Polygamous-sect children ordered to stay in Texas custody

[Caitlin.ann]

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.

I AM for poly marriages, I am not for child rape though.

 

[Crazy Liz]

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.

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.

 

[Nadiine]

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.

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.

 

[Nadiine]

I AM for poly marriages, I am not for child rape though.

I'm against both

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I'm against both

Wonderful. You're definitely entitled to your opinion.

 

[Nadiine]

Wonderful. You're definitely entitled to your opinion.

as we can both express them equally =)

 

[CaDan]

So then prove it was a conspiracy to remove religious rights.

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.

 

[gengwall]

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'm sorry, but...

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)​

...And you don't think religion had anything to do with the department's motivation and actions? It was the departments obsession with the "pervasive belief system" specifically that led them to become "hasty & reactionary"​

 

[Crazy Liz]

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.

Sure it could. But in this case CPS said what put the vast majority of the children in immediate danger was religious indoctrination and nothing else:

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.​

Let's think of a non-religious "pervasive belief system" that might endanger children. What if a community had a pervasive belief system that it is acceptable for children of any age to drink wine at family dinners? What if a community had a pervasive belief system that it was acceptable to use marijuana? What if a community has a pervasive belief system that it is acceptable break the law in order to interfere with abortions?

Treating a belief system as posing an immediate danger to all children of parents who share that belief is a shocking thing. As I said, I have seen cases in which one parent's belief system that the other parent was going to hell was used as a reason to remove children from their custody. In these cases, custody was not put in state hands, but was awarded to the more liberal parent, and it was not done on an emergency basis, but after a court hearing where both parents were allowed to present evidence.

Ideas are dangerous, indeed. The Declaration of Independence should be enough proof of that. Yet our Constitution affords protection for dangerous ideas. If you are a parent, you may have taught your children some dangerous ideas that come from your own pervasive belief system. There is a reason laws allowing emergency removal of children require that they be in physical danger, not just psychological danger based on dangerous ideas.

I agree with you. There are some emergencies that require removing children from their parents immediately for the children's safety, and I also agree with you that teaching a belief system does not put children in immediate physical danger.

 

[Crazy Liz]

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 =)

Do either of you think the other's children are endangered by these beliefs?

 

[Nadiine]

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.

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.
Further, the OP here isn't asking "is their information true or false?"
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:

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.

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

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Do either of you think the other's children are endangered by these beliefs?

I don't know..what is Nadiine's beliefs? Some form of Christianity? Not unless she's deliberately harming them, neglecting them or disobeying the law, etc. As long as she cares for and loves her children faith isn't a factor unless she's letting them handle vipers or preaching outright hate for others.

 

[Nadiine]

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.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

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.

So thats a "yes". Can I change my answer to something thats as equally closed minded?

 

[Crazy Liz]

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.

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.

Further, the OP here isn't asking "is their information true or false?"

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.

CaDan said they lied about several things. I don't think I did.

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.

Except for questioning the evidentiary value of the phone call, all my arguments were based on the evidence they CLAIMED.

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

Evidence of rape, forced marriage, etc. simply was not found or presented in connection with the YFZ raid. The evidence relied upon was that the children were all endangered by a "pervasive belief system" and nothing more.

I think you and I are actually in agreement, Nadiine.

 

[CaDan]

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.

Non-responsive. Move to strike.

*to the Court Reporter* Would you read back the last question, please?

 

[Nadiine]

Non-responsive. Move to strike.

*to the Court Reporter* Would you read back the last question, please?

oh my gawsh

 

[Nadiine]

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.

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.

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.

Well they should be charged for making false criminal reports.
I know a young guy that was accused of rape by a girl who got assaulted at a party (a party he wasn't even at) & she blamed him becuz she didn't want her parents knowing she was at the party.
You cannot just make false criminal complaints against people, it's very serious & they should be punished for it.

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.

Except for questioning the evidentiary value of the phone call, all my arguments were based on the evidence they CLAIMED.

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.

I think you and I are actually in agreement, Nadiine

It does occassionally happen.. lol
But in this case, he switched the topic of our discussion in order to try to force a "wrong" accusation & it didn't work. Fair is fair and that's what we should all strive for in discussions. (my opinion at least).

 

[Crazy Liz]

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.

I think she has been, although I have not been following that story closely.

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.

I think the main issues argued here is what constitutes "cause for alarm," and whether all the children needed to be remove before the investigation continued. Nobody has argued CPS should drop the investigation. If children are not in immediate danger of physical harm, investigations proceed without removing the children.

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.

But that didn't happen here.

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.

Not everyone. Some of the posters here still think CPS did the right thing, even though they didn't have evidence. Some here are arguing rape, forced marriage and other kinds of abuse that were not part of the evidence in this case.

 

[Nadiine]

So thats a "yes". Can I change my answer to something thats as equally closed minded?

now now, aren't we a little above this type of personal retaliation?

The revised definition of "closed minded": anyone who doesn't agree with my liberalistic opinions"



Amazing the toleration people push around here yet how rarely it's shown to certain people.