BREAKING NEWS: Rifqa Bary returning to Ohio

WDBO Local News ^ | October 13, 2009 | Joe Ruble

[trumandogz]

The State has the authority, granted by the people, to restrict parental rights when the child's welfare is considered to be unacceptably harmed by the parent. Where ever you draw the line on unacceptable, death would certainly qualify as "unacceptable" don't you think?

Again, unlike you, I have more faith in the Family than the State and unless the child can prove that her life is in immediate danger, the State has no right to take a child from her family.

[La Enchiladita]

Thank you so much. This was good to see at the top of my pings page. I wish posters would read the entire thread and learn something.

[SampleMan]

Again, unlike you, I have more faith in the Family than the State and unless the child can prove that her life is in immediate danger, the State has no right to take a child from her family.

That statement is either criminally naive, or ... never mind I'll stick with criminally naive.

You keep creating false arguments. First concerning the state "having a right", which was never an issue, and now this assertion that I don't "trust the family". I acknowledge that there are some parents that abuse and kill their children. Further, I know that allowing such a thing is in itself evil.

You go further and put the burden of proof on the child. I assume that you will also defend the parents right to deny the child access to contact authorities, so you are de facto stating that a child should never be protected from harm. It is unclear if you would arrest the parents for killing a child. I assume you would, but your argument that children are not afforded any protection wouldn't support that inference on my part.

You make the colossal mistake that many Libertarians make, i.e. they cannot make any decision that isn't totally formulaic, thus they are willing to tolerate any amount of evil in fear of treading on a slippery slope.

In the real world, Due Process is a gray area of subjectivity and almost always a slippery slope, where somewhere between a harsh word and a broken arm, the legal system must decide what constitutes abuse. To put the burden of proof on a child is only slightly upstream from requiring people who are in a coma to firmly state that they want to continue getting fed.

Anyone with a smidgen of the facts understands that this girl's life is in danger. You mistakenly think that sacrificing her life will somehow set a precedent that will prevent Statists from pushing to take away YOUR parental rights. You are wrong. They have never been and are not now constrained by anything. In fact, if this girl is sent back to her parents and murdered, it will only give the statists more reason to take away rights. More restrictive laws are almost always the result of people being unwilling to logically and responsibly enforce common sense laws.

[SampleMan]

1. Her parents belong to a religion that has a basic tenant that all converts, such as their daughter, should be killed.
2. She is expressing that this is exactly what will happen, based on 17 years of experience with what her parents believe and what they are capable of.

Are you disputing these? If not, what are you requiring that the girl present as "proof"? A signed letter of intent by her father? How about a Koran?

If a seventeen year old girl runs up to you in a parking lot begging for help because their father is going to kill her, are you going to tell her to go home and get proof and then call the authorities? What if she just ran out of the cult compound next door, where they openly teach that people leaving the cult must be killed? Please don't tell me that you are going to call the authorities after what you have just posted, I have a low tolerance for hypocrisy and cop outs.

[presently no screen name]

set the precedence that all a minor needs to do is claim that a parent threatened to kill

So much for blanklet statements. Like a muslim father would kill his daughter who refuses to give up her Christianity - how silly - right? You would need to believe that the muslim faith condones that - how silly - right?

[trumandogz]

Religion has nothing to do with this case.

Instead, this case is simply about a minor child who has ran away from home and her parents that would like her returned.

[MortMan]

Again, unlike you, I have more faith in the Family than the State and unless the child can prove that her life is in immediate danger, the State has no right to take a child from her family.

How is the state "taking" her, if it is her desire to be separated from her family? "Taking" would mean countermanding both her and her family's desires.

[presently no screen name]

You are SO misinformed!

[presently no screen name]

Religion has nothing to do with this case

The case has become a cause celebre among conservative Christian groups, Muslim activists and, of course, politicians.

As usual, you comment from your own little fantasy while the truth is right in your face and you can't see it.

[trumandogz]

“The case has become a cause celebre among conservative Christian groups, Muslim activists and, of course, politicians.”

Unless you can point to the place in the Constitution that states that Christian conservative cause celebres carry more weight in a court of law than a Muslim cause celebres, your viewpoint has no merit.

[trumandogz]

A minor child cannot be taken across state lines without the consent of the parents.

[presently no screen name]

your viewpoint has no merit.

My viewpoint?? LOL! You've proven, the truth is in your face and you can't see it!

[cyn]

Thank you for your posts.

The more I have read, the more concerned I become.

I do not understand how any one reading the info freely available from all the links here and from their own searches does not have (at the least) just a bit of unease on Rifqa’s behalf.

Prayers continue for Rifqa and those helping her.

[cyn]

Check this out.

[MHGinTN]

You might find this nauseatingly of note ...

[cyn]

Atlas Exclusive Breaking Mohamed Bary's Missing Immigration Documents: Status Illegal

Source: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ >> Updated info on immigration documents

[Quix]

All;

I have no updated news.

Here is her website:

http://www.rifqabary.com/

Here’s a dogpile.com listing of articles:

http://www.dogpile.com/dogpile/ws/results/Web/!22RIFQA%20BARY!22/1/417/TopNavigation/Relevance/iq=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=true

PLEASE REMEMBER: PRAYERS FOR HER COURT CASE TODAY

[Quix]

Here's a WDBO FLA listing of articles about her:

http://wdbo.com/localnews/rifqa-bary-case/

PLEASE
KEEP PRAYING!
WAITING TO HEAR
ABOUT TODAY'S
COURT SESSION
WHICH MAY
BE STILL GOING ON.
THANKS FOR YOUR PRAYERS.
Please consider pinging
PRAYER WARRIORS, INTERCESSORS.

[Quix]

Polite for ignorant?

[Quix]

What percentage is

CAN’T see

vs

WON’T see, REFUSES to see?