Posted on 04/16/2008 12:50:48 PM PDT by keats5
“We are all fully behind the taking of your children because you are strange and don’t believe what we believe.”
I am not behind raping inbred retarded girls, and I don’t for a second believe you are either.
“And the fact that bad things WILL be done does not justify government behaving immorally to STOP those bad things.”
IF that turns out to be the case. All evidence is, so far, to the contrary.
Yes, and putting all their “ex” wives or “spiritual wives” on welfare.
Well as a citizen of this counry, I believe that we all have a responsibility to see to it that children are free from abuse! Yes, there’s a fine line there because parents are ultimately responsible for their children, but when parents abuse that trust, “we” should step in and protect them. Children are also citizens of this country, too. Right? They deserve basic protections, then.
“LE turned a blind eye in places like Utah. (gee, wonder why?)”
Don’t blame the LE. They have been trying to stop this for a hundred years.
That is why Warren Jeffs and his ‘select elite’ moved from state to state.
One ‘compound’ they had was on a state border. When the cops came, they would move to the other side of the border to avoid arrest.
(gee, wonder why?)
FREEPER PRAYER:
God help me to remember to fully read each thread through, or at least skim through all the posts, before forming an opinion, and in an effort to shoot off my mouth, end up shooting off my foot.
The cult was founded in 1913. Until 2003 there was only one raid (with arrests) on the compound.
If there were other attempts maybe you can cite those? That’s all I’ve come up with.
In July 2005 eight men of the church were indicted for sexual contact with minors. At least some of them surrendered to police in Kingman, Arizona.
WARREN STEED JEFFS (Self-proclaimed prophet, self-admitted liar)
His trial, which began early in September of 2007 in St. George, Utah, lasted less than a month, and on September 25 the verdict was read declaring him guilty of two counts of rape as an accomplice.[5] On November 20, 2007 he was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to life and has begun serving his sentence at the Utah State Prison.
Jeffs also admits to what he calls, “immoral actions with a sister and a daughter” when he was 20 years old.
In late 2005, Jeffs was put on the FBI’s most wanted fugitive list, offering $60,000 for information leading to his arrest. Shortly after being placed on the FBI list, Jeffs was featured on the television program America’s Most Wanted.
Around this time, Warren Jeffs’ brother, Seth, was arrested under suspicion of harboring a fugitive.
On May 27, 2006 Bruce Wisan, the court-appointed accountant in charge of the FLDS’ trust fund, filed civil suits against Jeffs. Wisan claimed that Jeffs is responsible for “fleecing trust assets”. Along with church leaders, former trustees Truman Barlow, Leroy Jeffs, James Zitting, and William Jessop were also named as defendants. “We feel that they’ve taken things from the trust,” Wisan said. “Their actions have caused harm to the trust.”
Jeffs was believed to be leading his group from jail, and a Utah state board expressed dissatisfaction in dealing with Hildale police, believing that many had ties to Jeffs, and as such, did not cooperate.[39] In May and July of 2007, he was indicted in Arizona on eight counts, including sexual conduct with a minor and incest.
And that’s just getting started.
Assuming for a moment that you are correct, and we have such duty.
Assuming further that this duty is so important that we can suspend some of our normal liberty to be free from government interference in our lives without clear evidence of wrongdoing.
You still have the basic truth that every time you step into a family and take the children away, it is child abuse. IF the child is truly being abused by the parents, the abuse of forcibly removing the child from the family he knows is less than the abuse being inflicted, and so we have chosen the lesser of two evils.
But any time there WAS no abuse, we have abused the children in order to ensure that they were NOT being abused.
If we have to abuse 1 child that is NOT being abused for every 10 children we save from abuse, is that a good tradeoff? how about 1 child for every child we save? How about 10 children abused by the government for every child we save? 100? Where do we decide that the child abuse of the government ripping a child from their family exceeds the benefit of possibly catching a case of real abuse?
In this case, maybe every child in that compound was being abused — but there doesn’t really seem to be such a claim being made, because they allowed the mothers to STAY with children 5 and under.
What if 20% of the children were being abused. Is it OK to separate 100% of the children from their mothers for a day? a week? a month? in order to determine which 20% should really be separated from their family?
Or would it be better to let those 20% stay in an abusive family for a month, along with the 80% that were not abused, so that we can do the investigation and only take away the 20% that really were abused?
I would argue CRASSLY that the 20% were already being abused, and were already harmed, and allowing harm for a short time longer doesn’t seem as bad as abusing the 80% that were not being harmed and would forever be “child abuse sufferers” by the government action.
This doesn’t even address the issue of who decides what is “abuse”? Is spanking abuse? How about isolation for a period of time? verbal shouting? denying a meal? two meals? telling the child that if they don’t behave they will go to hell?
Just because one is a minor you believe that the child has no rights? Hate to tell ya', but minors do have rights, and it is the duty of the government to protect those rights.
What are you? FLDS?
The attitude towards children and women by some here is appalling.
One more thing. Do you really think those “twenty percent” would still be in this country? They would already be in Mexico if we followed your plan.
All who serve under Authority
Whether The military, clergy, or civil servant
Are best judged by their attending to the will of their Authority
If one steps away from the Authority under which one serves
They are faithless, and corrupt
I am more tolerant of an Islamist who kills under authority of their Prophet
Than I am of a Baptist who breaches their wedding vows
I may have to kill the Islamist, but I honor their service, as they see it
They who dishonor that which empowers them
Such as the FLDS “prophet” who denies Joseph Smith's words
Deserve only derision and disdain
There is no difference between these “polygamous’ families and the ‘families “ of many of our welfare population. The inner city “families” just don’t live in one big house...but the ‘fathers’ have many ‘wives” (none legal) and loads of children.
They who dishonor that which empowers them Such as the FLDS “prophet” who denies Joseph Smith's words Deserve only derision and disdain
I'll drink to that.
That is just awful, and evil, to treat babies that way! May God help the state in prosecuting these abuses.
“while others continue to be seeking penance and hope to be allowed back in. “
It is not about “penance”, it is about “penis”; they got too many on the farm and had to force some to leave. They’re is just too much competition for those little girls.
And the 80% wouldn’t be abused.
You didn’t answer the question. Is it OK for the government to abuse 80 children, and destroy 80 families who did nothing wrong, in order to prevent the continued abuse of 20 children?
If you think so, maybe we should just take all the children away from all the parents, since you just never know when some parent might abuse a child.
A child has the same right as a parent not to be abused by the government.
Beyond that, your appeal to “rights” to justify abusing children makes little sense. We aren’t discussing whether children have rights — if a child is being abused, the government should step in.
I don’t think anybody is arguing otherwise.
The question is how many innocent children is the government allowed to terrorize and abuse in order to protect the children that are being abused?
Mistakes will be made in our pursuit of justice, very unfortunately. But I think you mistake the percentage of children who will be harmed, so I'm not answering. These children are being care for, and mothers of the younger children are there with them.
I'm finished with this discussion. It's obvious that your libertarian views don't allow for protection of children except in the most extreme circumstances. (Although if rape at age fourteen isn't extreme enough for you, I don't know what is.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.