Although the children's welfare should be the primary concern, the focus has apparently shifted to "sort[ing] out family relationships that have confounded authorities." Child welfare officials noted that it was difficult to understand the relationships among the residents of the ranch because of vague or changing answers to their questions. It is hard to understand why anyone at Child Protective Services thinks that separating young children from their mothers is in the children's best interest, absent evidence of child abuse by the mothers. Removing these small children from the care of their mothers disrupts their lives without good reason.
Most Americans find polygamy distasteful, but it is unclear why it is in the public interest for the practice to be illegal. While the practice of polygamy is against the civil law of the United States, it is both an ancient practice and one that is accepted in other cultures. Indeed, a man having and supporting several wives is preferable to the American practice of serial monogamy, in which men often produce several families by several women, and then fail to support their children. As long as marriages are contracted by consenting adults aware of the existing situation before marrying, it should not matter who marries whom.
The problem with the Yearning for Zion Ranch arose when it became known that underage girls were being married to adult men against their wills. Such a situation should not be tolerated, and it is in the public interest to intervene on behalf of the children involved. However, separating very young children from their mothers, after removing them from their homes by force is likely to traumatize them even further.
The United States has remained true to the letter of the law, while breaking its spirit. Congress has made no law regarding the practice of religion, but religious intolerance is widespread. Americans may claim to tolerate diversity, but only as much diversity as they can ignore. FDLS crossed that line and is now being punished.
Four-year-olds were neither practicing polygamy nor pedophilia. They are the unwitting victims of the public's prurient interest in their parents' marital arrangements. The sins of the fathers should not be visited upon the children in this case. In light of the fact that the caller to the domestic abuse hotline who instigated the raid on the community has not come forward, the families should be allowed to return to their homes.
While it is not unreasonable to remove underage girls who are mothers of small children or pregnant, to disrupt entire family units who were not involved in wrongdoing seems punitive and unduly harsh. Taxpayers are currently supporting 416 children who were formerly provided for by their family units, however unorthodox those families may seem to mainstream Americans. Removing the accused pedophile fathers from the homes would serve the purpose of protecting the children and the public interest. Clearly, removing those adults whose behavior was a danger to the children, while leaving the innocent in peace is a simpler, more humane solution.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 96
I'm sure there are other problems. That's just one.
I would not personally enjoy a polygamous marriage myself but I'm not going to judge another man who might!
The government in the US has gone way to far on many many fronts and it will only add to the chaos in the end!
Also the polygamy is not the big issue for me, to each his own and freedom of religion however child abuse breaks my heart. No child should have children as young as some of these mothers. I believe one 16 year old girl had already had 4 kids... thats unfathomable at least to me.
As long as there is no pediophilia involved, I really don't see what the problem is. Everyone seems "focused" on that man who wants two (or more) wives. What about a "Wife" who NEEDS a "wife-type person" to assist her in all the chores of motherhood, respite care and so forth?
Sharing a man has gone on since time immemorable. What about Abraham, and the two mothers of his children?
I'm not saying I approve or disapprove of polygamy. That should be the choice of the people involved, as long as the choice is MADE FREELY.
I'm not a Mormon, I'm not Muslim, but what I AM is someone who has been through "serial monogamy" and sees the deterious effects that has on the children in those cases.
Well thought out, and well written. Brava!
Please, continue posting your opinions. I might not agree with them, but you have a right to post them.
If there is anything normal about adults having sex with children then the rest of the world must be abnormal.
Some of these women and girls have never known any other way of life. I saw a woman on a talk show... Oprah I believe, who had escaped from her husband with all 8 of her children who said she felt as though she had been living in a third world country. She didn't know who the President was, she had never seen a cell phone.
It just feels to me as though these women and children are being punished for being oppressed.
It's a matter of perspective. I'd rather see my young daughters marry an older man who can provide a stable life than to see them go through untold agony with partners who aren't worthy of them. As for polygamy? Yeah. I could use an extra wife around here... or two.
Granted, most of these women do not seem very capable of making decisions and what we consider appropriate parenting, but they have expressed their willingness to obtain training, coaching and even to move away from the ranch.
Again, where are the men? Where are the perpetrators? The government got it very wrong - they focused on the wrong people. The children have become victimes once again - this time at the hands of the entity which is charged for protecting it.
When it comes to religion the rule of law in this country is never consistent.
The children may be cooperating with the authorities in this case. I believe they have something on the ranch.
As far as polygamy - I see no reason why it should be illegal in this country. I don't think that the government has any interest in the matter. Having said that, when there is child abuse, the authorities must take charge of the situation.
I don't know. It doesn't seem like it's an either or proposition in practice. Especially in cases where religion is in conflict with the law. Mind you, this has nothing to do with anything I believe either about religion or the role of law in society. All I'm saying is that when law and religion mix we get results that aren't consistent with the law.
The real question here is why it took so long for the law to be enforced. We're told that someone blew the whistle about what was going on at the Zion Ranch. Really, does anyone think that was the first time a flag went up about the goings on there? Now, all those innocent children are separated from their families, this has become a national scandal, and the taxpayers end up paying for the blunder. None of this should ever have happened.
This is such a complicated issue. The pedophilia taking place is clearly unconscionable, and that should be the root of the governments course of action. The law in this country is very clear on this stance, however, it does not appear to be attacking this situation from this angle; rather focus upon judgement of the unorthodox (to most Americans) religious practice taking place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this countries most basic ideals were founded upon Freedom of Religion. We seem to forget that sometimes these days.
I'd be curious to find out the divorce rate among these fundamentalist Mormon families, but common sense tells me it's probably almost non-existent, as well as the issue of adultery. Who's to say it would it better suit these children to take them from all the Love they've ever known, and best case scenario, adopt them into a cookie cutter American family?
Current statistics show a rough estimate that the current divorce rate in America is 60%, it is tolerable because divorce is legal. I'm not sure that there is a statistic relating to the number of "bastard" children being raised in this country without fathers. Yet, how many people are questioning the effect and possible abuse this acceptable situation causes?
Bravo Ann.
I repeat that underage girls should not be forced into marriages against their wills, but as for the underlying family structure, if it worked for the participants, it should have been left alone.
As for the rule of law, civil disobedience is a longstanding and well-used method for changing those laws we find unjust. It could be argued that this is exactly what the FLDS group did. Regardless, traumatizing small children by taking them away from their mothers cannot be good. And why leave the children with underage mothers? The whole handling seems like a plan to punish these people because they are different.
OK, you're wrong. The most basic principle this nation was founded upon is the rule of law, and not of men. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to ignore the law. Calling sexual relations with multiple partners "religious freedom", is just plain stupid. That's freedom of sex.
If your "religion" says it's OK to violate the law, and teach children to do the same, better find a new religion.
As for the men involved in this scenario, one of them (the head honcho), Warren Jeffs, who is somehow related to the Jeffs guy that is already in prison for this kind of crap that went on in AZ, took off when the raid started or just before. I believe one other male has been taken into custody. But it sure seems like the males in the compound found a carefully planned exit strategy before the poop hit the fan, wouldn't you say? Curious...
I don't think children are better off with parents who mistreat them in the name of religion, and I don't think freedom of religion should mean anyone is exempt from the law.
For my most outrageous thought: I don't think any child should be subjected or introduced to religion until the age of 18.
One of the fundamental principals of "civil disobedience" is to be willing to suffer the consequences of your behavior.
A thought on the "rule of law'. It is against the law in Texas for anyone under 16 to marry period! If you have females running around pregnant tht are under 16, you either have a violation of the marragie law or you have statutory rape.
Failure to report abuse as in sex with underage girls is also a criminal act.
Lying to investigators is obstruction of justice, also a criminal act.
These so called "innocent" women simply are not so innocent.
It certainly is outrageous, though it might not be so, in China.
The mishandling in this case comes in with the seperation of church and state. The videos coming out in those first days showed Baptist buses caring the kids to a Baptist church to be handed over to Baptist church people for care and counseling. I am sure Baptists everywhere must (or should) be up in arms that their church's name should be used in such a way. Since when does the pastor of this church have the right to use his sanctuary as a jail? And, since when do the police and CPS have the right to accept such an offer? I am sure that there were school buses, schools and other facalities available, as well as mental health workers from across the state that could have been used. Ill conceived and ill carried out.
Sandy, I'm with you. No religion until children are at an age to understand it--at an age of free choice. Children should be educated about all of the major world religions. Their choice should be free, otherwise, it is not a choice--it is religious brainwashing.
To all thinking adults: Whatever we do as free-spirited adults: consenting, thinking, being worthy or unworthy citizens--those with nothing to loose, do whatever the heck you want. Remember, judge not.
However, to those who have children; all bets are off. It is a generally held belief that "protecting children" is a sacred duty. Your full time (168/hrs/week) job immediately and irrevocably becomes to protect the rights and safety of your children.
The laws and freedoms protecting the rights of adults is fine--each to his/her own. Once children are involved, your decisions had better be in the best interest of the child, (IMHO) or you should / will/ ought to be prosecuted or whipped senseless.
In cases of pedophelia, (and only in such cases) I believe that the early 17th century pillory and stocks should be re-vamped, polished, revarnished. Give the victim's mom, dad, aunts, sisters, brothers, and cousins--barbecue forks. Have at him darlings!
"John/Jjack (whatever)... We are not china."
That's my point.
Any other concepts or behaviours you'd like to see policed? Would morality be off limits? or philosophy in general? . . . or just stuff that does not meet you standards for being appropriately 'hush hush', about an all powerful God's existence, to ones offspring?
I also don't like the "intolerance" label that much--only because it's always used when religions are involved, as if those enjoyed special protection. It shouldn't matter that there is a religious issue here. Our assessment should be the same if this was a non-religious situation.
Historically, the once thriving Shakers also practiced communal parenting and it was allowed to do so under the concept of separation of church and state. Therefore, the FDLS can cite it as precedent for legal recognition and protection of its practices.
Well stated, John. If you feel so badly about this situation, Ann, then go out and advocate for the law to be changed. Advocate for polygamy, underage marriage, and the resulting mess it creates for children.
This is a very sad circumstance, to be sure. Sad for the children most of all. They are innocents brought into a sick, sick situation. Bottom line is that they ARE better off being separated from people who have no respect for the law or each other as individuals, and absolutely no respect for the innocent children who are brought up in this situation and suffer the abuse.
I disagree that this country was founded on the law. Before the law we had people who fought and died for religious freedoms as well as freedom from an oppressive government. I whole heartedly agree with Gail in the following quote.
"First, allow me to state upfront that I do not condone the lifestyle of these people. Neither do I condone the actions of our government in this matter. Waco was proven to be a sham and totally mishandled after the fact. What is to happen here when the future writes the pages that none of us are privy to at this point?"
We will not know for sometime what is really happening.
I believe that there is something very wrong with a country that takes children away from the only home they have known and THEN builds it's case against the parents of these children. Does it look like there was a serious problem on this compound YES. But we are only hearing what the government wants us to hear. That is why the mother's cell phones where taken away.
What scares me the most about all of this is the amount of POWER these government agenceys have and the blatant disreguard they have for their own laws.
It is always the people on the fringes of society that governments attack first. After all the majority of use feel we have the right to judge these people .... because they are different from us.
I feel so sorry for these children. I don't know if there is now...or ever was a good solution for them. I do not however believe that the government is better at parenting than parents are.
As a last comment .... it is interesting to me that when Ms Clinton says that "it takes a villiage to raise a child." people applaud but when others actually put this into practice they are condemned.
Yes, Grace..she did say that....but she DIDN'T say, "it takes a village to MAKE a child."
And to declare a girl 'underage' at 16, is perhaps not even realistic, when MOST adolescent girls in our society ARE 'sexually active' by that age. So are we stating that we prefer for our 16 year old girls go have sex OUTSIDE OF WEDLOCK? (Which is what many will be doing, if they are not allowed or encouraged to marry.) Then we wonder why we have a 'welfare system'???
In fact, many states allow a 16 year old girl to marry, if she has her parent's written consent. So what is the problem here? 16 is not a SHOCKING age at all, for a girl to marry. Maybe TEXAS just doesn't have the 'legal exception' for 16 year old girls, in their state, even though it's common in many other states? Let's don't forget Texas produced that other fiasco called "WACO", which resulted in the DEATHS of about 40 children! (way to mis-handle that one, Texas!)
I'm going to take with a grain of salt, the claim that these girls were 'forced to marry, against their will'. Where is the proof, for that?
I also think the law against polygamy, in this country, violates our constitutionally guaranteed right to FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, so who is REALLY the bigger 'law breaker' here??
One just can't be sure if there is a REAL issue of 'child abuse' here, or if this is just another manifestation of religious discrimination, which is currently being sanctioned and supported by the State, in VIOLATION of the US Constitution.
Why is polygamy so aggressively attacked in this nation anyway? Is there something that is perceived as 'threatening', about this practice, perhaps, by the 'powers that be'?
Perhaps the notion of LARGE EXTENDED FAMILIES, is considered somewhat threatening, by the gov't, for various reasons? Such as, the possibility that these large families may be HIGHLY UNIFIED IN CERTAIN CAUSES?
Look at it this way, if a man has 4 wives, and has 4 children, by each of those wives, thats 16 CHILDREN. If those 16 CHILDREN go on to have 16 CHILDREN EACH, in the same manner - that produces 256 GRANDCHILDREN, to ONE MAN. That's a rather formidable little 'tribe' there... Almost a SMALL ARMY! Imagine the damage (or good?) they could do, if they were all UNIFIED in support of each other! Could truly disrupt the 'balance of power' in some places. Which is perhaps what some people REALLY DON'T WANT?? Large families such as this, may simply be regarded as having the potential to become TOO POWERFUL.
Maybe that's why the Mormons were attacked, originally? Because the potential for them to move into any area, and simply TAKE OVER, by virtue of their numbers and unity, was just too great?? I mean, they were really violently attacked, with such ferocity, they had to move away from everyone else, and create their own state, basically... (Utah - which is still largely under their control and influence)
I'm not a Mormon, and don't necessarily believe in all Mormon doctrines either, but it ticks me off, when a US citizen's right to religious freedom is so blatantly violated, as has always been the case, on the polygamy issue.
I think it's time we moved into the 21st century, and stopped supporting this discriminatory violation of constitutional principles. And don't forget, as long as this discrimination continues to be be upheld and supported by the state, there remains SOME MOTIVATION to DISCREDIT all those who attempt to continue with this practice, despite this institutionalized violation of their rights, as US citizens...
GT
That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. GT - do you have a daughter? Is she or has she been 16? If you had a daughter and any sense at all, you would not have said this. It is absolutely ludicrous. It's like saying, "well, there are cases of 16 yr olds using drugs, so let's change the law to allow 16 yr olds to use drugs."
People will go to any length to defend someone who puts some sort of religious front on their perversity. Pathetic.
Interesting point brought up - there are sexually active adolescents all over the place. Maybe it isn't so wrong to marry them off? *shrugs* I graduated from high school with a girl whose daughter had just graduated from kindergarten - this was in the mid-80s. (add that up in your head - nine months plus at least five years).
Granted, I came from the hills...
There could be lots of parts of this that aren't reported. For one, usually much of the evidence available for trial is not reported until it is presented as evidence. So, if the stuff is much WORSE, then we might not hear all of it yet. On the other hand, it is nowhere near as sensational if there are like two families out of the whole group who are really being bad about things, and the rest are all abiding every law BUT the one about polygamy. Then more people would be up in arms over the wrong of this. You can't create NEAR as much sensation that way...
The mystery is part of what keeps the public obsessed. How else are they going to continue to sell advertising?
Also girls are basically slaves and not allowed an opinion or the option to go to college, etc.
These environments are lethal and should all be stopped.
"For one minute remember what it was like to be four years old. Now imagine someone comes along and says, "Your mommy thinks a wrong thing. You can't live with her any more. Come with me."
Firstly, we cannot "remember what it is like to be four years old". It is not possible, and what we imagine is what an adult imagines, not the reality of being four. Secondly, all your doing here is asking us to imagine a good mother being accused of bad things. What if the mother in question is not a good mother? What if she is mean or uncaring or delusional? Such people do exist, do they not? If what you happen to imagine is wrong, then it is perfectly possible that mother would continue to harm their child in serious ways, and our imagination would have caused us to hurt that child, not help them.
That less desirable possibility is not something the authorities can simply ignore, and do as the law requires. We, as a society, have charged them with investigating situations such as we seem to have come upon here, to determine what potential there is that the parents of such children are unfit, and ought not be allowed to control the children's lives. If they were to just assume the mothers were all innocent and healthy for the children to be around, they should be fired, and replaced with people that will do what the laws we put in place require. What Ann, or John, images of these folks has no bearing on the matter, hopefully.
It is being done in this case to punish the adults, just as keeping the adolescent mothers with their children is a punishment of sorts. Which 14 year old wants to take care of a baby every minute of the livelong day? I was much older than that when I had my kids and I can tell you that there were times I'd have sold organs for an hour of peace.
These people do not accept our mainstream values and culture; therefore we will disrupt their lives to the greatest degree possible.
Regardless, I see a lot of nonsense on this thread.
The big one is the "Polygamy is wrong" idea. Perfectly nice people who are honest and generous all over the world are in polygamous marriages right now. Given my upbringing I doubt I'd do well in that kind of marriage but I can't see anything morally objectionable to it.
Another, not quite so unreasonable is the "rule of law." It's a nice ideal. I subscribe to it. I can't see adhering to it in the good old Draconian manner where the letter of the law is everything. Our legal system wasn't designed to handle this situation.
We have a situation in Texas where several hundred people including a large number of children are involved. We need to be humane and pragmatic. Absolutes don't work well when you need a solution like that.
The expression 'it takes a village' means that every person has a responsibility to set a good example for the children of his/her community. That's all it means contrary to the propaganda you hear from Hillary's critics.
~~ of all those children taken there were several under 16 that were pg and several who had given birth already ~~
If this is proven to be a fact in a court of law and the state's age of consent is below that threshold, then it may determine that a crime or series of crimes has occurred.
~~ girls of 13 married to men over 50 ~~
This was legal in the Bible. Under the law of biblical Israelites, a girl reached maturity at puberty and, more often than not, was married at that tender age.
~~ nowhere in the Bible does it say there should be ONLY one woman and one man. In fact, many of the patriarchs had multiple wives. ~~
The Mosaic law in Isaiah 4:1 specifically allows a man to have at least seven wives at one time. This was never overruled or even addressed under Messianic law. Therefore, contrary to what you are told in churches, polygyny is biblically permissable.
That is to be determined by a court of law, not by you or anyone on this forum.
We all want to protect society's children. But we must also adhere to the rule of law and respect the legal process and constitutional principle. Otherwise, we open the door to anarchy and everyone's well being is jeopardized.
Ann, I believe you some 'issues'.
There are lots and lots of smoke in this situation. There WILL turn out to be lots of FIRE as well.
Whatever you feelings about polygamy or freedom of (and FROM religion),
This still is (as John points out) a nation of LAWS.
Regardless of how long it took for the State to take action, attention needs to be focused on the facts as they become evident.
I believe the facts will show massive amounts of systematic child abuse.
If these women truly want their children back they start by fully cooperating with the authorities in every way possible (DNA testing, testimony, leaving the compound, etc.)
Most of all, WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN ( even if it means separating them from their parents who refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoings in this whole fiasco).
For those of you who are religious, may I suggest you actually read the details of the history of Mormonism?
It is NOT a religion, it IS a CULT.
But societies that are polygamous invariable afford little choice and freedom to women, treating them as property to be acquired, and as a result have increased competition between men, since, you know, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1 everywhere. Simply put, polygamy serves the interest of high-status (often older) men to the detriment of women and low-status (younger) men. This situation is certainly not without consequences for these societies, nor in the lives of the individuals involved.
It is NOT a religion, it IS a CULT.
Neil--what's the difference?
I knew one man who acted as husband to two wives, both of whom were happy with the arrangement. The women lived in separate houses, but they visited with one another and spent holidays together. Their children knew each other as siblings and spent time with the other mother.
I think this was the opposite if what we're seeing here . These people lived in the real world, knew how others lived, and were free to make choices. They allowed their children to see the real world.
I'm not sure this would work for many people, but think it should be an option to those for whom it will work. I guess it is, as long as they don't marry.
I think it might be a good idea to do away with traditional marriage and make them all civil. Each insurance policy would cover one spouse and a maximum of four children, and those who wanted additional spouses and children could buy additional policies.
While there are many potential answers, one is rather pertinent to the conversation which has occurred in this thread. The word derives from the Latin cultus; meaning care or adoration. A "Religion" is not centered on the "godhood", or "ruler-ship", of individuals, but on "the rule of Law". When a group begins obeying certain people, as if those people are gods, they have become a cult. When the "rules" and doctrines take precedence over any "leader's" interpretations or proclamations, one is within the generally accepted definition of a "Religion".
In a sense, the individual adherent's well being, is the ultimate purpose of a "Religion", just as the individual citizen's well being is the ultimate purpose of government in this nation. Just as our government loses it's legitimacy if we cross into the realm of treating the President as a King or dictator, a religion becomes a cult, when it's "leader's" well being, becomes the focus of the groups care and adoration.
I don't want to get into evolutionary biology, but it has some relevance here. Men's evolutionary interests are different from women's, and there's a significant conflict between the two. Men can have several children at the same time if they fertilize several women, while women can only have one at a time, and the way they can maximize their "output" is by ensuring the best possible protection and support for those children. (We of course expect all the children we give birth to to survive these days, but that was far from the case in the past.) That's in a direct conflict with what the men would want to do. While we don't consciously follow these biological imperatives--some of us don't even want children--our instincts and feelings about sexual situations are based on those biological realities. They explain why men are more interested in variety, so speak, while women are more interested in ensuring the full attention and commitment of one man.
In other words, it seems to me polygyny serves the men quite well--they win. (Except for the ones who lose, of course--see my points above about competition, status, [inequality, hierarchies, violence, war....]) It serves the women much less--they lose by having to share what they'd really want for themselves with other women. In most cases, I think they wouldn't choose that if they were really in a good position to choose.
Okay, as usual I just did what I said I wasn't going to do.
Would it make much difference in the US if they allowed people like the man and two women you mention above? Probably not. Practical issues would need to be answered: how many spouses can you put on your insurance? How many can file taxes together? How many dependents can you claim in the spouse category? How many can you sponsor for immigration? Can any of the spouses make decisions about any of the children? Inheritance? Responsibility for debts? Medical decisions? What if the spouses disagree? --You answered some of those, but I think more devils in the details would appear if polygamy were legalized.
(All marriages are civil in much of Europe [not the UK]. Additional religious ceremonies are everyone's own business, but only the certificates issued by the civil authorities are recognized by the law. That doesn't make much difference, really, and don't think it has stopped religious people from arguing against same-sex marriage there....)
My point is more that even though I think the people in Texas are loonies who practice a way of life I couldn't practice at gunpoint I don't think Texas has done a good job. I have the sneaking suspicion that the motivation for the raid was not entirely humanitarian. :)
A Cult is generally thought of as an entity which goes against the more's of the mainstream and has unpopular, sometimes illegal practices and or beliefs.
And, yes Melinda, I would be happy to debate (in private with you) the FACT that Mormonism IS A CULT, plain and simple, just as is Scientology.
Or are you ready to board that spaceship with Tom Cruise?
In fact, you are going to find that there was pedophilia and abuse. Now, who in their right mind would think leaving children with women who may or may not be the mothers...and who may have had knowledge and even actively participated in the abuse of children is a good idea?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Re: the cult vs. religion question: there are of course several meanings. (The Latin "cultus" etymology is not helpful--they used it for religion, after all, and it gave us the word culture, among others. It still means "a particular form of religion" in many languages that also borrowed it--those languages would use "sect" for what you're talking about here.)
All the different ways people use the word cult have been mentioned here: mainstream vs. minority (so would you say Christianity is a cult in Iraq?); established rituals vs. following a charismatic leader (so when did Christianity become a religion?); or the sociologically indeed helpful criteria of whether people's lives are controlled to an extreme degree, whether they're separated from the outside world and from family members who are not in the cult, whether the KoolAid is about to be served. (By those criteria, I don't see how mainstream Mormonism would be a cult.)
But for a lot of people, indeed it's like this: we and our nice neighbors have religion; those nasty people are in a cult.
If believing that it's inappropriate for old men to molest and impregnate girls who are under the legal age of consent is intolerance, then I've got bucketloads of it for these people.
One post I read on here says that if an underage girl has a baby in this community and no one did anything about it, there must be something wrong with everyone. What would we say about some of the inner city communities where it is common to see young girls with children from multiple fathers? Should we go into Harlem and take all the children into custody?
Precisely. At this point, the court/state has not had one shred of evidence to prove that a crime or series of crimes have taken place. All we have is an allegation that the law has been violated.
And yet, how many people here and elsewhere have cried out ''pedophilia'' and are all set to put certain people -- cultists or otherwise -- in jail despite the absence of evidence??
Oh and David i just better mention that over in the UK we don't need proof that a child is being abused we go get that child out of that environment and ask questions after,the child's safety comes first every time and we go in hard we batter down the doors and we don't give a hoot what the parents rights are, and if they threatened to sue the courts would just laugh at them and tell them to get lost .
1. The lack of unconditional love toward these children by their parents as evidenced by turning their back on the older boys and sending them out into a world they know nothing about.
2. The secrecy of who the biological parents are. If there is no wrongdoing why all the secrecy?
3. The possible underage impregnations - possibly incestual in nature
My thoughts are this:
1. There is no doubt these women are severely brainwashed. Look at their nearly identical styles of dress and hair. Even their soft, sort of monotone voices are identical.
2. An innocent parent would step up to the plate to claim her/his child.
3. I am sure that this experience was their worst nightmare. The members have probably been prepared for this for years - sort of like fire drills in school
4. Imagine the culture shock these children must be enduring. Many things they have never seen or experienced, many foods they have never tasted.
I really hope that Texas CPS did not jump the gun here. I really do. Because these children's lives are being completely turned upside down. I guess we will all see how this plays out.
It's the same among Quakers, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims. The parents have retained legal counselors in order to get their children back.
Because the older men need to have many wives, and because children who are born are half girls and half boys, young boys are routinely kicked out of the community when they are in their early teens, usually with little education. Many of them become drug addicts, alcoholics, or simply commit suicide. They are known as the "lost boys," and many documentaries have been done on this issue.
Most who know anything about this group (FDLS) are applauding the removal of the children. Utah and Arizona allowed it to happen for far too long, and Im glad that Texas is taking action. THese children, girls and boys, should not be around either their perverted fathers, OR their mothers who simply turned a blind eye and allowed the abuse/abandonment to continue for too long.