Replies

How do authorities “gather the facts” when all the girls are brainwashed and prevented from having contact with or knowledge of the outside world? It’s amazing that this one girl managed to phone for help. So now if authorities go into the community and see a very young girl who looks very pregnant and they ask her “How old are you?” and she says “18” and all the adults confirm this lie, then what? Do they not take the girl out of the compound where she can be questioned away from the influence of the cult, and reassured that she doesn’t have to go back if she doesn’t want to? And what about all the obviously 13-14 year old girls who are “married” to older men? They’re living in homes with a bunch of wives of all ages and a huge number of children of all ages. They’ll alltell visiting authorities “he’s my father” if the church leaders told them to, and they’ll all say “no, he’s never had sex with me” if the church leaders told them to. So then what? Just leave them there, pretending the complaints of forced adolescent marriage and sex have been investigated and determined to be unfounded?

You can't believe that rounding up everyone and sorting out who's guilty and who's not is Constitutionally right. I thought we, as American citizens were innocent until proven guilty?

We are innocent until proved guilty and the way that concept is so often abused and ignores is a real issue with me.

But isn't that what happens all the time whenever criminal activity is encountered? People are taken to the police station for questioning and then usually released. No one is assigning guilt here yet; that's what trials are for. But how are they going to find out information if they don't talk to these people? And would the women and children feel free to tell the truth in the compound?

If, and I believe it is so, underage girls are being forced into “marriage”, then the authorities have to gather the facts before they start banging heads and arresting people.

The people they have removed, the women and children, have not been arrested. Nobody said they were guilty.

And the authorities ARE trying to gather the facts. They have search warrants and are being refused permission to come onto the property.

Sect leaders at a polygamist compound in West Texas refused Saturday to let authorities search a temple for a teenage girl whose report of abuse led to the raid, and authorities said they were preparing "for the worst."

What should the authorities do then? Say "OK" and walk away and leave the rest to continue to be abused? Let the evidence be destroyed? Have the guilty parties *disappear* like has happened to this poor girl who made the call?

From the article: The whereabouts of the 16-year-old mother who sparked the investigation are unknown, Meisner said. State troopers who raided the religious retreat were looking for the girl, her baby girl and 50-year-old Dale Barlow.

That is EXACTLY what they are trying to prevent.

Right now the government is trying to use search warrants to find out information. The ambulances are being sent *just in case*. The people who have left very likely could have refused. I didn't hear that any were forced onto the buses, but maybe I missed that. Perhaps they WANTED out and this is their first opportunity, since they couldn't otherwise leave without leaving their children?

Nor are they in jail. They're staying in community centers. It would actually be protecting them should the men decide to really fight back and a Waco style event happens again.

I've been thinking a lot about what you said.

I see this as a tough situation. Here we have the Constitution which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, considering the time period in which they were working, they were looking at a whole different situation in regards to free speech and churches. Clearly one of the things they wanted to do was force the government to not be able to regulate religion. No membership required, no making it illegal to join another church. Just like the free speech clause was meant to protect criticism of the government.

What I don't think was intended was that these clauses be used as a cloak to protect all kinds of immoral, illegal, or other heinous behavior. Just like the free speech clause has been twisted to protect pornography, the freedom to exercise has been twisted to protect wrong behavior. So you get situations like muslims taxi-cab drivers who refuse to give blind passengers or those carrying alcohol a ride, you get muslims who claim sharia law is part of their religion and so MUST be permitted to happen. It opens the door for the practice of FGM and honor killings. It protects deranged lunatics like the phelps clan who are manipulating people by misusing the clause. It can allow anyone, anywhere claim that they are a church, or religion, and tie the hands of the authorities regarding clearly illegal or immoral behavior.

The problem then arises of the definition of what is a church or religion and who gets to define it. Does the individual? Does the organization itself? Do other churches? (And we know where that would lead). Does the government? (mega cringe)

Now Scripture is clear that rulers and government have been established by God and submission to that authority should happen.

So the conflict comes in where the *church* has practices that violate the laws of the country and often clear teaching of Scripture itself, and the Article in the Constitution that protects the free exercise thereof.

To the credit of the government, they have been aware of this group for some time now and trying to do something about them. They received a call from a girl alleging abuse of herself, clearly a cry for help. They got a search warrant as also required of them. She and her child and *husband* have disappeared. I, for one, fear for her safety and the thought of retaliation for her actions.

So does the government have responsibility to protect its citizenry? Can its hands be tied from doing that because the behavior is claimed to be religious? Can other private citizens take any action? Is it better to hold to the interpreted letter of the Constitution by some allow illegal or immoral behavior or abuse to continue because it's claimed to be religious, or stop it to protect your citizens?

If you can figure out any answers to this, let me know.

As far as the women and children being *forced* to leave, the article is totally silent on that issue and I'm sure that in that group, there will be differences of opinion. These are people who are not used to thinking for themselves, so if someone tells them what to do, they would not have the wherewithal to refuse.

OTOH, the link to the wiki article states that although some women hate the situation, they stay because of their children. As a mother, I can totally identify with that. There is NO WAY that I would ever consider abandoning my children to be left in a horrible situation like that. If I could not take them with me, I would not leave.

There is the chance that these women left voluntarily. This might be the first opportunity they've ever had to get out with their kids and may have jumped at the chance. There is likely to be those who felt coerced.

Detaining people for questioning is a common practice. I never considered its Constitutionality, though. Again, they were not arrested, charged, or pronounced guilty. They simply left, by the busload, because of the numbers of people involved, plus I don't expect they had other means of transportation.

I sure hope this does not turn into another waco and I foresee some real legal battles because of the whole Constitutionality of the situation.

All that being said, I'll be back later.