Posted on 04/24/2008 9:19:02 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
As hundreds of children taken into state custody from a polygamous religious sect settle into their new foster homes, their temporary caregivers are careful how they introduce them to a whole new world.
First rule: no TV yet.
Foster homes and shelters across the state are scrambling to accommodate 437 children who have until now lived a largely isolated life on the Yearning for Zion Ranch, a sprawling 1,700-acre compound in West Texas.
"These kids don't know who the president is. Don't know that we're at war. Don't know who Elvis was, don't know who the Beatles were," said Bobby Gilliam, director of the Methodist Children's home in Waco, Texas, where some of the children will be staying.
-SNIP
The 50 girls who will be coming to the Methodist home in Waco will be woken up at the crack of dawn and given chores similar to what they did on the ranch. It will take time before they are ready to mix with other children and watch TV, Gilliam said.
Social workers are also being given a list of dos and don'ts for how to deal with children who may not have ever seen television and who were raised in a culture that the state says encourages underage girls to marry older men. Sect members deny the allegation.
Among the rules: don't ask about their religion, don't press if the children avoid eye contact and don't allow them to use cell phones.
Judge Barbara Walther, who ordered the children kept in temporary state custody, said that siblings should be kept together, that babies younger than 1 should stay with their mothers and that breast-feeding mothers with children between the ages of 1 and 2 should be allowed to live near their toddlers.
-SNIP-
The children are being housed until they have individual status hearings. Some children could be placed in permanent foster care. Some parents who have left the sect may win custody, while some youngsters may be allowed to return to the ranch in Eldorado.
Your "solution" was as I understand it, by your endorsement of those who were advocating the state remove the children, was that the state enforce regulations so as to avoid retardation and other adverse effects of certain breeding combinations. Once you give the power to the state to capriciously determine what is best for society i.e. the environment, business etc. the state always oversteps the original intent and usurps jurisdiction. If the state has a goal to eliminate the unwanted (retarded, ugly, certain races, certain religions - the traits are completely arbitrary) you have eugenics.
But, I am not advocating no standard rather than an arbitrary one, I am actually advocating an absolute standard.
I see you’ve dropped the smokescreen and adopted the strawman technique. Kitsch at best.
“a Mormon posts this.”
I am LDS not Mormon. Mormon is the name that was tagged on us. I saw a comment that asked that the Rev. Fred Phelps ilk not be lumped into the same basket as the rest of the Christians and I am asking the same. Distinguish between LDS, FLDS(not fLDS), and likewise. It is antagonistic and serves no real purpose but to serve as smokescreen.
My original question still stands, even in the face of your attempted marginalization. Nice try ansel12
What I endorse is the legal investigation of the activities of this cult. Evidence shows that there is inbreeding: Forbidden Fruit (Inbreeding among FLDS cult) leading to genetic disease.
Maybe your questions and opinions on that particular subject are better suited to that thread?
No more than you, sir.
No Mormon is fine, it is used by the Mormons, and your posts are revealing in that there is a great amount of hostility from some Mormons toward this cult finally running into someone that won’t coddle them.
A month ago it was a lot easier to believe that the FLDS sect of the Latter Day Saint movement was just a radical 80 year old, 10,000 member breakaway Mormon group that received no tolerance from the larger branches of the LDS tree.
Trying to turn this into Christian laws versus Mormons is not useful.
By placing your thoughts in such proximity it appears as if the second supports the first, that the real problem that must be addressed by investigation is genetic diseases caused by inbreeding. BTW- when does investigation come to mean removal of all children in a given area?
I do not quibble that inbreeding can lead to defects, I sternly object that those are sufficient cause for the state to remove children. God's law is a sufficient foundation for laws against incest, it is also sufficient to provide a remedy. Tyranny from the self declared "benevolent" state enforcing arbitrary means to Utopian end are not it.
“No Mormon is fine, it is used by the Mormons, and your posts are revealing in that there is a great amount of hostility from some Mormons toward this cult finally running into someone that won’t coddle them.”
I won’t coddle them and I hope that their misdeeds are corrected and the innocent are spared the substantial grief that will eventually come but I am confused by your overusage of the title “Mormon” and I don’t know if I should take it as an insult or leave it alone. Please clarify your first paragraph.
“Trying to turn this into Christian laws versus Mormons is not useful.”
I agree and that wasn’t my intent.
Any of our regular LDS members or former members know if LDS also uses this expression "yearning for Zion" a lot? Or is this only of historic or reference interest as far as LDS is concerned?
You know where this is headed, right?
We can't even see agreement from what you Mormons are saying. LDS poster Choose Ye This Day said fLDS is a "cult", but Elsie says LDS poster DelphiUser says that no one knows what 'cult' means. A Utah resident poster mentions that the FLDS cult tries to follow the original LDS faith as created by Joseph Smith & practiced by Brigham Young - the main distinction being that they refused to abandon polygamy but then an LDS poster (TChris) gets upset when an ex-Mormon thanks him for that post.
Last week, another LDS poster, Edward Watson says--minus any Mormons (that I know of) correcting him or admonishing him:
"Of course the FLDS is a Christian faith...Christian-Mormon-Fundamentalist Mormon-Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" as one of "four families in the Mormon branch of Christianity..." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999018/posts?q=1&;page=48 and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999018/posts?q=1&;page=319
Here's from a post of another thread before you posted #83:
Maybe if the Mormon apologists could just have a confab of their own to work out whether...
...fLDS is LDS...
...fLDS is ”Christian”...
...fLDS is a cult...
...fLDS is not a cult, but a “legit” branch of Mormonism
LDS minus D&C 132 orthopraxy is orthodox “Mormon”.
LDS is properly the "authorized" LDS church given that the Community of Christ/rLDS make the same claim with Zion/Independence, MO property in hand, ownership copyrights to the JST, JSmith's own direct descendents as leaders, etc...
I don't think the trend on the USSC is going your way!
Gee, imagine that! Different people, with different backgrounds, each having independent opinions! I guess we're not the brainwashed, lockstep, group-think automatons you thought.
Do all Baptists think in lockstep? All Presbyterians? All bitter ex-Mormons?
Young Elvis or Old Elvis?
I am sure arrests are on the way, but the law requires the children be protected first.
I don’t know anything about FLDS, but I doubt it would be much worse than working out of Barny Franks basement...and the feds weren’t too overly concerned about that.
I am aware and all that spells is slippery slope especially considering the events regarding home-schooling in CA. I will still be here when the first Baptist or Lutheran gets their kids taken away for their violation of the CA law on home-schooling. The only difference is that I will be with the majority then.
The grammar used to structure that sentence fails to properly convey the situation.
We could say "some of the fathers who were kicked out of the F(lds) may get custody of their own children.
The grammar used to structure that sentence fails to properly convey the situation.
We could say "some of the fathers who were kicked out of the F(lds) may get custody of their own children.
F(lds) does not, under the law, have the authority to change the legal custody of children. In fact, I think the process might best be described as felony kidnapping.
Now that you know what the writer is talking about (and how everybody but you understands the issue) do you want to reconsider your comments?
There are parents (mostly men I believe) out there who want their kids taken away from the F(lds) and given back to themselves.
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.