Texas court to state: Send the FLDS kids home
posted at 6:37 pm on May 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They may be in danger of sexual abuse but they’re not in imminent danger, which is (currently) the only statutory grounds for seizing custody. Your move, state legislature:
“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse … there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’,” the court said.
“Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal.”
The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children. Half the youngsters taken from the ranch were under 5. Only a few dozen are teenage girls.
The court also said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as a single household and to seize all the children on the grounds that some parents in the home might be abusers.
Bigamy is illegal in Texas; bigamy on an institutional scale like this would, one might think, be sufficient grounds to remove children from the environment. If the state legislature makes that claim with a new bill, we’re bound to be see a constitutional challenge to the statute citing the holding in Lawrence v. Texas about “intimate, adult consensual conduct” being constitutionally protected. Is this the case that finally legalizes polygamy — an instance of suspected child abuse by a radical Mormon sect? Or will the court that decides it duck the question by separating out child welfare (which deals with people who aren’t legally autonomous) from issues of private personal conduct vindicated by Lawrence (which deals with people who are)? Stay tuned!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
They aren’t a “radical Mormon Sect.” They are not Mormon at all, if you read Mormon to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That church is what most people call Mormon, and they have strongly rejected and of these people.
That said, there’s several US Supreme Court cases on polygamy, none of which Lawrence v. Texas overturned.
Your analysis is faulty, I think: this has turned into a debacle for Texas, so I doubt they will try to keep the children out anymore. They’ll do what Utah does: target specific cases they can find, not just do a general sweep.
Vanceone on May 22, 2008 at 6:41 PM
So if I am walking down the street at 3am with a loaded uzi, and no one is on the street, I can’t be arrested or detained because there is no “imminent” danger?
And that means all the cases where peophiles are not allowed to move into an area near a school is wrong, because there is no imminent danger? No danger until the kids pants are down? Is that the criteria now?
Stupid judges, arrogant, isolated judges.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Seeing as the whole thing was predicated on one fake phone call, I’d have to agree.
Spirit of 1776 on May 22, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Good decision by the Court and long overdue; punishing the children was a crime by Texas Child Welfare officials…
IntheNet on May 22, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Lifting the Veil of Polygamy
Red Pill on May 22, 2008 at 6:43 PM
That was my first thought. If there’s lawbreaking going on fine, go get them but don’t assume everyone is guilty.
It is supposed to be a free country with due process.
Speakup on May 22, 2008 at 6:45 PM
It is a very thorny issue, indeed. What if a child has parents who carry on in multiple sexual relationships and sire numerous children in a household who aren’t married? That would not be bigamy, correct? Will this group just decide that marriage is just a piece of paper in the future, so why bother with that formality?
Oh well, the good news is that Janet Reno did not storm the compound.
Buy Danish on May 22, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I really, really HopE not.
Of course, I hope there aren’t any cases that finaLly legalize PolygaMy.
And no, my hEavily-armed wife isn’t dictating my response.
sulla on May 22, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Even if they get their kids back, this whole process will serve as a Texas not-so-subtle message, to “move along you folks.”
tommylotto on May 22, 2008 at 6:47 PM
This is where separation of church and state gets a little confusing.
FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) may have an edge. Their “living prophet” claims this is the desire of God.
Now I don’t believe in a false living prophet, and there has been no living prophets that I know of for hundreds of years. If they are, then he could be one just as much as any other.
But that doesn’t matter, they believe he is the prophet, so who are they to ignore his prophesies? Who are any of us to tell him he is not a prophet? It’s not like he went to school and got a degree, or that he was born into it, or was chosen by a seniority system (like his mother church).
He is their prophet, we either accept that or deny it. And as a prophet he has every right to interpret God’s word. And if it means taking a little girl or boy as a sex partner, who are you to deny him that God given right.
What a mess…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I thought that I read yesterday that they had been holding a 27 year old as a minor this whole time, even though she provided them with a birth certificate and a driver’s license on the day of the raid. I might consider giving the various CPS agencies in the states greater authority, if I thought that they were at all competent.
rw on May 22, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Hate to say it but good for the cult people,I thought Texas’ heavy hand had gone too far,investigate crime,don’t do roundups save that for the illegals,
Bob
Bobnormal on May 22, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Indeed. I still can’t believe what happened in Waco. Our government murdered people, and no one was ever tried for the crime.
Red Pill on May 22, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Volkoh Conspiracy has a less emotional post on this matter Texas Appellate Court Rules Against State’s Seizure of the FLDS Children.
The authorities have had the children for six weeks and have not charged anyone. Surely, even the most incompetant Child Protective Services people could have convinced some of the kids they have been abused?
From what I have read the pregnant “children” were either found not to be pregnant or were not children (One was 26 years old).
Bigamy on an instititional scale – where is the evidence inthis instance?
It is my understanding, child marriage and abuse was the reason for the removal of the children.
‘It’s for the children’ coves a multitude of sins.
davod on May 22, 2008 at 6:58 PM
“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse … there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent’,” the court said.
Say what???
SoulGlo on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Personally I thought they were going a little Waco on this in the first place. Breaking up the compound make sense relative to the law but taking all the children from their mothers, that’s a whole lot of Stalin for me. That three year old only knows its mother. Take the mother and her children away from all the others to a half way house or some such while resolving the larger issue. Have a little humanity for god sakes. Wholesaling all the children into foster homes etc, that’s bullshit.
The fact that I won a large bet now has nothing to do with it!
patrick neid on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 PM
What a mess…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Some of those children will be raped the day they are sent back.
Why not send them back and send people to protect them?
EJDolbow on May 22, 2008 at 7:02 PM
It’s about freakin’ time.
I don’t agree with child brides or any of that nonsense, but pulling kids out of an insulated environment and sticking them in foster homes could easily be just as bad for the kids as them having two or three mommies.
NTWR on May 22, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Thorny issue? They take away these children, tramatizing them and their families in the process because of what, underaged sex? Yet, they have tons of abortions going on of children under the age of consent and they do nothing. Are they raiding abortion clinics for the records? Are they seizing the children who had abortions and their siblings? No, they prefer to raid a compund and perp walk children and their mothers for the cameras.
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Guess what Not2bright, just because this freaks SAY they are a MORMON group does not make it so.
They are no more Mormons than Fred Phelps is a Baptist.
The leaders of the real LDS church have denied this fringe group and that is the end of it with people of average intelligence.
EJDolbow on May 22, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Well, first off I want to dispel the rumor the Janet Reno is reportedly to have said :
“You mean they raided a religious compound and DIDN’T incinerate any of the kids?? Well…. I guess … that is another way of doing it.”
Again that is just a rumor which we can halt right now.
Thank you.
kurtzz3 on May 22, 2008 at 7:04 PM
glad to see our court do something right for a change. Protect the kids who were actually abused, don’t cast a wide net just because they live in a society that weirds you out.
libertytexan on May 22, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Underaged sex AGAINST THEIR WILL.
EJDolbow on May 22, 2008 at 7:05 PM
I think Texas got its point across and can send the kids back now. If ones of the girls doesn’t like something, she’s got the phone number to call, and all the guys know it.
pedestrian on May 22, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Do you know anybody who has ever broken free from this group?
Seek one out and have a chat over tea about what happens to 10 year olds in there and see if you are comfortable with it.
EJDolbow on May 22, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Those of you who think this is about polygamy miss the point. This is about the state coming in without cause and ripping kids out. I agree with the judges on this.
Do we really want the government to go into various churches and declare parents unfit based on their belief’s? It seems polygamy is ok to attack, but imagine if these were gay parents…
I have done foster care for over 7 years, and I have seen courts bend over backwards to give kids back to drug addicts, or other abusive situations, yet be a kids in a home where the only crime is there are more than one mom…rip the family apart.
Think about it, do we want the government to determine if you are a fit parent, based on your religion? Just because you don’t agree with the religion, doesn’t make it OK to take kids out…is this America or isn’t it.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 7:06 PM
They have possibly 15 cases of statutory rape and there’s no proof that any of it was against their will. Where’s the justification in removing 400 children from their homes? I don’t like what they are doing but being weird is not a crime and it was clear that the scale of this thing was based entirely on the weirdness of the people and had no legal foundation.
bj1126 on May 22, 2008 at 7:09 PM
By “Sexual Abuse” in this context, they are talking about engaging in sexual activity at very young ages. But, isn’t the majority of our current popular culture just as guilty of this? Kiddie stripper poles? Pimp halloween costumes? Nude photos via cell phones?
How is this any different than our society telling young kids that they are “sexual” beings who are just going to be engaging in sex anyway, so just make sure you are “safe” and get your free condoms?
Sounds like the pot’s been talking to the kettle again.
Fatal on May 22, 2008 at 7:09 PM
I can’t believe some of the thing you people are saying… so sad… I wonder if it were your daughter be raped by a 50 year old if you would be so defiant. frankly this doesn’t even seem like a HotAir page…
systematic rape and pedophilia and training of future pedophiles is ok with you “God Lovers” just because these people hide behind god doesn’t make what they’re doing right. everyone one of them is guilty of rape through accomplice.
Waco murders? there could be no trial, the culprit was dead, of his own doing. the stockpile of illegal wepaons is illegal. pair that with God complexes and end of days rhetoric and you have the need for swat teams.
Kaptain Amerika on May 22, 2008 at 7:10 PM
I haven’t really been following this so forgive me if this is a dumb question, but hasn’t the state had these kids for several week? During that time have any of these kids claimed to have been abused? Again, just asking, I have know idea what evidence the state has.
Weight of Glory on May 22, 2008 at 7:10 PM
That’s an interesting comparison.
Exactly true. But….but….It takes a village.
Spirit of 1776 on May 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Kaptain Amerika on May 22, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Do you have proof? Or is this just your hysteria coming out again?
There may be a case here or there, but to paint with the brush you are painting is the same as saying don’t send your kids to Catholic school to be abused by the priest…shut all Catholic schools down…and take them from the parents for putting their kids in danger…pick them all up at gun point and put them on Baptist buses…
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 7:15 PM
I guess ALL children in the country MAY BE IN DANGER of whatever… should the government just gather up all the children?
Maxx on May 22, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Considering the accuracy of some of the statements coming from the state, how are we to trust them on their claims on the number of pregnant girls? Don’t forget what happened with the McMartin Pre-School case.
thekingtut on May 22, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Can you point to a report where they are saying these children were raped?
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Hey Red Pill, nice $4 propaganda video link blurring the line between the LDS Church and the “fundamentalist” groups. Christians are closely linked with Jews except for some OBVIOUS doctrinal differences. Such is the case with Mormons and fundamentalists – differences which are blithely ignored. It kills me that your type always distributes deceptive products in order to get at the secret “truth.” You might as well have Mormon Elders kidnapping girls and throwing them in the Great Salt Lake from the top of the Mormon temple. Nuance!
bobthepeeler on May 22, 2008 at 7:26 PM
By all means let’s round up all the children of the country, put them in foster care for a while where they are much more likely to be abused so that the children will know they can trust the government.
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 7:26 PM
It started with Joseph Smith and ended (in the LDS only, but not in the FLDS) with a later “prophet”.
Joseph Smith wanted to marry 10 virgins (hey, at least it wasn’t 77, right?) and when his wife didn’t want any part of it, he threatened her saying that God himself would destroy her if
1) she didn’t accept the other wives, or if
2) she left Joseph for a monogamous man
The mental anguish extracted on the women was horrible. According to this post:
(I write that to point out the suffering of the wives, not to attack a candidate.)
Joseph Smith even taught that it was polygamous Celestial marriage that enables men to become gods
At least the first three heads (”prophets”) of the LDS church were polygamists. At a later point in time, an LDS leader stopped the practice. But those who thought that said LDS leader was wrong, left the LDS and started their own groups. The FLDS is just one of many.
Lifting the Veil of Polygamy
Red Pill on May 22, 2008 at 7:27 PM
The wonderful irony here is that you argue this point in the manner you have, after all your energetic posts about Christians not being allowed to define Mormon as “other-than” Christian.
And FWIW, I thought it was a huge reach for the state to grab 400 kids like that, and then the phone call turned out to be a prank. CPS in Texas has a list of “risk factors” for child abuse that include having a strong religious affiliation, one wage earner in the household, and more than two children. They can then simply state to the judge that you’re a “high-risk” family, without having to enumerate exactly what is so risky about your traditional nuclear family home.
TexasDan on May 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Who thinks the state of Texas would have reacted the same way and taken all of those children away if they would have been Muslims?
I say it would have never happened. This is a clear abuse of power by the Texas CPS.
Maxx on May 22, 2008 at 7:32 PM
And you know that because the Government told you so right? No investigation. No charges. No trial. But by all means let’s break up some families and tramatize the Sh!t out of all of the children for their own good while the Government tries to figure out how to justify its capricious actions legally.
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM
AP
I want to echo the point made by Vanceone and elaborate just a bit.
Calling these FLDS groups “Mormon sects” creates an affiliation where none is present and can be misleading (although I know that is not your intent). Calling these groups sects of the Mormon faith is akin to saying Lutherans are members of a Catholic sect. I hope I have helped to make this very important distinction.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM
More like, if you are packing a legal and licenced piece, you cannot be arrested with the proposition that, being a gun owner, you may also possibly own an uzi.
You can cordion off any number of blocks in most cities and round up the citizens due to clearly visible patterns of abuse and teenage pregnancy by much older men, but you wouldn’t because you have to connect specific activity of a specific crime to a specific perp.
A CNN reporter was noting that of the many supposedly underage pregnant girls were found to actually be in their 20’s. She also noted that the original “insider” report that prompted this action is known to be a hoax. I think there was a rush to judgement that came out of fear of folks who act, dress and believe differently than most. I am glad that the state is now being required to bring specific charges of specific crimes by specific perps. Having said that, if there are women in this sect who have been abused, they have had a chance to speak up; I don’t think we as Americans can save everyone, especially against their will, not even our own.
shuzilla on May 22, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Why?
I’m sure there’s still some state where a BJ would be illegal. Or certainly some anal action. Even on an institutional scale.
How does this per se threaten children?
Stephen M on May 22, 2008 at 7:34 PM
TexasDan on May 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM
They are no more Mormon than a Lutheran is considered a Catholic.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Guess what…I never said they were Mormon.
Although I did not write it, what part of that don’t you understand?
Anyone of average intelligence would have read that.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM
We are on the same page it seems :)
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I don’t care for what’s going on in that church, but I care even less for a government going in and taking all those kids from their parents based on flimsy (at best) evidence. Having the government say “you’re too weird” gives up too much of our inherent power to the state.
As for bigamy being illegal, I think (though I’m not a Texas lawyer) that as long as they don’t go around applying for benefits as husband and wife and wife and wife then they are o.k. Either that or hiding another marriage from a spouse.
rbj on May 22, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Conservative Voice
I know I just read that. I used to be Lutheran and converted – are you LDS?
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Why do Christians get so exercised by polygamy? I’m not advocating it, I’m just curious why it’s a big deal.
Spirit of 1776 on May 22, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Conservative Voice
By the way, that was very interesting that we used the same analogy. It’s like you’re in my head. Get out of there for your own safety!!
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 7:41 PM
AGREED! By the way, where were the feminists on this one? They scream and holler when illegals are “stripped” from their illegal anchor babies, so why not this time? Nevermind. I already know.
SouthernGent on May 22, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Precisely.
There was a guy on trial for polygamy in Brazil iirc. The Judge said his punishment for having 2 wives was having 2 wives.
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 7:43 PM
By definition, statutory rape is against their will. And to set things straight, having sex with a 13 year old is statutory rape, with or without permission.
And I say, you either agree it is a religious tenant and we leave it alone, or it isn’t and we correct the problem.
Jeffs thinks he is a living prophet, the voice of God…if that is true, then we have no right to do anything within those church walls. As their prophet (just like Smith and Young taught them), he can take child brides and as many wives as possible.
Who are we to deny the voice of God…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:43 PM
EEEEExxxactly.
NTWR on May 22, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Haha. Exactly! I don’t want two wives, but I don’t get why Christians get so irritated by it – I mean, there’s a ton of it in the Bible and in the lineage of Jesus.
Spirit of 1776 on May 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Speaking of Bill Clinton…
sulla on May 22, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 7:39 PM
I am
r2b, you are letting your prejudice cloud your judgment again…this isn’t about polygamy its about the state coming in with full force because people believe differently. If there is actual statutory rape going on, then take care of it…but rounding up whole families based on a hunch is irresponsible.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 7:48 PM
You don’t correct a problem of 15 “possible,” read unproven, unajudicated, cases of statatory rape by rounding up 400 children and basically incarcerating them and breaking up their families. That’s the whole point. If you are going to go about law enforcement in that manner we might as well be living in the USSR.
I bet their are 15 cases a week in Texas of under aged abortions. Are State officials out rounding them up along with their siblings?
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 7:49 PM
TheBigOldDog
I loved this line and I also think there is a lot of truth in it. I can’t imagine all of the logistics involved in trying to make two women happy when I have a hard enough time with one. Add to that more children and more of everything and polygamy just sounds like some kind of terrible punishment.
Case in point. I took my wife and her sister to help when I did a 9 day lecture series in Hawaii a couple of years ago. It sounded like a good idea at the time. HOWEVER, after about day 3 I thought somebody was going home in a body bag.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 7:54 PM
There is a pint about the polygamy that everyone here is missing. In order to stay on the legal side of the law, only one wife has a marriage license. The remainder have a religious ceremony, however in the eyes of the law they are not legally married.
Texas Child Services better prepare for a lawsuit, and I am willing to bet that if there were abusers within the compound, they are now even more insulated because no judge is going to sign a warrant against this group without ironclad proof.
As a parent I am relieved because I was waiting for the next group to come under fire if Texas had succeeded, maybe the catholics, or the muslims, or just pick your religious group that has pissed off the local social workers at CPS.
I am sad though because if any of the children were or are being abused, the system has failed them by attempting to throw the baby out with the bath water.
BFBurke on May 22, 2008 at 7:55 PM
It would be horrifically ugly if it did so, yet it would be the correct decision. I’m not sure I’d like to win a Constitutional battle from this context – yet polygamy should certainly be legal, along with any number of permutations among consenting adults. See Heinlein’s “Moon is a Harsh Mistress” for details ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Where did I mention polygamy (except to defend myself when I was misquoted or the quotes defining the FLDS as not being part of the LDS)? I think your prejudice is clouding your judgment. You are the second poster mis-quoting me.
Post what you are referring to, otherwise don’t make statements that you can’t back up. Sheesh
*
The problem is the children, look at my first post. The polygamy is mentioned to separate them from the modern LDS, and link them to Smith and Young which Jeffs (and his previous prophets) models themsselves after.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:59 PM
The fact that he would so flagrantly break the law illustrates that he is not Mormon. Part of being Mormon means that you believe in The Articles of Faith. The 12th Article of Faith is:
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:00 PM
It took that long huh? You must be a Saint! LOL!
TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 8:01 PM
And the some posters are right, if gay marriage is acceptable, then plural marriages should be.
Here is a bet for all of the Mormon posters. I will bet if polygamy becomes acceptable under the law, within
105 years your prophet will have a “revelation” and polygamy will be acceptable in the LDS church.right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:03 PM
BFBurke
I don’t know about the laws in TX but if you co-habitate for a certain amount of time in UT then you enter the area of common law. Common law prevents people from skirting the marriage laws with a ploy that you describe.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Heck, maybe he was the one praying to be in the body bag ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Maybe that’s why they build those compounds with loads of separate houses?
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Then your founding prophet Smith and then Young should have been admonished, removed, ex-communicated for breaking the law? By your definition they were not Mormon?
Me thinks you don’t want to say that out loud in your Sunday school.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:07 PM
LimeyGeek
I think you are right and it is the reason their communities are so closed off.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:59 PM
oy, you like playing word games don’t you? Why is the statutory rape an issue r2b? You may have not said “polygamy” and yet you used the same argument the state had in going in the first place. Should the state come in with a hunch that something foul is going on, when it has no proof, other than they “know” these people because of what church they go to? Where is the Proof?
I have followed your posts for some time, so here is some friendly advice for you…you spend a lot of time re-tracking your words, playing the “you mis-quote me” game. Try to speak what you mean the first time, instead of getting all touchy. And please, for someone who claims to have never said the word polygamy so likes to imply it when you point to Joseph Smith and B. Young. Yep you are as pure as the driven snow on this point r2b.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 8:10 PM
right2bright
Actually the laws were not clear on polygamy at the time. It took many years for it to be codified. Joseph Smith was never tried and never convicted of a single crime.
If I felt like there was any subject that I couldn’t discuss in my church then I would know I joined the wrong one.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Hello, are you still out there, please find my post that you claimed I made so I can answer your allegations.
I hate it when posters make a mis-statements (we all do) and then run off.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:10 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:07 PM
wrong, it wasn’t against the law at the time.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 8:11 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Wait r2b I thought you weren’t using the word polygamy.
Just so you know, the church is global, in some places it isn’t illegal for polygamy, and yet your fear never took place.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Did you know that all of those children were forced to strip naked and be poked and prodded by total strangers? That was the CPS doing that, not the parents. Clearly after all of that embarrassment and humiliation and violation of all those little kids, the CPS came up with no evidence of any raping by parents or they would have zealous to present such evidence to the court.
And that was only a small part of the suffering and injustice these kid and parents faced at the hands of this tyrannical and out of control agency.
So if you want to know who did the raping in this case, it was the Texas authorities. Would you like to apologize to all of those parents now, who’s rights were trampled?
Maxx on May 22, 2008 at 8:14 PM
I feel like there is an awkward silence.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:15 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:10 PM
your answer
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:43 PM
now stop playing word games, it old
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 8:16 PM
right2bright
I am curious. I don’t want this to sound argumentative but I get the impression you don’t like the LDS church. I don’t have much to base it on but it’s something I thought I was picking up from some of your posts. The main thing recently that made me want to ask was this comment:
Maybe I’m reading too much into it and obviously you don’t need to answer. I’m more curious than anything.
Naturally I wouldn’t assume that anyone who has a negative feeling about the church is a bigot. Some people just don’t like it. I’ve been a member long enough to get that so I’m just wondering.
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:20 PM
It would encourage more splinter groups, but I think monogamy has become too entrenched in Mormonism to go back. On a personal note, my folks are Mormon. I can’t imagine my Dad telling my mom, ” the last 30 years have been fun, but make room!”
RightOFLeft on May 22, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Shame on you, polygamy was against the law and you know it. Being convicted of a crime and perpetrating the crime are two different acts. You know he had multiple wives and he had at least one child bride.
LDS knew it in 1835.
And Illinois is where Smith lived in 1833, so he knew it.
He not only practiced it, he lied about it to the courts (so much for your 12th article of faith).
Not even in Utah was the practice of polygamy allowed…now you know the rest of the story…it will be an interesting Sunday school class.
If you were just honest about your history…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:22 PM
First of, criminal behavior is not grounds for termination of parental rights. If you commit a crime and are convicted you maintain parental rights. Secondly, they have not even been charged with any crime, let alone convicted, so maybe Texas should have done that first if they have evidence.
It has been shown that the phone call the original warrent was baised on was a hoax. Furthermore it was 5 days after the call before Texas police entered the ranch. By that time they had already talked to the accused’s parole officer and knew he was in Arizona not Texas. They had also traced the calls to Colorado, and after calling the police there where told that one of the phone numbers was connected to a woman who had repeatedly made false child abuse allegations.
In other words they did not have probable cause.
Their second warrant was based on seeing underaged pregnant women. Unfortunately the two women identified in the affidavit were just yesterday ruled to be 18 and 22 respectively. So they were not underage. Furthermore the women had provided birth certificates proving their age at the beginning, and CPS own evidence in the hearing in April showed they were adults. Nevertheless they were held in custody without warrant for over a month.
There are still 5 under 18 girls with children. However at least 2 and maybe 3 of those are in monogamous marriages to men 2 to 4 years older then them. (This is according to the seized evidence that CPS itself produced at the April hearing.) So we are left with 2 to 3 cases with some merit. However Texas has violated so many Constitutional protection that I don’t see they getting any criminal cases out of this.
Thank goodness these judges based their rulings on the actual evidence presented in court, rather then prejudice and news reports that repeat the most outrageous statements despite there being no proof.
Guilt by association is not acceptable, and seizure of children should always be only when there is no other option to protect the safety of the children.
I am surprised that you are so willing to grant the government the ability to violate other American’s civil liberties.
Here are a few places to et some more information on what has been going on:
http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/
http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/cicero/2008/apr/18/texas_pouring_piss_from_a_boot
Sackett on May 22, 2008 at 8:23 PM
The above illustrates how bizarre the CPS mindset has become, because the above quote is what the Texas CPS argued to the court. CPS had no evidence of abuse whatsoever to present to the court, so they tried to sell the court on what is basically a radical feminist view of ALL religions.
Radical feminism seems to be the primary doctrine by which Child Protective Services operate.
Maxx on May 22, 2008 at 8:27 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:22 PM
For someone who tried to play the word game, I never said polygamy is sure making a federal case of it…Please run for Congress, because your integrity will fit well there.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Fair challenge…I don’t understand that protecting of a man who raped children, and broke the law. Smith was an insidious person, yet if you admit it, then the church crumbles.
Smith says he was a prophet, so he took a child from a family (because they were faithful), I abhor such a thought. Yet the LDS worships him. Young did the same thing, yet he is worshipped.
You are trapped defending the indefensible.
Listen, the best man at my son’s wedding is Mormon. Knew him since 2nd grade, he and his family spent many vacations with us, so I have no “bigotry” towards Mormons, just toward people who protect the “bullys” and allow the faithful to be taken advantage of. They came to grips with Smith many years ago, and I honor them for that. There faith is with Christ and the church, but not with Smith and the “prophets”. Now they may have a problem as time goes on, but they understand the tentative nature of their history.
The LDS is a great religious organization, a real machine, well educated, faithful to what they believe, faithful to a fault.
Martin Luther was a brilliant theologian, brought the bible to the masses, broke from “church”, and was a Jew hater. A weak man along those lines, hardly a prophet. I separate his works form his “unworks”.
You can’t, when Smith broke the law, he was proven not to be a prophet, and the cornerstone of your church crumbles…so you can’t accept him as a failed, miserable, false prophet.
Thus you have a church built upon…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:39 PM
right2bright
With respect to plural marriage being illegal I have to disagree. The information that I have about the laws where Joseph Smith lived (remember he lived in MO as well)indicate that it was not illegal. But I could be wrong.
And let’s say for the sake of argument that you are right about the laws. The only thing that it establishes is that I may need to have more understanding of the 12th AofF. I certainly shouldn’t have put it in absolute terms especially regarding laws at that time. Remember it was also legal to shoot Mormons on site when Governor Boggs issued the infamous Extermination Order. There is more nuance to this then my previous post allowed.
But honestly, I don’t know where the animosity is coming from. I have discussed this with you in good faith and certainly not attacked you but you seem to be impugning my honesty. There is a huge difference in being deceitful and having incorrect information. The manner in which you write about the subject of Mormonism seems to be filled with vitriol. Has someone from the church wronged you?
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Don’t make a false accusation, then lay it at my feet…man up and say you made a mistake.
Blaming me for your false post…HA!
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Texas did not learn from David Koresh. Texas will not learn from Eldorado. The CPS (Child Protective Services) and the judge in this case in San Angelo (Judge Barbara Walther) are fascists beyond your expectations.
These people took over 450 children from their parents. These people are going to come for your children next. If you think you’re not next you’re doing bong hits.
pabarge on May 22, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Where are the charge sheets?
What names?
What we have here folks is Texas taxpayers are about to pay huge sums of money to this group.
If a crime took place then charge the SOB but this blanket action on the part of CPS was flat out wrong.
How many underage girls are living in south Dallas with children and why haven’t they and their families been rounded up, seperated, and interrogated to find out just who the hell the daddies are?
Limerick on May 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Now you are becoming a dog chasing her own tail
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Don’t be coy, “wronged you”?
Listen to what you wrote, now if Smith did do that, maybe you don’t understand the 12 article.
Okay, here it is, Polygamy was against the law everwhere, including Utah and Mo.
He knew it, now if you want to deny it…and you must or you lose a church, fine. But don’t say I was “wronged” when you are defending a child rapist. He did take a child bride, now do you deny that? That is who you consider the founder, the first Prophet of your church, and Young took his child brides and many wives, which was against the law.
Now will you just admit that, and we can all agree…Young and Smith were false prophets.
And if not, then what other facts are you hiding…see your integrity is based on how honest you post. Not how gentle you post.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:50 PM
The response I expected…
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:51 PM
right2bright
Please read this in the spirit that it is offered and then I won’t bring it up to again because we have strayed far afield. Mormons don’t worship Joseph Smith and anyone who tells you that we do is purposely trying to deceive you. I know about the background and history of Josephy Smith and Brigham Young. I am convert to the church so I did my homework before joining. The experience in joining the church was so powerful it changed my entire life. It is part of my book that I would be happy to send to you at no charge if you are genuinely interested.
The things you attribute to Joseph Smith are a perfect example of character assasination. Taking events out of their proper context always gives the opportunity for incorrect interpretation. Consider the story of an old man who took his son and planned to kill him and offer him as a sacrifice. He built a pyre and prepared the child for sacrifice. Arm raised in anticipation of ending his child’s life he was stopped at the last moment.
Many Christians and Jews recognize this as the story of Abraham (then Abram) and Isaac and do not condemn Abraham because we have the story in its proper context.
Might I suggest that if you have sincere questions about things that are simply unknowable (such as the decency or malevolence of Joseph Smith) that you start your own research and don’t rely on people who have fallen away from the church or even getting your information from people who are in the church. That is what I did and I found that the answers were plentiful and easy to find. There is a lot of information that is based on antipathy for the church which is no way to write history.
I hope that my offer is received with the genuine nature with which it is offered and that you will reflect on and recognize what I am pointing out.
Warm regards,
James Ballou
http://www.jamesballou.com
Mormon Doc on May 22, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Wrong as that was, it was because? Could it have been polygamy?
I think that pretty much seals the case as to if polygamy was against the law.
And extermination order is pretty obvious.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:55 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:51 PM
You mean a response you provoked and often seek? You accused me of taking you out of context, yet I have shown you I was accurate all along, yet you keep playing word games to deflect the issue.
I will restate it for you, in plain English. This isn’t about polygamy, ( and will add this isn’t about Joseph Smith or the Mormon Church ) in fact this issue isn’t about what the FLDS believe…its about the state coming in with full power on a hunch based on the people in power bias about another person’s faith, and that should worry ANYONE who understands the constitution. If they have a case for statutory rape, then go and arrest the rapist…not the whole neighborhood — rounding up 400 kids on a hunch is a gross misuse of power.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 9:03 PM
I’ve been following this case closely from day one and CPS has lied and cheated at every turn. When the story first broke, I was fuming – I advocate public hangings for pedophiles – but the more I investigated, the more I found CPS’s accusations to be baseless.
The original call was a hoax perpetrated by a chronic prank caller. She’s been known to CPS and in police custody for quite a while. The “pregnant teens” are grown women (some as old as 27) who offered legal documents verifying their age. CPS chose to look at the ladies instead and guess their ages. One “pregnant teen” was a fourteen-year-old who was fed up and refused CPS’s demand she take a pregnancy test. She finally consented and, when the test came up negative, CPS made her retake the test four more times.
This is all just the tip of the iceberg. I invite you to seek more information – from both sides – on this case. I believe you will discover that CPS has done a great disservice to these families and the Media has been a partner in this miscarriage of justice.
Mrs. Happy Housewife on May 22, 2008 at 9:05 PM
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 8:55 PM
And if it was polygamy it would be OK? Wow, I take it back, don’t run for Congress…power in your hands would be awful.
Conservative Voice on May 22, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »