I'm gonna need a citation for that that does not come from an FLDS site or FLDS lawyer.
But the gov't has gone in and seized 100% of the children from people who have only 1 thing in common, they go to the same church. By virtue of sharing a religion, they have all been deemed unfit parents.
No. The children were removed because of pervasive evidence of law-breaking of a particular variety which lended credence to the idea that this was an unsafe environment for the children.
If a crime has been committed, gather evidence, have a trial and a jury will determine guilt.
That's what they're doing. As I've said before, you do not find, try and convict the arsonist before you put out the fire.
the808bass: “As I’ve said before, you do not find, try and convict the arsonist before you put out the fire.”
I don’t think anyone on this thread opposes the taking of children from homes where abuse is clearly evident. I think some of us simply aren’t convinced the children were in imminent danger.
My daughter once cut her knee while playing, and I was given the third degree by both a doctor and someone else on the staff (a social worker?). It was...unsettling. Fortunately, my daughter’s story apparently matched my own enough to satisfy the interrogators (and no, her injury truly was an accident).
Now I understand abuse does occur, but we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. In other words, we are presumed to be innocent. In this particular case, I’m very concerned about the rights of the parents as well as the children.
Now I know people shouldn’t be afraid of an “interrogation” so long as they have nothing to hide, but that seems a tad bit too Nazi-like to me.
Perhaps the government is doing the right thing here, but the burden of proof should be on them, not the parents or the children. So what if the children and/or parents aren’t cooperating as nicely as the bureaucrats wish? A reluctance to talk to government interrogators isn’t proof of guilt these days, is it?