- Jan 12, 2006
- 5,454
- 441
- 36
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You realize there are plenty of gay couples where the child is in potential and alleged abuse. If your for gay marriage your gonna have to be for polygamous marriages, otherwise you look like an enourmous hypocrite with double standards.
PS this was your OP - it was based on authorities taking kids away
ONLY DUE TO BELIEFS & PRACTICES OF THEIR RELIGION....
Obviously its wrong to remove kids due to parent's religion alone. But when that religion is used to abuse and harm children, then the law does need to step in.
The issue becomes WERE THEY ABUSED. And I go back to my previous post points as to where I stand on that.
Child welfare agencies DO remove kids from homes that are harmful or dangerous for children - they do it often but usually as a last resort.
I've seen cops warn a father about not having enough food in their kitchen and the place being so dirty that if he didn't clean it up & get food in the house for them that they'de call child svcs. & have them removed.
Yes they DO go in & take kids out of homes regularly - I see nothing wrong with that when there's enough cause. No cult compound should be exempt (religion is nothing we stand behind to break laws). We don't exempt religion from our laws.
So then prove it was a conspiracy to remove religious rights.Exactly. The evidence summarized in the appellate court decision was exactly what was reported. There may have been a few teenagers who were abused, but there was no evidence of wholesale abuse of all the children from infants on up, other than that they were being taught religious doctrine. The law requires that a child be in immediate danger in order to be removed from a home without a court hearing. As the court found, teaching religious beliefs does not put children in immediate danger of harm. The only children conceivably in danger of immediate harm according to the evidence were adolescent girls. There was no evidence that conditions were dirty, that children were not being fed, or any other kind of abuse, other than underage marriage (legal or "spiritual") of teenage girls. The CPS and the trial judge overstepped their bounds in removing children who were not in danger of the type of harm alleged.
I'm against both
So then prove it was a conspiracy to remove religious rights.
I'm sorry, but...So then prove it was a conspiracy to remove religious rights.
Overstepping bounds (being hasty & reactionary) isn't an automatic assault on religious freedom. This could of happened to ANY non religious group compound where some were viewed to have been abused.
The Department’s lead investigator was of the opinion that due to the “pervasive belief system” of the FLDS, the male children are groomed to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and the girls are raised to be victims of sexual abuse;
Department witnesses expressed the opinion that there is a “pervasive belief system” among the residents of the ranch that it is acceptable for girls to marry, engage in sex, and bear children as soon as they reach puberty, and that this “pervasive belief system” poses a danger to the children.
(Opinion of the court pages 3 and 4)
So then prove it was a conspiracy to remove religious rights.
Overstepping bounds (being hasty & reactionary) isn't an automatic assault on religious freedom. This could of happened to ANY non religious group compound where some were viewed to have been abused.
I AM for poly marriages, I am not for child rape though.
I'm against both
Wonderful. You're definitely entitled to your opinion.
as we can both express them equally =)
I guess this is what alot of debate boils down to for many here.She didn't allege a conspiracy. That would be a Section 1985 violation.
Stop putting up strawmen to support your position. Admit you were wrong about the evidence and move on.
No I don't recant my statements (to CaDan) or my stance. When it comes to those cult compounds, with the history they have - if they are given enough reasonable cause for suspicion, then I HOPE they sweep in like cartoon superhero's & save someone's day if they need rescue from such a dysfunctional place.
I can't help it if they lied - nor can I know if they did, but I support them moving in if there's enough cause.
IF there isn't enough cause then obviously NO they should not. I think it's real simple and straightforward.
IF there wasn't just cause to remove kids, they shouldn't have. IF there was, they should have.
I consistently keep and stand by that standard in every cult compound situation.
Do either of you think the other's children are endangered by these beliefs?
society is harmed by open legalized immorality - the more that is accepted, the more is opened up for further acceptance and so the cycle continues.Do either of you think the other's children are endangered by these beliefs?
society is harmed by open legalized immorality - the more that is accepted, the more is opened up for further acceptance and so the cycle continues.
Each boundary and restriction that gains acceptance, the next follow in their place - it continues until all lines of what is moral and right get blurred or rejected altogether.
We already see this happening - and our youth are showing the results.
That's right. I treated all the reported evidence as true in all my posts in this thread. What I questioned was things people posted here as rumors that were not part of the evidence available to all of us to read in the news media.I guess this is what alot of debate boils down to for many here.
YOU'RE WRONG -I'M RIGHT. *rolling eyes* And THIS is a strawman.
Where did we claim that we were right about the evidence?- we used what was given to everyone as information.
I never argued that their information was false, except for the information available to all of us that the original phone call that precipitated the raid turned out to be false. This was already known before the first court hearing and widely reported. The authorities were not able to locate the girl who supposedly made the call. A woman in Colorado was charged with making a false report for making this call.Further, the OP here isn't asking "is their information true or false?"
Except for questioning the evidentiary value of the phone call, all my arguments were based on the evidence they CLAIMED.I doubt any of us would say "if there's no just cause to go in, they should go in & take 400 kids from their parents".
The issue was not about if their evidence was TRUE or not, but what the evidence they CLAIMED was.
I'm not wrong about my stance - I still stand by it no matter WHAT the evidence they found & I'll repeat it for you:
If an agency of authority is flat out LYING about its evidence, then why are you concluding we are "wrong"?
It would be equally true that if their evidence was found true and reliable, then you'de have a lesser case since so many innocent kids would have been helped by such a raid.
And if you want to play this "wrong" game of yours, I can say you were WRONG all during the time the information proved mass abuses. So we were BOTH right and wrong at different times.
Nothing like being back in gradeschool
society is harmed by open legalized immorality - the more that is accepted, the more is opened up for further acceptance and so the cycle continues.
Each boundary and restriction that gains acceptance, the next follow in their place - it continues until all lines of what is moral and right get blurred or rejected altogether.
We already see this happening - and our youth are showing the results.
Exactly, and we all were basically; how on earth are we able to decypher false information we were not directly involved in gathering or being privy to inside information from those involved? This was never the issue.That's right. I treated all the reported evidence as true in all my posts in this thread. What I questioned was things people posted here as rumors that were not part of the evidence available to all of us to read in the news media.
Well they should be charged for making false criminal reports.I never argued that their information was false, except for the information available to all of us that the original phone call that precipitated the raid turned out to be false. This was already known before the first court hearing and widely reported. The authorities were not able to locate the girl who supposedly made the call. A woman in Colorado was charged with making a false report for making this call.
As I read the thread, that's what all of us were basing views on. I stand by mine no matter what they find or don't find.Except for questioning the evidentiary value of the phone call, all my arguments were based on the evidence they CLAIMED.
It does occassionally happen.. lolI think you and I are actually in agreement, Nadiine
I think she has been, although I have not been following that story closely.Exactly, and we all were basically; how on earth are we able to decypher false information we were not directly involved in gathering or being privy to inside information from those involved? This was never the issue.
Well they should be charged for making false criminal reports.
And I had replied that even with false information by 1 caller, IF they go in and see other abuses or causes for alarm, then they have every right (and are responsible) to pursue those.
You can't take a stance where, just becuz the call was false, ... yet while they're there they see an emaciated little child who's clearly starving or 12 year old kids pregnant etc. that they have to leave & ignore what they saw only becuz the call was a prank.
As I read the thread, that's what all of us were basing views on. I stand by mine no matter what they find or don't find.
now now, aren't we a little above this type of personal retaliation?So thats a "yes". Can I change my answer to something thats as equally closed minded?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?