Posted on 04/25/2008 2:27:00 PM PDT by JRochelle
The raid this month on a polygamist sect's Texas ranch left more than 400 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in state custody.
Under any circumstances, children have trouble adjusting to a world in which their parents suddenly are gone. But in this case, these children likely will be put in an outside world that they have been raised to see as evil.
To better understand their plight, The Washington Times spoke with three former members of the FLDS as well as Rowenna Erickson, a founding member of Tapestry Against Polygamy (Polygamy.org).
The Utah-based organization supports children and vulnerable adults seeking to leave the polygamous lifestyle.
"Polygamy is one big male excuse" for sex, Mrs. Erickson told The Times, using graphic language.
She grew up in the Latter-day Church of Christ, a polygamous Mormon sect also known as the Kingston family. At age 20, she became the second wife of her older sister's husband; the couple bore eight children together.
"My children and I lived in dire poverty in a two-and-a-half bedroom house," Mrs. Erickson said.
Her husband lived separately from the family, and she was prohibited from disclosing their true relationship to others — including to the couple's own children — so as not to raise the suspicion of the civil authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
In this case the top dog, Warren Jeffs, was prosecuted and convicted for the practice.
Obviously you've not though your argument.
Once again, the same-old same-old argument; I HAVE read the article. I have read all the warrants. Due process has been followed. FLDS has hired lawyers, and is spewing the same talking points everywhere, hoping without hope that someone, somewhere, will fall for their story line. You might, I do not.
And Warren Jeffs got his day in court. He's serving time for his crime, and that is well and good. I do find it amusing that the ages for the brides keeps going down. It was 16, then 15 now we are down to 13. Why stop at 13? Who needs sources when you can make up any figure you want?
I have no issue with enforcing the law; however you do not separate 400+ kids from their families, simply because you don't agree with their church. Having the entire raid based upon a prank phone call is not doing Texas any good either.
Again, I would point to this article so show areas where Texas may have screwed up.
Never feed the monster, for the monster will always want more. Ceding away basic rights, due process and burden of proof by authorities is a bad thing to do.
You may want to look at the time line and ask yourself "How much prepratory work did Texas really do?" I respectfully submit that getting a prank call on Saturday, and then raiding the ranch on Thursday may be a bit of a stretch. Especially now that we have found that the phone call was done as a prank.
Sources? I am only aware of a single warrant that was served on Thursday, April 3rd, to search the ranch.
So, is your stance if you are FLDS, you are not allowed to have children? As the article has stated, ALL of the children were taken, despite a failure by authorities to provide any evidence that the vast majority of the children were under no threat of physical, sexual nor emotional abuse. (Hint: This is a case where 'due process' was neglected. "Due Process" is not a mass process, but is done on a case by case basis.)
If the state can decide that the FLDS have forfeited the God-given right to be a parent; then what's to stop them from doing the same thing to you?
Frankly, no one here particularly cares one way or the other about church matters. If we did we'd spend our days arguing about whether the prophecy is that the Second Coming starts in Jackson County Missouri or Jackson County Indiana, right?!
The issue is child abuse ~ BTW, at the moment one of Warren Jeffs' many nephews is suing him for inappropriate sexual content (buggery) for many years ~ ever since he was a little kid.
Bet the nephew knows much more about it than any of us here, unless you're an expert in the matter. If so, let us know how young is considered "too young" in the F(lds).
I seem to recall reading yesterday that there are members from the Canadian ‘ranch’ living at this ‘ranch’, so it is very likely you’ve zeroed in on one of their methods for covering their ‘tracks’. Ranch seems an appropriate term since these sequestered young females are kept for ‘breeding’.
Straw man, you know very well I have claimed no such thing. And repetitive.
As the article has stated, ALL of the children were taken, despite a failure by authorities to provide any evidence that the vast majority of the children were under no threat of physical, sexual nor emotional abuse.
Not true. I suggest you read ALL the warrants. And the "rules of evidence" in a civil proceeding regarding child endangerment, and in criminal proceedings, etc.--oh, wait, I should have realized YANAL.
(Hint: This is a case where 'due process' was neglected. "Due Process" is not a mass process, but is done on a case by case basis.)
Vain repetition does not make any of your talking points more credible. In fact, all it is doing is making it clear that you will repeat the same thing over and over. (Hint: free country.) There has been no violation of due process. If you think so, tell us all where exactly you think that violation occurred. To do that, you will have to read the warrants.
Our U.S. laws do not recognize as proper the raping of underaged females in order to ‘have families’. But I am certainly glad you and your ilk are making yourselves so identifiable.
However, if one of your nephews accused you of indecent behavior, is that grounds for ALL of your children, and all of your extended family's children to be taken by the state?
If the state went in and took ~150 'at risk' children, I'd at least think some sort of screening took place. When the state goes in and essentially confiscates ALL (432 at last count) of the children, alarm bells go off in my head.
As previously stated, there is no evidence of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to male children of any age. There is no allegation or evidence of abuse of female children under the age of 12; yet all the children have been removed, and the parents are being denied to communicate with the children. I fail to see justification for any of this.
ROFLOL
Yes that's why they are all on welfare, and don't know how to tell anyone who there mother and father is. That is really a side splitter, perverts assume responsibility for the children they rape, well they need to go to the sheriffs department and sign a confession.
Excuse me? You support the confiscation of ALL of the children, without regard of age or sex. I fail to see how this can be considered as anything but denying this community to right to have children.
I suggest you read ALL the warrants.
Please enlighten me to what warrants you keep referring to. I believe you are making this up, because from a legitmate source we read that:
Texas law has a "very low burden for removal of children from a parent's home, at least temporarily," Dixon said.
Or, in other words no warrant or legal document is necessary. This is a 'shortcut', that sacrifices an individual's rights for the convenience of the government. There is no mention of any other warrant, so what are you referring to? I am not supporting child rape, polygamy or any other such practice. Never have, very likely never will. However, I do have an issue when the government takes 'shortcuts'. Arbitrarily taking 432 children away from their parents because they 'may be at risk' for some future crime is asinine. With this vague statement, anyone's children could be taken away, for any reason. Every child in the world is 'at risk' for something. No religion, sect, race or group is immune from perversions.
I would not call any cult that practices child rape a Church are a religion for that matter and the only prank is see ,is you ,trying to hide your support for these child molesters.
Sources? Or is this just a rumor you heard? Dr. Phil had a special air yesterday, where he flew over the complex and indicated that the property in Tx is worth over $100 Million. That doesn't seem too poverty stricken to me.
And the reason that they are not telling who the mothers/father is; is because they are doing passive resistance. They are refusing to cooperate with anyone they perceive to be the enemy. If the gov't descended upon you, and took your kids away, how cooperative would you be?
They took their kids away BECAUSE they didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t ID who was their child.
They took the kids away because they flat out couldn’t point out who their mother/father was.
They took the kids away because many of them had been shipped in from out of state and out of country.
It’s not passive resistance, it’s simply a cluster’!!!k with the majority of adults and children with no bonds or ties.
If you would bother to read my responses, instead of the voices in your head, you would see that my concern is that the gov't is over-stepping the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Once these inconvenient obsticals have been trod underfoot, what's to prevent the gov't from doing so again?
And as further evidence, I offer this (courtesy of Drudge) Source which repeats many of the points I have made over the past week. It would appear that the state of Texas has arbitrarily decided that if you are FLDS, you are not allowed to have children. Read the article, reading is good, it is usually fun and you may be amazed and may actually learn something.
Could you give us a link, to the children's medical records, I did not think they even knew their ages yet. Do you have private knowledge of the children, perhaps you should go talk to someone. Either that are you are making stuff up, but I think it is the made up part I believe.
Do you have any articles that support your accusations? Maybe a quote from some official that says: "Well, they wouldn't tell us who their mothers and fathers are; so we took all of the kids away. That'll show 'em".
Perverts raping little girls, what to your call them brethren??
And if you cannot understand child custody and protective custody, then you need to stop posting and do some reading.
There has been no violations of the laws by the LEO"s in the case that I know off. Actually I think the cops and protective services are doing an excellent job.
Okay, if you are not aware of the warrants, then accuse me of making things up. No, I will not post you any links. They've been posted on so many threads it's getting ridiculous. Maybe check with greyfoxx39 or MizSterious. I've been reading these threads since they began, and people who come on here quoting talking points and pretending ignorance just tire me out. Feel free to flame away, I could not care less.
rbitrarily taking 432 children away from their parents because they 'may be at risk' for some future crime is asinine. With this vague statement, anyone's children could be taken away, for any reason. Every child in the world is 'at risk' for something. No religion, sect, race or group is immune from perversions.
"Arbitrarily" is YOUR error. Read the warrants. There was probable cause. Nothing "asinine" was done. Again, read the warrants.
Seriously, Hodar, I wonder if you are uninformed, or just pretending to be. You have the benefit of the doubt, as a FReeper, but when you appear to not know the arguments and have not read the background, how can there be a discussion? You don't even know WHICH warrants--yet you argue that "the government takes shortcuts."
I don't mean any offense, but if I had realized how poorly informed you are on this whole thing, I would never have replied to any of your posts.
Your wish ..... I have no need to make stuff up.
CPS officials have conceded there is no evidence the youngest children were abused, and about 130 of the children are under 5. Teenage boys were not physically or sexually abused either, according to evidence presented in a custody hearing earlier last week, but more than two dozen teenage boys are also in state custody, now staying at a boys' ranch that might typically house troubled or abandoned teens.
Two teenage girls are pregnant, and although identities and ages have been difficult to nail down, CPS officials say no more than 30 minor girls in state custody have children. It's not clear how many other adolescent girls may be among the children shipped to foster facilities.
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.