Posted on 04/18/2008 6:30:59 PM PDT by granite
SAN ANGELO, Texas -- More than 400 children taken from a ranch run by a polygamous sect will stay in state custody and be subject to genetic testing, a judge ruled Friday. State District Judge Barbara Walther heard 21 hours of testimony over two days before ruling that the children be kept by the state. Individual hearings will be set for the children over the next several weeks. She ordered that all children and parents be given genetic testing. Child welfare officials have said they've had difficulty determining how the children and parents are related because of evasive or changing answers.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I’m usually on the Jack Booted Thugs threads, talking AGAINST whatever the latest police excess is, but I think Texas is doing an awesome job in this case.
Yes, but, " For the 63d year in a row, the number of boys born in the United States outnumbers births of girls -– in 2002, 94,232 more boys than girls were born."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/05facts/moreboys.htm
where are the boys?????
Good point and an excellent idea. I cannot fathom how any Christian who is even slightly familiar with the Bible can be drawn to liberal theology or politics.
Would you leave the other children ,especially after finding young pregnant girls and young mothers, there to bare the wrath of the parents and sect leaders? It's a very complicated situation but, CPS had little choice.
Countdown until some liberal "Christian" comes on and quotes Matthew 7:1 at you out of context....5...4...3...
(BTW, I agree with you)
I would agree. Texas is making the best out of a bad and confusing situation.
See post #253.
They didn’t bring many boys with them. This was their new breeding colony, no boys necessary.
Do as I just did and read the book “Escape” of a woman from that very group. That book will leave you no doubt about the situation.
Here is one first thing, they had, in addition to the fact that many of the police were FLDS and wouldn’t help a woman who wanted to leave, PATROLLERS. Like in the days of slavery in this country, patrollers watching for women wanting or trying to leave. It is SLAVERY and that one item alone, not to mention the dozens of other horrific reasons (abuse of women and small children, not providing pre-natal care, polygamy, incest, and on and on, read the book) that this cult, like slavery was, must be dissolved.
It is possible to want these children removed from this situation and at the same time yearn for a world in which CPS were held accountable for the destruction it often oversees.
There's been no evidence presented that shows any of the "others" were in danger. What would be the justification in retaining girls younger or older, and/or boys?
There has been no information released regarding the breakdown between age or sex and there may never be because they are all minors. This is getting into the realm of assumptions that they were all 13-15 year old girls, facts not in evidence. It may still be proven that this place was a breeding compound, but that has not been established, or even alleged as far as I know, either.
The question is complicated because this "Zion" compound has only been in existence for a few years, and children (read - mostly girls) were taken from their parents to live in Zion. The children were six and under so they could be molded "for God."
So, unless adults in this compound have actual "legal guardianship" over these children, there will be a number of children who are motherless. I read a Canadian report that stated that some of it's "citizens" were living in Zion, and I believe some of those were children taken away from their parents, as well.
Some of the women on tv have actually referred to themselves as guardians.
I'd love to see some of these women on the stand:
Would you send your 14 year old son away if the prophet told you to do so?
Would you marry off your 15 year old daughter if the prophet told you to do so?
Would you send your child to live in another compound if the prophet told you to do so?
Would you take another woman's child if the prophet told you to do so?
With such blind obedience, emotional abuse has to be occurring on a grand scale, even if the children are physically safe.
HERE IS IT IN A NUTSHELL: Eric Blair 2084 asked:
“Could these women and children leave if they wanted to?”
NO! And that alone is bad enough.
Do as I just did and read the book “Escape” of a woman from that very group. That book will leave you no doubt about the situation.
Here is one first thing, they had, in addition to the fact that many of the police were FLDS and wouldn’t help a woman who wanted to leave, PATROLLERS. Like in the days of slavery in this country, patrollers watching for women wanting or trying to leave. It is SLAVERY and that one item alone, not to mention the dozens of other horrific reasons (abuse of women and small children, not providing pre-natal care, polygamy, incest, and on and on, read the book) that this cult, like slavery was, must be dissolved.
“The laws on age of consent are based on the facts that girls who get pregnant from 15-17 are likely to be abused - half the fathers are 5 years older:”
Many girls that age are more attracted to men who are 5 years or more older. Not all, but many. I’m not saying their attraction makes it OK for men to take advantage of them either. A large age difference in marriage does not automatically imply that the older person is abusing the younger.
My neighbors are a salt-of-the-earth kind of couple. Thoughtful, friendly, always helping people out, and very happily married. They just celebrated their 60th anniversary. Turns out he is 12 years older and is 86. I did the math. He said he met her waiting tables when he got out of the service and they got married a few months later. That means she was 14 or 15 (depending on when their birthdays fall). He is not a sex offender. But his marriage would not be legal today unless he managed to convince a court to give permission. Parents can only consent for 16 and 17 now. The state changed the laws just because of this cult. This roundup happened just long enough after the law took effect so as to avoid any ex post facto protection.
Where people stand on this is largely determined by whether they consider the Bible as the basis of what our moral standards should be.
For those who reject the Bible, it is just an ethics issue where there is no absolute right and wrong, just opinions based on individual circumstances. In these cases, we bring in the so-called experts. Such is the case here. The experts are saying this cult is a dangerous place for children. Possibly. My problem is that so are public schools, but we have compulsory education. So are many, many other homes in this state (and nation).
I’m curious about how people think of the fact these girls who are being abused are physically mature enough to have children. To those who believe in age-of-consent morality, is the ability to have children so young a mistake by God? Is it a result of evolutionary pressures which have outlived their usefulness? Is it a genetic defect that modern medicine, including its wonderful mechanisms of birth control, are supposed to fix? Is having a baby a punishment as Obama described? Is God punishing females by equipping them for child birth too soon?
Some recognize the Bible as the standard, but ignore what the Bible says. The age-of-consent concept originates from anti-Christian sources that is really propaganda designed to mask an anything-goes consenting-adults moral philosophy. BTW this philosophy leads to more sexual activity by minors not less. That being the case, it is not about protecting children.
The best way to protect children is for society to embrace Biblical moral standards. This includes the man being the head of the home. Men are to provide and protect.
A loving father will think of his sons’ and daughters’ best interests in his CONSENT to their marriage.
Judges and politicians who reject Biblical morality cannot fix the moral problems that are being addressed in dealing with this cult.
A return to Biblical moral standards can.
In reading about the lives of the FLDS I’m reminded so much about the lives of my LDS pioneer ancestors. Look at Warren Steed Jeffs. In so many ways he’s alot like Joseph Smith Junior was during the 1840’s in Nauvoo, Illinois. Smith knew that polygamy was against the law in Illinois. Smith knew that the church’s Doctrine and Covenants forbade polygamy. Yet he plagiarized Masonic ceremonies to create a special club of Mormons who’d keep his spiritual wifery program a secret. Eventually it all came out when the Nauvoo Expositor was published. He retaliated by illegally assuming judicial authority to destroy the press. It resulted in his death.
You said: “Many girls that age are more attracted to men who are 5 years or more older. Not all, but many. I’m not saying their attraction makes it OK for men to take advantage of them either. A large age difference in marriage does not automatically imply that the older person is abusing the younger.”
But more often, it does. Age has the advantage over youth and age is supposed to guide youth in wisdom, not take advantage of and use youth for it’s own pleasure.
I’ve read this entire thread and your posts are uniformly unbalanced and frankly alarming. You speak and write but you do not hear nor process thought.
I’m glad I do not know you personally.
You are also clearly a male.
Coincidentally, if memory serves me correctly, that is the passage I referred to earlier in pointing out the hypocrisy of the state of Texas. We allow children to be put into homes with homosexuals for guardians, yet we are taking away children from this cult because of their presumed sexual behavior.
If accusations are true, some of what this sect does is abominable. But so is creating and then selectively enforcing moral laws to achieve a political end. Considering the double standard, I fear that is the case here.
You’re welcome.
So, while plural marriage was okay in the past (think Biblically) and a commandment at times (or necessary for entering into the Glory in the afterlife), a later revelation said that it was not appropriate for now. Note that it wasn't said that it was banned and wrong; the practice has been suspended. Polygamy is still a canonized doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, IIRC. (Note that even after the Manifesto, the LDS church sent people to Mexico to get plural marriages.)
And, of course, in spiritual terms, a man who remarries after a wife's death is an eternal polygamist with the multiple sealings.
His consent? CONSENT? They were forced! They don't ask their dads to get married. They are told whom they will marry!
What's so difficult about that to understand? :(
Menstruation is not a sign that a young girl is ready to have a baby. It just means that if she does have sex, she is capable of getting pregnant. However, that pregnancy is much more likely to result in complications than if she were older. What "loving father" risks that?
I have already been given the award for the most bizarre posts, you cannot re-award it to someone else.
But the simple fact that you can convict by what you read in a book, is not alarming?
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.