534 removed from Mormon Compound

[MountainMoon22]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440

So the police go into this compound and remove all of these women and children who are born into this sect of Mormonism, a way of life that is illegal according to the state. My question is, does this count as an infringement upon people's freedom of religion? When is a religion determined a cult? If the state doesn't like that I'm Catholic, can they raid our house?

I'm not condoning the principles of this particular religion, I find them abhorrent, but something about this story doesn't sit right with me.

[pamperedchef]

The problem here is not their religion, per se. It is the fact that underage girls are being "forced" to marry older men. And they are being raped and abused by them. Also, polygamy is against the law, is it not? So, therefore they have every right to bring down this "cult".

[WVGeo]

The problem is not just polygamy, either, but that that they have become compounds led by older men who trade in young girls. The marriage age of girls in some of them is 14 - a violation of child sex laws.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

LOOK at that FANTASTIC compound (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/04/05/polygamist-texas.html)! Holy CRAP!

[MountainMoon22]

I hate that Will Robinson thing...as I said NOT condoning the religion (cult) or its precepts - I understand the child sex part and the forced marriage thing, but what do they do with the people after they close down their ranch? These are virtually brainwashed women and children with no money, no livelihood, and no concept of modern society - where do they go?

[WVGeo]

I hate that Will Robinson thing...as I said NOT condoning the religion (cult) or its precepts - I understand the child sex part and the forced marriage thing, but what do they do with the people after they close down their ranch? These are virtually brainwashed women and children with no money, no livelihood, and no concept of modern society - where do they go?

Very good question, especially since they are raised not to trust anyone from the outside world. There will be social workers and psychologists involved with the kids initially, but what I wonder what will happen once the press gets tired of it and it drops off the news radar?

[WVGeo]

And that's a whole bunch to find foster homes for in a pinch - especially the teens who are pregnant and/or have children. There just aren't that many emergency placement homes anywhere.

Defining "religion" is definitely a problem from a legal standpoint.

[MountainMoon22]

So their choices are to, convert or die? How evolved are we these days?

As disturbing as what's happening inside those walls is what's happening outside them. Uncle Sam says to little 4 year old boy - you can't see your mommy and daddy anymore because your daddy is a bad man and your mommy is a crazy religious freak, so we'll get you a new family (or not). You can go live in a warehouse where you'll be teased, beaten up, and like as not abused or molested with no one to protect you. These poor people.

[Black Dog]

I agree. There's some things wrong with this. The authorities aren't detailing their reasons for believing the children are in danger. The issue with forced marriages with underaged girls is valid but I can't see where that warrants removal of everyone from the compound.
Also, their temple is very important in their religion. Having outsiders just come tramping in is desecration to them and deserves some respect unless there is valid reason to believe someones life is in danger in there.
As others have said, I don't condone abuse of children or illegal marriage of minors but something just doesn't seem right with the way this is going down.

[KemCam2]

I didn't read the article, I saw it on the news, it did say why they went in right?

Because of the (then) 15 year old girl that called out for help...As of last night (the news) they were still looking for said girl...

It is better to break it up now and figure out what to do with these people than to have it go on for many many many more years...IMO.

[Starbuck]

It seems to me that religious freedoms are becoming less so in our country today. This is not the first news story where people have been charged. I've seen more of these (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4550151&page=1) stories in the past few years. And while I certainly disagree with the motives of these parents...prayer over medicine...I wonder where this type of thing will stop. Like, I would give my child antibiotics for bacterial pneumonia, but what if the doctors wanted to give my child something else, and I disagreed with them (medicine doesn't always know best), then in some instances I would be arrested. I don't like that. It's my family, my money, and therefore, my choice to make.

[derricksonb]

These are virtually brainwashed women and children with no money, no livelihood, and no concept of modern society - where do they go?

I hear Nanuk has a few openings available at his Chateau de Amore......

[Chutney Daftcraft]

It seems to me that religious freedoms are becoming less so in our country today. This is not the first news story where people have been charged. I've seen more of these (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4550151&page=1) stories in the past few years. And while I certainly disagree with the motives of these parents...prayer over medicine...I wonder where this type of thing will stop. Like, I would give my child antibiotics for bacterial pneumonia, but what if the doctors wanted to give my child something else, and I disagreed with them (medicine doesn't always know best), then in some instances I would be arrested. I don't like that. It's my family, my money, and therefore, my choice to make.

Thank you.

As long as insurance companies can get away with their decisions that kill people, then family members should be able to as well.

Say someone NEEDS a certain type of treatment to kill their cancer. Unless it's radiation, the insurance company most likely won't cover it. Then the person dies, when the procedure would have most likely saved them. Yay! Maximize those profits! Create that Value for shareholders! Yippee!

As long as charges aren't being brought on THAT behavior, then charges should not be brought on this. Sometimes people die because of bad medical choices. The lesson is this: If their parents were a HUGE corporation, they wouldn't have even been asked why they made the choice they made. Such as:


On May 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_30), 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996), Peeno testified before Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) as to the downside of managed care.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Peeno#cite_note-0)
“I wish to begin by making a public confession: In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I caused the death of a man. Although this was known to many people, I have not been taken before any court of law or called to account for this in any professional or public forum. In fact, just the opposite occurred: I was "rewarded" for this. It bought me an improved reputation in my job, and contributed to my advancement afterwards. Not only did I demonstrate I could indeed do what was expected of me, I exemplified the "good" company doctor: I saved a half million dollars.
”“I contend that "managed care," as we currently know it, is inherently unethical in its organization and operation. Furthermore, I maintain that we have an industry which can exist only through flagrant ethical violations against individuals and the public.


Unless of course it's an open-and-shut case of neglect and they're just using faith and god as a cover-up for their reckless behavior. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone propped up god, hid behind him, and then blamed him for their actions. :rolleyes:

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Also, interesting point about religious freedom.

Pay attention, and observe which religions are protected by religious freedoms, and which are not. A pattern will emerge if you're paying attention.

[WVGeo]

This will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction because it involves religious faith. Our perceptions of it will be colored by our own religious faiths (and the knowledge that faith itself isn't something that is completely definable or explainable), our culture (they may have a harder time in, say, an area of Baptists than they would in an area where some version of their own sect was more common), and media representation of the situation (not necessarily the true situation, especially where religion is concerned).

I was tempted to say that they needed to obey the laws of whatever state they live in, but in the end you might feel called by God to place what you perceive as God's law above man's law. And that could happen to any of us and have nothing to do with underage girls in forced marriages.

[Black Dog]

Also, interesting point about religious freedom.

Pay attention, and observe which religions are protected by religious freedoms, and which are not. A pattern will emerge if you're paying attention.
I see what you're getting at but The Church of Latter Day Saints IS a Christian denomination.

[Starbuck]

It feels a little like a slam against the Constitution to me. For example, we are guaranteed freedom of religion in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now, this tells me that if I decide I want to become a snake handler, or go live without electricity, or refuse blood transfusions, I should be able to do so without fear of retribution by the state. And if this is how I wish to raise my children, that should be my choice as a parent. And as long as I'm not beating my children or otherwise abusing them, I should be allowed to do with them as I see fit.

I realize many people might feel that praying instead of giving medicine to a child is abuse, but if the parents really believed they were doing the best for their child within the tenets of their faith (and not just being neglectful), then who are we to judge?

The whole focus on children and their safety is a relatively new concept. 150 years ago, a 14YO married to a 50YO wouldn't have raised eyebrows, you know. Indeed, if you didn't have kids by the time you were 19, you were fast on your way to becoming an old maid.

[WVGeo]

Well, trouble is, if you read the thinking of the Founding Fathers, all they intended to do was prevent a state church that one was required by law to support. Remember that the official church of England was headed by the King of England at the time of the Revolution, and was supported by mandatory taxes.

Then you have the problem of definition of what is a religion. The sect whose compound was raided is in itself a spin off of Mormonism and is in violation of current Mormon teaching. Some people consider Mormonism itself to NOT be Christian because it's teachings do not follow traditional Christian teachings concerning the Trinity. However, as a practicing Catholic, I can tell you that some people don't consider the Catholic faith to be Christian, either.

[MountainMoon22]

I see what you're getting at but The Church of Latter Day Saints IS a Christian denomination.

Yeah, maybe to some of us, but there are Christians and there's CHRISTIANS - the ones who think that Jesus saves, except for the Muslims, the Catholics, the Jewish people, the Mormons, and every other pesky religion not infiltrated by backwards rednecks.

[WVGeo]

Messy, ain't it?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

You have to see THIS (http://www.watchtvsitcoms.com/SouthPark/S07E12.php).

It's actually the true story.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

there's CHRISTIANS

Uh huh. The one's that force their way into US politics and try to impose the will of their warped hateful Jesus on the rest of us? God only loves them, you know...

Funny, because last night, God told me to listen to the Bible and throw rocks at unruly children until they die from it. Does that get me a free pass from prosecution if I so choose to listen to his calling? It's right there in the Bible - you are to throw rocks at unruly children until they die. I need to get on down to the candy-filled checkout lines at Wal-Mart...


Here's some more fun-filled parenting advice from the Bible:

Exodus 21:15 (supposedly spoken by God to Moses)
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:17 (supposedly spoken by God to Moses)
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 (supposedly spoken by God to Moses)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Yes, I have a HATE for people that blame their actions on God. God hasn't told anyone to do anything for him in a loooooooong time. He's far too busy making statues cry and seeing over the virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich...

[betcsu]

city...... :lol:

[Black Dog]

City, are you saying that the government is wrong in this case because of their singular belief that only their own hating-Jesus is the correct path or are the followers of this religion in the wrong because their founder was supposedly directed by an angel to follow the beliefs they do?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

In this case, the government was wrong to assume custody of all these children BEFORE an investigation was completed. I do have a problem with THAT.

However, the idea of marrying underaged girls is illegal, and I hate to say it, but the law of the land trumps the law of the bible *always*. Those who hide behind it do not deserve the cover it supposedly provides - in fact - they deserve the punishments the Bible suggests, right?

Then again, the Bible *encourages* child abuse. SB's right. It's only recently that children matter. To be seen, right?

[WVGeo]

Using individual, selected verses to support your position is called "proof texting" and isn't considered a valid method by all denominations. You also have to have an understanding of culture and history.

In most cases, you indeed have to follow the law of the land. But a problem arises when you truly believe the law of the land is wrong to the point of trying to force you to live in violation of God's law. In China, being part of a church not supported and controlled by the state is illegal. People are being tortured and dying there rather than violate their religious beliefs about the validity of the non-state supported churches.

This is not to support forced marriages of 14 yr old girls to 50 yr old men. I strongly suspect that it's way more about power, money, and sex to the men than it is religion.

[Black Dog]

I was only trying to understand where you were coming from and am not even going to try to get into Bible interpretation, but.....


and I hate to say it, but the law of the land trumps the law of the bible *always*.
six million jews and some members of other oppressed religions around the world might disagree with you.

[WVGeo]

Yes. It's perfectly possible for the law of the land to be immoral. And there are many places in the world where death and torture are still the price you pay for adhering to your religion, even if you live otherwise law abiding lives.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I was only trying to understand where you were coming from and am not even going to try to get into Bible interpretation, but.....


six million jews and some members of other oppressed religions around the world might disagree with you.

But... That's not the law of the land. And if it is, then those people can move, right? Why aren't the mormons still in Nauvoo, IL? That is *using* a position within the law of the land to carry out exterminations based on personal beliefs. I was also not referring to religious oppression laws, like China or whatever.

*MY* god says that I shall go forth as fast as my chariot can take me. Should I ignore posted speed limits?

[Black Dog]

But... That's not the law of the land. And if it is, then those people can move, right? Why aren't the mormons still in Nauvoo, IL? That is *using* a position within the law of the land to carry out exterminations based on personal beliefs. I was also not referring to religious oppression laws, like China or whatever.

*MY* god says that I shall go forth as fast as my chariot can take me. Should I ignore posted speed limits?
It apparently was the law of the land in Nazi Germany and if memory serves correctly they could not just move and some were smuggled out or hidden. It is the perceived law of the land by some Muslim groups (see: Taliban) to kill Christians, women who don't wear a burkha, etc.

I don't know about God and speeding but personally I think that might be schizophrenia.
Anyway, as I said, I don't want to get into interpretation of God's word. My thing is that the authorities in this case have apparently evacuated and shut down an entire complex and way of life based on allegations made by one girl who's not even in their custody.
I don't support this particular sect's beliefs or practices but I do question the legality of what the authorities are doing.

[WVGeo]

Remember Waco?

Actually, speeding could be considered disobediance to legitimate authority - a sin. And then you go back around the circle to legitimate authority, because I don't believe legitimate authority can tell me what religion to belong to...

And the issue of mental illness. And power and sex and money.

But there is obviously debate here - and that helps. The right decision may not always be made. But the decisions need to be out in the open and debated and discussed. And prayed about.

[Starbuck]

six million jews and some members of other oppressed religions around the world might disagree with you.

But isn't Nazi Germany evidence of the law of the land trumping the will of God? Hitler did not claim God told him to exterminate the Jews. And the Taliban? Well, I'm not an Islamic scholar, but I would hope executing Christians and women not wearing burqas is a warped interpretation of a bible verse and not actual Islamic teaching...although I have read excerpts from the Qu'ran where the husband was given permission to beat his wife into submission, so maybe they do have divine permission to kill...but perhaps this is evidence of Geo's "proof texting."

I like that most seem in agreement about the authorities overstepping their bounds, despite our debate on why! :thumbsup:

[grafxgirl]

Here's something I've never understood. If polygamy is illegal and marrying underage children is illegal, then how do they get away with it so often? Don't these marriages have to be documented like our monogamous marriages?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

It apparently was the law of the land in Nazi Germany and if memory serves correctly they could not just move and some were smuggled out or hidden.

No, it was MADE the law after Hitler took over. That's not the same thing. There is also a difference between laws, and laws of the land. Here, being a Christian is supreme. It's the law of our land. In the middle east, not so much supreme. See what I'm sayin?


It is the perceived law of the land by some Muslim groups (see: Taliban) to kill Christians, women who don't wear a burkha, etc.

I cannot comment on laws of other countries. I was referring to free countries where evidence of religious suppression are almost non-existant. Obviously in countries that are oppressed both the law of the land and the law of the Bible are criminally insane and warped.


I don't know about God and speeding but personally I think that might be schizophrenia.

Exactly.



Anyway, as I said, I don't want to get into interpretation of God's word. My thing is that the authorities in this case have apparently evacuated and shut down an entire complex and way of life based on allegations made by one girl who's not even in their custody.
I don't support this particular sect's beliefs or practices but I do question the legality of what the authorities are doing.


As do I. I also wonder what the motivation was, and to be completely honest with you... I am personally convinced that the "report" never happened in the first place. I think that was just made up. They had better be prepared to "reset" everything they've done once THAT gets uncovered.

You don't just take people's children away from them based on hearsay. There had BETTER be some other evidence of child abuse. Seriously. The taking the kids and making them wards of the state is absolutely infuriating me.

They'd BETTER produce that girl and they'd BETTER have that conversation withn her backed up on tape.

[Black Dog]

But isn't Nazi Germany evidence of the law of the land trumping the will of God? Hitler did not claim God told him to exterminate the Jews. And the Taliban?
That's exactly what I was saying. City's statement seemed to imply that the law of the land should trump. I was only citing cases where it shouldn't. And on the Taliban, I said perceived law of the land in the case of the Taliban. I'm not an Islamic scholar but I've seen many examples and excerpts from the Qu'ran that state that there is a duty to jihad and to kill infidels. I can't state that as fact since I've only seen it out of context, however many actions in recent years seem to bear out the fact that many Muslims believe this.

[Black Dog]

Here's something I've never understood. If polygamy is illegal and marrying underage children is illegal, then how do they get away with it so often? Don't these marriages have to be documented like our monogamous marriages?
I did hear in one news report (only one) that marriage records are part of what they are seeking. I guess they keep their own records somewhere in the compound. I also heard, and I'm not sure if I have it correct, that the cops want into the temple or whatever they call it because they think that's where they are, but their warrant doesn't cover it. The sect is asking that they come up with the proper court request and they will provide it without the need to desecrate their temple. Again, just one thing I heard.

[WVGeo]

despite our debate on why!

There is definitely danger when the debate is stopped.

[MountainMoon22]

What if said 15 year old girl doesnt even exist?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

What if said 15 year old girl doesnt even exist?

THAT is EXACTLY what I am saying! I'm not buying the report.

If that report were true, they probably wouldn't have shared it. But the fact that it's being touted as the primary excuse for such overstepping tells me that there's no merit to it at all. The 15 year old girl is the WMD.

[WVGeo]

What if said 15 year old girl doesnt even exist?

If it turns out she doesn't exist, is any other evidence, including pregnant 15 yr olds, usable in court? Don't know how that works.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I can't shake this feeling that they just made up the part about the 15 year old girl.

They probably figured they'd find *something* while they were there to run with.

If it is proven that the 15 year old girl thing was just made up, we have one hell of a constitutional problem here, regardless of other evidence...

[Starbuck]

This is probably just some fallout from some of the liberties taken away courtesy of Pres. Bush and the Patriot Act. But don't worry, you're safer!!!! :rolleyes:

I know if my child was taken from my custody and I was forced to leave my home because the state decided it had nothing better to do than go on a fishing expedition at the expense of my family because it didn't happen to like my religion, said state would have one h--- of a fight on its hands. Oh yes, they would.

[MountainMoon22]

Yeah, even if the end justifies the means, it's one heck of a precedent they're setting.

[WVGeo]

This is probably just some fallout from some of the liberties taken away courtesy of Pres. Bush and the Patriot Act. But don't worry, you're safer!!!! :rolleyes:

I know if my child was taken from my custody and I was forced to leave my home because the state decided it had nothing better to do than go on a fishing expedition at the expense of my family because it didn't happen to like my religion, said state would have one h--- of a fight on its hands. Oh yes, they would.

Uh, like I said - Anyone remember Waco? This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Or Ruby Ridge.

[[email protected]]

my husbands family are mormons and i have never heard of them ever using polygamy since i been around them and as in the mormons not believing god can save you that is not true either they do believe in that as well and the article reads 534 women and children leave a POLYGAMIST RANCH NOT A MORMON RANCH dont get me wrong because i think it is and awful thing im just trying to let people know that as far as know mormons are not bad people in my book i am not a mormon but my in laws are

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Mormon's are GREAT people. The most polite bunch I've EVER met. I wish all my immediate neighbors were Mormon.

[Jenniffer]

Mainstream LDSs formally renounced what they call "plural marriage" in 1890 (after heavy pressure from the government and society at large), but there are fundamentalist sects that want to get back to Joseph Smith's original message.

[WVGeo]

It's not even the polygamy. This has us in a bad spot. Nobody wants child abuse to continue if that's what's going on - pretty much everybody on this forum would be good with tossing child abusers off a high cliff. But we don't want the government to swoop in when it comes to religion, either. Too many bad precidents.

OK, I give up. Where's the spell check on this thing?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Mainstream LDSs formally renounced what they call "plural marriage" in 1890 (after heavy pressure from the government and society at large), but there are fundamentalist sects that want to get back to Joseph Smith's original message.

I am so in love with how you said that. And you know damn well what I mean...

[Chutney Daftcraft]

It's not even the polygamy. This has us in a bad spot. Nobody wants child abuse to continue if that's what's going on - pretty much everybody on this forum would be good with tossing child abusers off a high cliff. But we don't want the government to swoop in when it comes to religion, either. Too many bad precidents.

OK, I give up. Where's the spell check on this thing?

Yes it does. The government just cannot swoop in on hunches. That's called a gestapo state. I really, really hope that the original 15 year old report is true, because if it isn't... Wow.

However, I am also sick and tired of people hiding behind God so they can do whatever THEY want to do. These men aren't marrying many wives because God told them to. C'mon! I'm just NOT buying it!

But where does the line get drawn? If anyone is to believe that these control freaks assuming complete control of many women and children's lives is doing this because of God and not their personal interests.... Well, those people had also BETTER believe it when a death row inmate finds God on death row.

Either way, there had better be just cause.

[Nanuk]

I can't shake this feeling that they just made up the part about the 15 year old girl.

They probably figured they'd find *something* while they were there to run with.

If it is proven that the 15 year old girl thing was just made up, we have one hell of a constitutional problem here, regardless of other evidence...

And since it hasn't been proven--or even suggested by anyone--you'll take the opportunity to start the rumor, won't you? Why can you not stop hating our government and ascribing so many evil motives to it even when it's doing good? Seriously...if our government came up with a cure for AIDS tomorrow and cured every single affected person in Africa by the end of the week, you'd spin it and hit us all with some tale about a secret American plot to kill off all of the blacks through overpopulation and starvation so that greedy white developers could exploit the land, wouldn't you? Come on...be honest now.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

What??!!??

[babbaganoosh]

I don't really get the whole religion, or any organized religion for that matter... However, a 14 or 15 year old girl in most cases is sexually mature and able to bear children. It's not like they are molesting 6 year olds.. Not too long ago it was common in this country for young females to get married to older men and have children. People all over the world get married and have children at much younger ages than we do here.

I don't agree with the whole deal, but taking every child from a community seems extreme. Especially when they authorities are taking children that they know are in no danger whatsoever. Most of these people including the teenage brides believe strongly in their faith. Seems like a slippery slope to me.

[Carl_kps]

I will have to give the goverment credit on the fact they managed to take everyone in cusody without anyone being injured.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I just cannot get past the fact that CPS took custody of the children without conducting a thorough investigation first. You don't just take someone's kids like that and then start the investigation. :rolleyes:

[Starbuck]

And since it hasn't been proven--or even suggested by anyone--you'll take the opportunity to start the rumor, won't you? Why can you not stop hating our government and ascribing so many evil motives to it even when it's doing good? Seriously...if our government came up with a cure for AIDS tomorrow and cured every single affected person in Africa by the end of the week, you'd spin it and hit us all with some tale about a secret American plot to kill off all of the blacks through overpopulation and starvation so that greedy white developers could exploit the land, wouldn't you? Come on...be honest now.

Rumor? Whatever :rolleyes:

Come up with the 15YO and there's no problem. C'mon, CNN released her name and statement last night, so it shouldn't be that hard to produce her, right?

Because without that, all the evidence gained from the search warrants is then inadmissible in court, isn't it? Because it should be.

[MountainMoon22]

What gets me is the kids taken from their families. Since when has the government ever done a good job of taking care of children?

They're relocating these children with Baptist churches, in case you didn't catch THAT tidbit on the news last night.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

They're relocating these children with Baptist churches, in case you didn't catch THAT tidbit on the news last night.

WHAT?!? Oh F no!

I cannot believe it's 2008 and this is America.

I almost refuse to believe that the CPS is working with churches.

[Nanuk]

Come up with the 15YO and there's no problem. C'mon, CNN released her name and statement last night, so it shouldn't be that hard to produce her, right?

Because without that, all the evidence gained from the search warrants is then inadmissible in court, isn't it? Because it should be.


First of all, you're assuming that she hasn't been spirited away or otherwise disposed of, and that was actually the concern that led to this action. And the warrant was issued based on a showing of probable cause that was already in the possession of the government. A judge looked at the affidavit and approved the warrant to go in and seize whatever was sought. The mere fact that this girl hasn't turned up in no way negates that.



But again, here we have government action in response to a call for help and a concern that the caller may be at risk, and all we're getting from the usual suspects here is suspicion that several police officers, prosecutors and a judge or two got together and cooked up an elaborate lie just as an excuse to raid a group of people who apparently weren't bothering anyone.


So I guess that based on this and other recent threads, the only time the government can ever act is when there's a claim that somewhere, somehow, a homosexual or minority has somehow been discriminated against. Anyone else in trouble? Tough.

[Nanuk]

I just cannot get past the fact that CPS took custody of the children without conducting a thorough investigation first. You don't just take someone's kids like that and then start the investigation. :rolleyes:

Commonly done where there is a showing that actual harm to children has, is or will occur during the course of an investigation.

If CPS gets a report from a hospital that says that a five year old girl is being sexually abused, you don't want that kid returned to the suspected abusers before it's investigated, do you?

[Starbuck]

Actually, these people represent a minority...a not-very-large religious sect (hence NOT a majority) comprised primarily of women (again, an arguable minority) and children.

It has more to do with the fact that the police appear to have raided a religious compound with little to no evidence of wrongdoing, thereby infringing on these people's constitutional rights. However reprehensible the actions of the sect (and make no mistake that I do find it reprehensible that a 14YO is forced into marriage), they are not breaking the law.

OK, maybe they are breaking Texas law, where you are not allowed to marry under age 16 under any circumstances, but if they weren't married by the state, are the breaking the law then?

[MountainMoon22]

Actually, these people represent a minority...a not-very-large religious sect (hence NOT a majority) comprised primarily of women (again, an arguable minority) and children.

It has more to do with the fact that the police appear to have raided a religious compound with little to no evidence of wrongdoing, thereby infringing on these people's constitutional rights. However reprehensible the actions of the sect (and make no mistake that I do find it reprehensible that a 14YO is forced into marriage), they are not breaking the law.

OK, maybe they are breaking Texas law, where you are not allowed to marry under age 16 under any circumstances, but if they weren't married by the state, are the breaking the law then?

Well, it's child abuse sanctioned by a church, they are definately breaking the law. They're breeding young girls. It's probably pretty bad if over 100 women left of their own volition, as the news reports. However, I think that they should have removed or relocated the people as a group while they're investigating.

[WVGeo]

My discomfort comes from memories of Waco, where child abuse charges were trumped up in order to go after a sect and when large numbers of authorities swooped in everybody ended up dead. That, and I'm never sure the media is accurately reporting what's going on.

On the other hand, sometimes children do have to be removed from parents - giving birth to a child doesn't mean that a person will take care of them. My daughter sees a lot of horribly abused children. And she sees cases where the parents have manipulated the local media, who then have manipulated the public through false reporting, to the point that CPS doesn't dare remove the child even though they know the child is being abused. Child Protective Services social workers live in a lose lose situation - they are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The children of this group will go into Baptist homes because that's what's available. The sect was concentrated together in the compound - there aren't members that lived outside the compound that could take in the children.

[Nanuk]

On the other hand, sometimes children do have to be removed from parents - giving birth to a child doesn't mean that a person will take care of them. My daughter sees a lot of horribly abused children. And she sees cases where the parents have manipulated the local media, who then have manipulated the public through false reporting, to the point that CPS doesn't dare remove the child even though they know the child is being abused. Child Protective Services social workers live in a lose lose situation - they are damned if they do, damned if they don't.



Very true. And social workers and medical care providers can be held liable if they do not act in response to reports or other evidence of child abuse. They're instructed to err on the side of caution because the child typically has no other advocate and is almost always defenseless.

Back in my paramedic days, I had several incidents where I went into a home, saw what I beleived to be signs of abuse or neglect, and summoned CPS out for an instant protective removal of the child or children (or vulnerable elderly adults). It wasn't something that I did lightly but the alternative--leaving the victim at continued risk--wasn't acceptable.

if the investigation turns up no actual abuse or neglect, no problem. Everything goes back the way it was. No harm, no foul.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Commonly done where there is a showing that actual harm to children has, is or will occur during the course of an investigation.

If CPS gets a report from a hospital that says that a five year old girl is being sexually abused, you don't want that kid returned to the suspected abusers before it's investigated, do you?

Funny, that's what they usually do. I reported my father in Florida after he decided giving me a black eye and sending me to school was funny. He beatn my ass that night because I embarrassed him in front of his drug dealer. They went and told my father everything I said to them, and then left me in that house. I begged to be removed and placed into a different situation until my mother could come down and get me. They said that was not warranted, even though I had bruises in various places and the black eye/fat lip combo.

That was the Friday before Spring Break, so you can imagine what i went thru on Spring Break. I broke out of the house that I was literally locked in, and ran away. I called my mom, who told me to call the police. I did. The police... well, they immediately took me back to my father while I was kicking and screaming for them not to. I got a few more bruises that night.

So F CPS. They do NOT remove people before investigation...

[Nanuk]

So F CPS. They do NOT remove people before investigation...

So based upon your singular anecdotal example, no protective agency in any state ever removes children proactively?

Sorry, but as one who has been in the business, I can tell you that they do and they do it often. I can't speak to your experience because I wasn't there but it's not typical. If I as an emeregency health care provider suspect abuse or neglect, the child or vulnerable adult will be removed immediately pending an investigation. That's the law in every state that I'm familiar with.

[WVGeo]

Funny, that's what they usually do. I reported my father in Florida after he decided giving me a black eye and sending me to school was funny. He beatn my ass that night because I embarrassed him in front of his drug dealer. They went and told my father everything I said to them, and then left me in that house. I begged to be removed and placed into a different situation until my mother could come down and get me. They said that was not warranted, even though I had bruises in various places and the black eye/fat lip combo.

That was the Friday before Spring Break, so you can imagine what i went thru on Spring Break. I broke out of the house that I was literally locked in, and ran away. I called my mom, who told me to call the police. I did. The police... well, they immediately took me back to my father while I was kicking and screaming for them not to. I got a few more bruises that night.

So F CPS. They do NOT remove people before investigation...

It depends on where you are and what the laws are. And if they can get a judge (or in MD, a Master) to order the child's removal. CPS doesn't just function disconnected from everything else. Sometimes they can take kids on a temporary basis until the investigation is complete if the situation is bad enough - i.e. baby ends up in hospital because it was crawling around on drug-strewn floor and ingested stuff. There are a lot of factors. Believe me, CPS workers go into the job idealistic and thinking they are going to save the world. Then they end up putting in 60-80 hr weeks and see so much horror and deal with so many idiotic adults, from parents to judges, that they burn out from the stress.

[Kensey]

On the one hand, I believe wholeheartedly in separation of church and state. On the other, no right is absolute -- you don't have the right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you don't have the right to own a gun if you've been convicted of a felony, etc.

When it comes down to it, I think we have to apply religious freedom individually here. The girls in question have the right when they reach adulthood to reject the religion of their parents and cease living by its tenets. So if it's shown that these girls were being treated as adults by their leadership (engaging in marriages), then the leadership also has to allow them the rights that come with adulthood. If they're being denied those rights, there's a case for intervention.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

So based upon your singular anecdotal example, no protective agency in any state ever removes children proactively?

No, that's not just based on that singular experience. I also take friends stories into consideration, and the general conclusion on most personal CPS stories I hear is that the CPS is very ineffective. That also was not the first time CPS was involved with me or my father. See, my father had money and we had a nice home and nice things, so for some reason they felt that wasn't an abusive situation. Dude, I'm telling you, put up a white picket fence, park a Toyota Sienna out front, and you'll cancel out the bruises in the social worker's eyes. Let's not forget about the respectable social workers in DC last year...


Sorry, but as one who has been in the business, I can tell you that they do and they do it often. I can't speak to your experience because I wasn't there but it's not typical.

Yes it is. I have heard CPS horror stories from many people. Of course I can't back that up in writing, but it seems that the CPS goes out of it's way to F a situation up.


If I as an emeregency health care provider suspect abuse or neglect, the child or vulnerable adult will be removed immediately pending an investigation. That's the law in every state that I'm familiar with.

Funny. Here's (http://www.childprotectionreform.org/testimony/written_testimonials.htm) a bunch of links to sites where people are saying otherwise. Of course, they're all liars and you're right because after all - ad-hoc social worker/EMT is just another title in your list of past positions held. :rolleyes:

Some of those stories will break your heart, guys. Every CPS story I've heard has moved me to tears. ANYONE who defends them by saying they do nothing wrong obviously has no clue.

[Starbuck]

When it comes down to it, I think we have to apply religious freedom individually here. The girls in question have the right when they reach adulthood to reject the religion of their parents and cease living by its tenets. So if it's shown that these girls were being treated as adults by their leadership (engaging in marriages), then the leadership also has to allow them the rights that come with adulthood. If they're being denied those rights, there's a case for intervention.

I guess it's a largely academic question. These girls were undoubtedly brainwashed since birth to accept marriage early and required to bear children. They were told things about what would happen to them if they left (the "outsiders" would make them cut their hair, wear makeup, and have sex with lots of men), but were they expressly forbidden to leave? The original caller said she was not allowed to leave the compound unless she was ill. I guess the difference is between implicit and explicit force...but again, this is academic.

It's starting to really disturb me that they cannot find the original caller. Seriously, it's been two (three?) days now. That's plenty of time to determine whether or not she's in custody.

[Nanuk]

And we will never agree as long as I continue to explain the law and actual practice and you continue to quote the exceptions.

I realize that my experience gained from working in the field is no match for your collection of tales gathered second-hand from "friends" or google searches on the internet, but still... :rolleyes:

[Chutney Daftcraft]

But the exceptions NEED to be noted. Dismissing them as unimportant just allows bad things to continue. Why are you so willing to give them the benefit of the doubt?

NOW, to be fair, I will say that the CPS acted very well regarding my aunt in the past, but not so much recently. She's spit out several kids in her life and she's only been allowed to keep the most recent one. The first one taken from her was because her boyfriend used my adorable cousin as his own personal ashtray, and I guess he liked to hear her bones break...

Do you know how hard that was? I walked past the people's house who adopted her every day from school. A few times I saw her outside, but I knew I couldn't approach her or talk to her. She was the first small child I had ever had experience with, and I actually formed a bond with her. I took her and her stroller everywhere I went. (We were in safer times in a very safe area) But I did take solace knowing that she was in a better place with people that actually wanted her around.

However, with her most recent... Well, there have been times when they should have taken that kid, like when his entire body was covered in diaper rash. I don't talk to them much anymore, because I know her son is going to be some serial killer or at least a serial rapist.

[Kensey]

I really, really hope that the original 15 year old report is true, because if it isn't...

Yeah, about that phone call (http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?S=8184795)...

[KatherineA]

On the other hand, over 20 girls under 16 have had babies from that compound. What is the difference between what this sect is doing to these children and abuse by other clergy member on children. I see no difference myself. These CHILDREN cannot say no.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4680903&page=1

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I f***ing KNEW it! I bet this is also bogus. lemme guess, they'll never be able to prove it, right? :rolleyes:

What happens when your probable cause for warrant turns out to be fraud?

This is a rights violation as far as I am concerned, and I hope these people sue the living s**t out of all involved authorities and bankrupt their offices so bad that they have to go back to typewriters and mimeographs.

[KatherineA]

Some sect women have been touting the benefits of poligamy and admitted that it is never too young to marry and there is evidence of underage pregnancies. Are you saying to return the children so they can be raped some more?

[Kensey]

What happens when your probable cause for warrant turns out to be fraud?

If the police actually believed the information they had to be true, then I believe the warrant stands. But if they manufactured cause, the warrant and all proceeds of the search are excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. There have been limited exceptions in some cases (Google "exclusionary rule"), and the government in recent years has attempted to chip away at what used to be an ironclad doctrine.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I don't know. I just had a bad, bad feeling abvout this raid when since I first heard of it. I told D that something wasn't right. These girls are not allowed to make calls usually, so the report is very unlikely. Additionally, they are programmed girls. They were raised this way, this is what they know. Why would they make calls and report it? That would be like you reporting your mom for doing normal things like , well, anything that she did. I'm sorry, I'm not making justifications, but I'm torn right down the middle.

One one hand, is it rape? Rape as in forcing yourself on an unwilling person? No, not in that sense. I'm sure these girls were raised to be ready for it just as soon as they got, well, you know.

On the other hand, which is a heavier hand, there are 16 year old girls impregnated by men that are over 30. That's a whole boatload of red flags waving as fast and as furious as they can be waved. That's just plain not right.

And then I'm torn on the Constitutional rights aspect. If the just cause wasn't real, I will have no idea what to think. That was a F'd up situation going on in that house, and I'm glad it was stopped. I think the public will be on the side of law enforcement - no matter what they did. You know, the ends justify the means. But then what happens after that precedent is set?

I think this story right here is so much more important than we realize. I think how this goes down will redefine how warrants are issued. Mere suspicion will become just cause. Even more red flags...

[Nanuk]

City, did you ever think for one minute to be grateful to live in a country that is so free and has so many safeguards on your rights that you have to dig and hunt to come up with even a suspicion that someday your rights might possibly be affected?

Nothing bad has ever happened to your Constitutional Rights or those of anyone you know, nor will it so long as Americans like me keep the Liberals at bay, but for some reason you just keep on with these posts about how the Constitution is being shredded before your eyes, or somehow will be very soon. Instead of doing the "Chicken Little" thing and pretending that the sky is falling, you need to just go on about your life grateful for what you have and with the knowledge that it's not changing and won't change, at least as long as there are still Conservatives around to protect your rights.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

City, did you ever think for one minute to be grateful to live in a country that is so free and has so many safeguards on your rights that you have to dig and hunt to come up with even a suspicion that someday your rights might possibly be affected?

I fail to see how what you just said applies to this conversation.


Nothing bad has ever happened to your Constitutional Rights or those of anyone you know, nor will it so long as Americans like me keep the Liberals at bay, but for some reason you just keep on with these posts about how the Constitution is being shredded before your eyes, or somehow will be very soon.

I'm certainly not the only person that feels like what you just said. Additionally, many feel that the government has no business doing some of the things they are doing.


Instead of doing the "Chicken Little" thing and pretending that the sky is falling,

Oh, which chicken little game are we playing? The one where the sky is falling, and we have to chip at our rights to fight these evil terrorists that we are supposed to be paralyzed in fear over? C'mon. It's all a game. We're ALL UNDER ATTACK! Of course you want your side to win. :rolleyes:



you need to just go on about your life grateful for what you have and with the knowledge that it's not changing and won't change, at least as long as there are still Conservatives around to protect your rights.

When you make statements that aren't true like that, they become slogans. Like when Ford says Quality is job one... :rolleyes: They put a (TM) behind that because it's just something they say, not something that's true. Therefore, when you say that the conservatives are protecting our rights, you need to identify that as the slogan that it is.

[Nanuk]

I'm certainly not the only person that feels like what you just said. Additionally, many feel that the government has no business doing some of the things they are doing.



1. The fact that several people hold a particular opinion does not make it right.

2. Yes, the government does many things that it has no business doing, and you and your liberal pals justify it, demand increases in it, and call for even more such intrusions on the rights of Americans. Didn't you just call for a government ban on corporations buying up new technology from willing sellers in another thread? Don't you support government taking money from people to buy things like from medical care to houses for other people? You love big-government intrusion into our lives and only call "foul" when you want to bash the current administration for your own reasons which appear to have nothing to do with rights for anyone except your own specific social group, it seems.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

2. Didn't you just call for a government ban on corporations buying up new technology from willing sellers in another thread?

Don't you support government taking money from people to buy things like from medical care to houses for other people?



No, and no.

[Nanuk]

OK City, then let's pin you down on this once and for all.

What do you personally think that the federal government should do? The founders of this country were pretty specific when they wrote the Constitution, but aside from that, what do you think that the federal government should be allowed to do?

No replying with other questions, no dodging...just tell us all with a straight answer if you please.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Calm down, Frances.

[ministerswife]

I haven't "read" anything like the news about this; and I only listen to the bits and spurts the TV news report. The last thing I heard is that they are going to do DNA testing on all involved to ascertain parenthood. Geo is right, its "messy" and it's getting messier and messier; worse than "curesor and curesor" indeed. :confused:

[Nanuk]

Calm down, Frances.

Unlike you, City, I'm always calm. And I knew that you'd chicken out again when I asked you to tell us what you believe government should be doing. You just can't stand behind your actual beliefs and you deny them every time they're put back in front of you.

So I'm giving you another chance. Stand up like you've got a pair and answer the simple question. we all know from your past posts that you want the government to control and punish everyone who makes a dollar more than you do and you want the government to take that extra money away via taxes on their income that you personally don't want to pay on yours. All I'm asking you to do is be straightforward about it. Come on...you can do it.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Unlike you, City, I'm always calm. And I knew that you'd chicken out again when I asked you to tell us what you believe government should be doing. You just can't stand behind your actual beliefs and you deny them every time they're put back in front of you.

So I'm giving you another chance. Stand up like you've got a pair and answer the simple question. we all know from your past posts that you want the government to control and punish everyone who makes a dollar more than you do and you want the government to take that extra money away via taxes on their income that you personally don't want to pay on yours. All I'm asking you to do is be straightforward about it. Come on...you can do it.

I said lighten up, Frances.

[Nanuk]

Buck, buck, bu-guck! <---noise that a chicken makes.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Ugh. Seriously. Lighten up. Frances.

Don't make me tell you again. http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/thumbnail2/774_smiley_getting_kicked_in_the_balls.gif

[Nanuk]

Fine, I'll quit asking. I've made my point and it's pretty obvious. :rolleyes:

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Yeah, me too. :rolleyes:

So lighten up, Frances. If you still have aggressions that you need to let out, you could always do some laundry. Hey, at least you still have a chance at fighting stains.

[derricksonb]

I really don't think the issue is as clear as some believe.

I equate this sects use of freedom of religion in explaining their actions to be as ridiculous as potheads claiming to be Rastafarians. Narcotics and Polygamy are both illegal in the United States of America. The downside of this scenario is that both have torn families apart, alienated neighbors, and left hundreds of children to become wards of the state. Did the government act in a manner which upholds the laws of this land? Absolutely. Did they act in a manner which best serves the community and the welfare of those families? Absolutely not. However the same can be said for when ATF/DEA/LEO raids a home where drugs are being manufactured/distributed.

[Starbuck]

Update (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/23/polygamist.retreat.ap/index.html)...what a wonderful thing to do with these children. Take them straight from the compound into group homes, where they'll get their a***s kicked on a better-than-daily basis because they're so different. :rolleyes:

[WVGeo]

One thing to always keep in mind is that what we are being told by the media may not be the same as what actually has happened. As a social worker, my daughter has first hand knowledge of how reporters can twist things and not allow facts to get in the way of what they "report". Unfortunately when that happens it can lead to a child who is known to be abused becoming off limits and having to remain in the abusive situation rather than being placed in foster care.

If the kids were being abused, then I'm glad they are out and I hope they don't go into a worse situation. I also hope that the law was properly followed because if it comes out that it wasn't these groups will put themselves even further out of reach and it may get worse for the kids.

[KemCam2]

You must have missed this part Starbuck;

"The state Child Protective Services program said it chose foster homes where the youngsters can be kept apart from other children for now.
"We recognize it's critical that these children not be exposed to mainstream culture too quickly or other things that would hinder their success," agency spokeswoman Shari Pulliam said. "We just want to protect them from abuse and neglect. We're not trying to change them.""

[Nanuk]

:applause: Good catch, KemCam.

[Starbuck]

The article states: "The 437 children taken from the polygamist compound in West Texas are being scattered to group homes and boys' and girls' ranches across the state, plunged into a culture radically different from the community where they and their families shunned the outside world as a hostile, contaminating influence on their godly way of life."

Further: "The youngsters are being moved out of the crowded San Angelo Coliseum and will be placed in 16 temporary facilities around Texas -- some as far away as Houston, 500 miles off -- until individual custody hearings can be held."

These aren't foster homes, with two parents and a couple of children. And the article can say volumes about how these kids will be kept isolated and be watched and blah blah blah. But have you ever been to one of these facilities? These kids aren't going to be watched 24x7, and oh yes, make no mistake the other kids in these places...some of whom have criminal records...will make their lives miserable. 19th century dress and unfailing politeness make these kids no more than chum for the sharks. Nice, huh?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Texas Court Rules In Favor Of Polygamist Sect

A Texas appellate court ruled Thursday that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90619236)living at a Mormon polygamist sect's ranch.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children from the compound belonging to the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.

Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.

The appellate court ruled that a chaotic hearing held last month failed to demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger.

[derricksonb]

I read that on CNN earlier this afternoon. Good for them and congratulations to the judicial brach of the country of Texas for pulling it's collective heads out of their own a__es. In tribute i may have to bring back my old signature line.