted.
BINGO

Quote:
But, it does not follow from this that the state ought to confiscate children who aren't being abused from mothers and fathers (father?) for no reason other than the transparently obvious and odious reason that these people belong to the same religious sect. This is almost certainly happening, and it sucks.
snip
This part I will agree with you on, but you know they are going to remove them all for safety, and then sort it out. This always ends up being the way it is done, and usually the best way. They are even worse, if they leave abused kids there, and then something even worse happens to them.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson

Last edited by dalmations202; 04-11-2008 at 09:07 PM.
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2008, 09:42 PM   #26
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

All I know about Mormons is that Dirk stuck a dagger in their hearts last night.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 01:12 PM   #27
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

for the Love of Irony.....

As long as they were out at Yearning for Zion, the women and children fundie mormons out at Yearning For Zion could have cell phones, but not after the State of Texas took them into custody, or protection if you prefer.....


Quote:
Raid aftermath: Cell phones are confiscated

A Texas judge on Sunday ordered law enforcement officials to immediately confiscate all cell phones in the possession of FLDS women and children now housed in temporary quarters here.

"I just called to say hi. They are about to collect the phones, I think," one soft-spoken FLDS woman said during a telephone call to another member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church who was outside the shelter. "I don't like what they're doing."

Several of the women inside the shelters spoke by cell phone to the Deseret News on Saturday to describe the living conditions there. Children could be heard crying in the background of each conversation. The News published an article on Sunday quoting the women, who complained there was no privacy and that their children were getting sick.

FLDS faithful outside the shelter are convinced Sunday's court order is a direct result of the women speaking to the newspaper.

"This is nothing more than retaliation of Child Protective Services to punish those who were disclosing what is really happening behind the walls of this concentration camp," said Don, an FLDS member who asked that his last name not be used. "These are my family members."
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 01:17 PM   #28
u2sarajevo
moderately impressed
 
u2sarajevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home of the thirteenth colony
Posts: 17,705
u2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond repute
Default

How is that even legal? They aren't under arrest.... how can they be required to surrender anything that isn't illegal?

What the hell?
__________________
u2sarajevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 01:21 PM   #29
DirkFTW
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,249
DirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond reputeDirkFTW has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I wonder if it's related to trying to track down the mystery girl by matching phones
__________________


Is this ghost ball??
DirkFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 01:28 PM   #30
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
I wonder if it's related to trying to track down the mystery girl by matching phones
the CPS folks state, in no uncertain terms, that they did this to prevent the people under their "protection" from talking to anyone on the outside.

can't have these fragile minds getting exposed to bad thoughts, can we?

credit to the YFZ dudes, they may like their women young and many, but at least they don't keep 'em under lock and chain like the CPS.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-14-2008 at 01:29 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 01:29 PM   #31
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

One question regarding the judge who issued the warrants for the searches, and who is overseeing the custody cases--is she a member of any particular faith? Just curious.

Why wouldn't a different judge from the one who authorized the warrants be the one to oversee the custody cases. It seems like the judge is already vested in the state's case.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 01:55 PM   #32
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

who wouldn't love to be a legislator....you too could re-write laws to target groups you don't like.

Quote:
The Texas lawmaker who represents Eldorado, Representative Harvey Hilderbran, a Republican, said the authorities had been looking for a tool, if not a spark, to combat the particular form of polygamy that arrived here in 2003, when the group’s members came from Utah and Arizona.

Mr. Hilderbran led the push in 2005 to raise the marriage age in Texas to 16 from 14, a legislative process in which Mr. Shurtleff, the Utah prosecutor, came to testify in support of the change.

“We’ve been fighting this for awhile, trying to do something about it,” Mr. Hilderbran said. “But we needed a complaint. You can’t just say: ‘Golly, I can’t get into that ranch, I bet you lots of awful stuff is going on in there.’
Rep. Hilderbran is rather stark in his disregard for whether he may sound like a tyrant using the power of the state to explicitly target on religious sect.

First he gets a law changed so that he may more easily target his particular enemy -- that's kind of shady in my book, but it's not like it's the first time that laws have been written specifically with the idea of bagging on mormon fundies.

....and on that note, while there is no doubt a sizeable ick factor when it comes to 40 year old dudes gettin with a 16 year old girls, ick and illegal are two different things....most basically, you can call it polygamy, or you can call it child abuse (or statutory rape), but i don't think you can really call it both things....that is, it's not statutory rape to consummate a marriage, and if they're not married it's not polygamy.

but I digress...

the second thing here is the stark admission of the extent to which the authorities were waiting on a pre-text to enter the compound. i might have preferred to put a more delicate spin on things if I were bragging about my efforts to skirt the spirit of the law in order to bash a religious sect.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-14-2008 at 02:27 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2008, 11:40 PM   #33
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default Clusterf*ck

Mothers of Some Children Forced to Leave

By JENNIFER DOBNER and MICHAEL GRACZYK
Associated Press Writers

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- Texas officials who took 416 children from a polygamist retreat into state custody sent many of their mothers away Monday, as a judge and lawyers struggled with a legal and logistical morass in one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.

Of the 139 women who voluntarily left the compound with their children since an April 3 raid, only those with children 4 or younger were allowed to continue staying with them, said Marissa Gonzales, spokewoman for the state Children's Protective Services agency. She did not know how many women stayed.

"It is not the normal practice to allow parents to accompany the child when an abuse allegation is made," she said.

The women were given a choice: Return to the Eldorado ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a renegade Mormon sect, or go to another safe location. Some women chose the latter, Gonzales said.

On Monday night, about three dozen women, many of them mothers, sobbed and held onto each other outside a log cabin on the sect's ranch, recounting the way police officers encircled them in a room and told them that they could not stay.

One woman, Marie, said the women weren't allowed to say goodbye to their crying children.

"They said, 'your children are ours,'" said the sobbing 32-year-old whose three sons are aged 9, 7 and 5 and who would not give her last name. "We could not even ask a question."

She said the children at the ranch have not been abused, but she feels like "they are being abused from this experience." She said the children have been "have been so protected and loved."

The women believe the abuse complaint that led to the raid came from a bitter person outside their community.

Brenda, a 37-year-old mother of two, said CPS officials did not tell the women they would be separated from their children or why the children were removed from the compound. CPS also gave the women inaccurate information about opportunties to meet with attorneys, she said.

"We got to where we said, we cannot believe a word you say. We cannot trust you," she said.

A call to CPS for comment on the women's claims was not immediately returned Monday night.

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 sheer size of the case was an obstacle.

"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.

The mothers were taken away Monday after they and the children were taken by bus under heavy security out of historic Fort Concho, where they had been staying, to the San Angelo Coliseum, which holds nearly 5,000 people and is used for hockey games, rodeos and concerts. The polygamist retreat is about 45 miles south of San Angelo.

Some of the youngsters' mothers complained to Gov. Rick Perry that the children were getting sick in the crowded fort. About 20 children had a mild case of chickenpox, said Dr. Sandra Guerra-Cantu with the state Health Department.

Perry spokesman Robert Black said the governor did not believe the children were being housed in poor conditions at the West Texas fort. "Let's be honest here, this is not the Ritz," Black said, but he called the accommodations "clean and neat."

CPS said the move to the coliseum had been in the works since last week, but couldn't be done sooner because the facility had been booked for another event and had to be cleaned and set up for the children.

CPS also said about two dozen teenage boys were moved to a facility outside San Angelo with the judge's permission. "We don't normally say where we place teens," Gonzales said when asked where they were sent.

Monday's courtroom conference was held to work out the ground rules for a court hearing beginning Thursday on the fate of the children.

The judge made no immediate decisions on how the hearing will be carried out. Among the questions left unanswered: Would a courtroom big enough to hold everyone be available at the Tom Green County Courthouse, or would some kind of video link be employed?

Texas bar officials said more than 350 lawyers from across the state have volunteered to represent the children free of charge. Moreover, the 139 mothers who voluntarily left the sect to be with their children will need lawyers, too, to help them fight for custody.

The sheer numbers left the judge perplexed as she considered suggestions from the lawyers for how to handle Thursday's hearing.

"It would seem inefficient to have a witness testify 416 times," the judge offered. "If I gave everybody five minutes, that would be 70 hours."

In an unintended illustration of the problem, Walther gave the lawyers 30 minutes to break into groups and report back to her with ideas. It took almost two hours for everyone to reassemble.

The raid followed a call to a domestic violence hot line from a 16-year-old girl who said she was beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband.

In addition to becoming a monumental legal morass, the case is proving to be a public-relations headache for the state.

Over the weekend, some of the mothers went on the offensive, complaining the children are falling ill and are frightened and traumatized from living in cramped conditions at the fort, with cots, cribs and playpens lined up side by side.

The secretive nature of the sect - and the indoctrination children receive from birth to mistrust outsiders - have added to the confusion.

Randoll Stout, one of the lawyers who plan to represent some of the children, said the youngsters "seem to change their names. Adults change their names. Children are passed around."

Betty Balli Torres, executive director of the Texas Access to Justice Foundation, said 10 women went into the San Angelo legal aid office last week seeking help and reported there were 100 more women who needed lawyers.

Attorneys began meeting with the women over the weekend. She said it was vital that the mothers be represented by lawyers. Otherwise, they could lose their children - "what we call kind of the death penalty of family law cases," she said.

A church lawyer, Rod Parker, said the 60 or so men remaining on the 1,700-acre ranch have offered to leave the compound if the state would allow the women and children to return to the place with child welfare monitors. But the state Children's Protective Services agency said it had not yet seen the offer and had no comment on it.

The sect practices polygamy in arranged marriages between underage girls and older men. The group has thousands of followers in two side-by-side towns in Arizona and Utah. The sect's prophet and spiritual leader, Warren Jeffs, is in prison for forcing an underage age into a marriage in Utah.

In Salt Lake City, dozens of polygamist wives with children in tow held a rally on the steps of City Hall to denounce the Texas raid. Rally organizers brought 475 wrapped care packages for the children in state custody.

"Reunite these children with their families. Let them go home," 18-year-old Kent Johnson said.

Last edited by Jack.Kerr; 04-14-2008 at 11:40 PM.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 10:13 AM   #34
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I sort of alluded to it earlier, but this isn't the first time the the government has rounded up 100% of the children of a community on the basis of religious beliefs of that community....

Short Creek AZ....

The thing wound up a cluster f*ck, with the government looking like a bunch of assholes and the community continuing on....

Quote:
Arizona Governor John Howard Pyle initially called the raid "a momentous police action against insurrection" and described the Mormon fundamentalists as participating in "the foulest conspiracy you could possibly imagine" that was designed to produce "white slaves."

Over 100 reporters had been invited by Pyle to accompany the police to observe the raid. However, the raid and its tactics attracted mostly negative media reaction; one newspaper editorialized:

"By what stretch of the imagination could the actions of the Short Creek children be classified as insurrection? Were those teenagers playing volleyball in a school yard inspiring a rebellion? Insurrection? Well, if so, an insurrection with diapers and volleyballs!"
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-15-2008 at 10:18 AM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 10:17 AM   #35
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
Mothers of Some Children Forced to Leave

By JENNIFER DOBNER and MICHAEL GRACZYK
Associated Press Writers

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- Texas officials who took 416 children from a polygamist retreat into state custody sent many of their mothers away Monday, as a judge and lawyers struggled with a legal and logistical morass in one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.

.....The secretive nature of the sect - and the indoctrination children receive from birth to mistrust outsiders - have added to the confusion.
I would say that CPS and the State of Texas is doing a wonderful job of confirming in the in the minds of these children that mis-trusting outsiders is quite a prudent thing to do.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 10:41 AM   #36
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

another account of the same events....

cluster f*ck

Quote:

FLDS moms, kids separated
Polygamous mothers to Texas: 'Our children need us'
Officials say because of abuse at the ranch, all kids need to be removed

By Brooke Adams
and Kristen Moulton
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/15/2008 06:10:21 AM MDT


El Dorado, Texas - Concealing their anger but not their tears, more than two dozen women of a polygamous sect told reporters they were surrounded by troopers and forced to leave their children in state custody Monday.
In an extraordinary break from past reticence, the women met with reporters at the YFZ Ranch hours after leaving their children and accused the Texas Child Protective Services of lies and trickery.
"They just as well line us up and shoot us as take our children away," said Donna, a 35-year-old mother who left behind a 10-year-old daughter. The women used only their first names.
After a week's stay at two makeshift shelters - described by one woman as a "concentration camp" - state authorities moved women and children to the San Angelo Coliseum on Monday, promising them they were being taken to a "bigger, better" place. They were told they would be reunited with other family members, the women said.
Once at the coliseum, the women were separated according to the ages of their children.
Mothers of those age 6 or older were herded into a room, each one flanked by a CPS worker. More than 50 troopers, according to the women, lined the room. The women were given a choice: return to the ranch or go to a domestic violence shelter.
Their children, they were told, were no longer theirs. "They told us the state is in charge of them now," said Donna.
"They wouldn't even let us go back and say goodbye to our children," said Sarah, who now has five children, ages 8 to 16, in state custody.
Like many of the women, she wept as she spoke.
Marissa Gonzales, spokeswoman for CPS, said 82 women remained Monday with the youngest of the 416 children taken from the ranch. She said 51 women returned home and six chose to go to a "safe location."
Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City attorney representing the FLDS families, said no women went to the shelter.
One woman said that CPS workers pressed the women to go to the shelter, assuring them they would see their children more often if they did.
Donna said she didn't believe it. "We have not been able to trust anybody."
State authorities raided the YFZ Ranch on April 3 after receiving a report from a local family violence shelter that a 16-year-old girl telephoned several times, claiming she had been abused by her "spiritual" husband.
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.
Janet said no one has heard of the girl named in a search warrant. "She is a fictitious person."
Another girl with a name similar to that of the girl in the search warrant was grilled for hours by investigators, Janet said. They kept telling her " 'You are this girl. Why don't you want our help?' " she said.
State officials said Monday they still have not located the caller but are "hopeful" she is among the children in custody.
Texas CPS say that because of a "pervasive pattern" of abuse and exploitation at the ranch, all children need to be removed.
The women said no one is forced to stay at the ranch and that anyone can leave at any time, contrary to the state's contention that it is a closed, controlled community.
Teenage girls were separated early on after the raid, and several mothers said that boys 12 and older were taken away Sunday. CPS said the boys have been moved to a facility "outside the area."
One mother said she was asked if her two daughters, 15 and 16, were married or pregnant. She said no. The girls were given pregnancy tests, she said, and the results proved she was truthful.
Asked if any teenage girls were pregnant, the women refused to answer.
Monday evening, reporters were allowed to travel the half-mile dirt road onto the ranch and were escorted to a log building, where they were met by the women, whose faces were drawn and weary.
Construction of the ranch began four years ago by members of the FLDS faith, most of whom lived in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
The women described how Texas Rangers and CPS workers came knocking on their doors and began removing their children 11 days ago.
Sarah said she and her two teenage daughters were taken to a school building at the ranch, where authorities spent three or four hours questioning the girls. She has not seen the girls since.
"We just want our children back, clean and pure," she said.
While at Fort Concho, the woman said her 10-year-old son was asked by CPS workers if he was married and if he had ever been touched in "sacred" places.
"He said, 'Of course not. That is a stupid question,' " Sarah said.
Donna said that living conditions at the shelters became harsh Sunday when CPS confiscated the women's cell phones and forced even the smallest child to pass through a metal detector. Their bedding was searched, too.
When they were hastily separated from their children on Monday, the women had to leave bags of belongings - including medication - behind.
They described some of the CPS workers and troopers in tears as the women were loaded on buses that took them back to the ranch.
"There were a few whose hearts were touched," said Mary, now separated from her 8-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son.
"The truth is we need our children and our children need us," said Donna.
Janet said her 11-year-old son was hopeful that the buses were taking them home.
"The last thing my little boy said is, 'I just want to go home.' "
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-15-2008 at 10:41 AM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 11:09 AM   #37
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Hate to say it, but it seems like the State is fast approaching the point of administering a "cure" that is as bad or worse than the "disease".
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 11:11 AM   #38
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
Hate to say it, but it seems like the State is fast approaching the point of administering a "cure" that is as bad or worse than the "disease".
that's exactly what I see.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 11:45 AM   #39
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
Hate to say it, but it seems like the State is fast approaching the point of administering a "cure" that is as bad or worse than the "disease".
That's how the State operates these days... It doesn't matter which issue is on the table - the government (Democrat & Republican alike) always suggest a worse "cure" than the "disease"... It's like they choose "bleeding with leeches" first, then move on to "electro-shock therapy" if that doesn't work...
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 04-15-2008 at 11:46 AM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2008, 12:02 PM   #40
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

imo, the real pervsity of the government's actions now is that it in the process of building a case that the children have been abused, the state is using the children to coerce the mothers into saying that they (the moms) have been abused.

Quote:
One woman said that CPS workers pressed the women to go to the shelter, assuring them they would see their children more often if they did*.
(*and i've read more than one account, by more than one mother, that this is the deal -- go to an abused women's shelter or don't see your kids)

a CPS lackey here would say that they're doing it for the mothers own good, or perhaps that only mothers who have also been abused should be allowed to see their (presumably) abused children.

but it remains that a mother who hasn't been abused and who hasn't abused her children isn't allowed to see her children because she isn't willing to lie about whether she's been abused.

if that isn't perverse.....
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 04-15-2008 at 12:04 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.