Yet another religious cult raided

[kandrathe]

I'm not saying Joseph Smith was a delusional sexual psychopath, although I'm sure he was delusional, at the very least. Or a liar.

But, to establish widespread polygamy, in the sense that the Mormons practiced it, requires a certain concept of the role of women, one which is incompatible with the idea that they are free to decide things for themselves. That kind of situation tends to bring out the worst in men with authority, and if Joseph Smith was innocent on the charge of sexual abuse, I'll give you dollars to donuts that a great many of his descendants were not, and I suspect the worst of them are the ones who refused to give up polygamy, and instead retreat to compounds in the desert, safe from the long arm of the law and free to practise whatever religious tyranny they liked.

-Jester

Egalitarianism and Complementarianism are concepts in great debate in many Christian sects, not just the FLDS. How do the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites, Quakers, or the Southern Baptists treat their women? For that matter, how does Joe Sixpack from Scranton, Ohio treat his wife and children? My father was pretty adamant that "no wife of mine will work outside the home". As a society, our modern values are continuously changing, but for many people (especially those cloistered out in the middle of nowhere) the values are frozen back 200 years ago. Is it the government who should step into these communities and declare the people free, or maybe send the women to deprogramming so they can run around and have multiple sexual partners and children without marriage like the rest of us?

[Bun-Bun]

You have no arguments from me on that. I think that if the FLDS would have not married off girls under 18, and allowed women to leave with their children whenever they pleased that the State's may have left them alone. As it is, the sect has become overly oppressive and antithetical to modern American notions of liberty. But, it's another Waco, without the violence. The government is intent on destroying this sect, which should make people stand up and take notice.

I did.

I also cheered. Religious dogma cannot trump civil law, not if we expect to retain any equity, any rule of law.

Regardless of the intent (which I think is more benign than you do, to no one's surprise) every government act I've heard of has been logically directed at gaining evidence of the crime reported, and to protect children for which there was ample evidence of a pattern of abuse, as defined by the secular state. The authorities appear to be moving cautiously, with attention to the niceties.

As to destroying the sect, I find it unlikely anyone who wishes this will be gratified. Already Legal Aid is being deluged with calls from the women whose children were placed in state custody. I speculate there will be a lot of lawyers flocking to their side in short order. I hope, but am not optimistic, that some of these women will take the opportunity to choose to exit the FLDS.

[Jester]

But, it's another Waco, without the violence. The government is intent on destroying this sect, which should make people stand up and take notice.

Take notice and do what? The Branch Davidians at Waco were a crazy, abusive cult led by a madman that ended in mass suicide. Should people really be opposed to the idea that the government should intervene in such a case? It was ham-handed, and that probably contributed to the tragedy, but can such a thing really be left to stand inside a lawful state?

-Jester

[Jester]

Is it the government who should step into these communities and declare the people free, or maybe send the women to deprogramming so they can run around and have multiple sexual partners and children without marriage like the rest of us?

Isn't it one of the founding principle of the United States that the government exists exactly for the purpose of its people being free? Wasn't that the original "declaration" about self-evident rights that started the whole ball rolling?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Isn't it one of the founding principle of the United States that the government exists exactly for the purpose of its people being free? Wasn't that the original "declaration" about self-evident rights that started the whole ball rolling?

Well, sure. I was being a bit facetious. They are free, and they have chosen within their understanding to remain yoked. So, then, is it the governments job to make them smell the coffee? Or, is it enough for us to offer it to them if they would like to have it? I think the latter. Yes, DOI states that people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of <strike>property</strike> happiness... In the founders view it is God who is the guarantor of liberty, not the government. Our government was built to be in harmony with the Judeo/Christian philosophy, not to enforce it, and not in opposition to it. My view is that government's role is to provide each person the framework within which they can be free, not to enforce freedom upon every individual.

So, in regards to FLDS or other such organizations; the governments role is to insure that persons are not restrained from leaving their communities if they so choose. And, the government should ensure the citizens of these communities abide by the laws of the land.

[kandrathe]

Take notice and do what? The Branch Davidians at Waco were a crazy, abusive cult led by a madman that ended in mass suicide. Should people really be opposed to the idea that the government should intervene in such a case? It was ham-handed, and that probably contributed to the tragedy, but can such a thing really be left to stand inside a lawful state?

I think you miss the point. Almost all the Branch Davidians at Waco suffered (and died), the guilty along with the innocent. Although, as I see now on the internet, the sect continues.

[tmsti]

Here is the way I see it, from my knowledge and from people I know that are polygamists. Most polygamists are married by religious ceremony only, no licenses or records with the state. So if they "marry" another wife under the legal age of state sex laws, and are "practicing" the marriage where in the girls are under legal age you are committing statutory rape because you aren't married in the states eyes. Most states don't care that you practice polygamy as long as all parties are of legal and consenting age.

[Bun-Bun]

In the founders view it is God who is the guarantor of liberty, not the government.

Sorry, not buying into that. This is a secular state, by the plan and will of the founders. They did not rely on a deity to guarantee liberty; they fought a revolution and placed specific institutional bounds on the power of the successor government with an eye to actively circumscribing the behaviors they found odious. In no way were the founders so passive.

So, in regards to FLDS or other such organizations; the governments role is to insure that persons are not restrained from leaving their communities if they so choose. And, the government should ensure the citizens of these communities abide by the laws of the land.

I was under the distinct impression you objected to the events at the FLDS compound, yet the government agencies were working to enforce the laws of the land.

So, since the people in Yearning For Zion were restrained by fear and ignorance, what would you see as the government's role in upholding their rights?

[Jester]

The views of the founding fathers were many, and you and I have disagreed sharply over at least one of them in terms of his religion.

However, I think it fair to say that while they may have recognized God at the *creator* of liberty, it was the government of, by and for the people which would be the *guarantor* of liberty. They did not expect God to strike tyrants down with lightning bolts, they expected the people united to stand up to them.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

or maybe send the women to deprogramming so they can run around and have multiple sexual partners and children without marriage like the rest of us?

Who and what are these deprogrammed women of loose morals that you speak of.

But more importantly, how can I contact them?

[kandrathe]

Sorry, not buying into that. This is a secular state, by the plan and will of the founders. They did not rely on a deity to guarantee liberty; they fought a revolution and placed specific institutional bounds on the power of the successor government with an eye to actively circumscribing the behaviors they found odious. In no way were the founders so passive.

In the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, the language is fairly expository on how they explained to King George that he has been usurped by a higher power. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal (egalitarian - surf and king are equal in Gods eyes) and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (meaning rights bestowed upon man by God, not by men) and that among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which was "property", or meaning prosperity but changed to be less specific on what makes one happy I guess.) This set up the discussion of slavery(being that they just declared that all men are equal in Gods eyes), even at the beginnings of the federation of States, but was tabled since it was such a controversial topic.

I was under the distinct impression you objected to the events at the FLDS compound, yet the government agencies were working to enforce the laws of the land.

I'm not against the government acting in response to evidence of a crime, or even with reasonable suspicion investigating an individual. In this case, they did investigate and found out that the person who was fingered was the wrong person, and were unable to find the woman who reported the alleged abuse. Now 416 children have been forcibly removed from their parents by authorities, who are probably grilling them about their lifestyle. I mean, imagine that this was a Catholic Archdiocese in Boston where there were allegations that the Priest was fondling the little boys and the government swooped in an rounded up all the children of the parents belonging to that church. It's outrageous behavior, and excessive for the state to treat all the parents as abusers, or that the people are too afraid, "brain washed", or subjugated to resist or escape.

So, since the people in Yearning For Zion were restrained by fear and ignorance, what would you see as the government's role in upholding their rights?

Being "restrained by ignorance" is not something the state will solve. Being restrained by fear of harm, threat, from abuse is something the state gets involved in. If there are clear allegations by someone willing to stand up and substantiate the claim then the state has a case, otherwise it is unsubstantiated.

[kandrathe]

The views of the founding fathers were many, and you and I have disagreed sharply over at least one of them in terms of his religion.

However, I think it fair to say that while they may have recognized God at the *creator* of liberty, it was the government of, by and for the people which would be the *guarantor* of liberty. They did not expect God to strike tyrants down with lightning bolts, they expected the people united to stand up to them.

I think they would have liked God to strike down the tyrants with lightning bolts, but were willing to stand up to them with force of arms when necessary.

In the original Articles of Confederation, phrases like "the Great Governor of the World", do exist. And, I think due to some of the founders who wanted the US to remain religiously pluralistic, that type of wording was intentionally left out of the rewrite. The full text I'm referring to is; "And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."

And I would also direct you to read Common Sense, by Thomas Paine as it was probably the most influential pieces of literature that promulgated the concept of Liberty, and freedom from the oppression of King George. Especially the part labeled "Of monarchy and hereditary succession".

[Jester]

I think they would have liked God to strike down the tyrants with lightning bolts, but were willing to stand up to them with force of arms when necessary.

In the original Articles of Confederation, phrases like "the Great Governor of the World", do exist. And, I think due to some of the founders who wanted the US to remain religiously pluralistic, that type of wording was intentionally left out of the rewrite. The full text I'm referring to is; "And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."

And I would also direct you to read Common Sense, by Thomas Paine as it was probably the most influential pieces of literature that promulgated the concept of Liberty, and freedom from the oppression of King George. Especially the part labeled "Of monarchy and hereditary succession".

While Paine is interesting as always, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have picked out of that.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

While Paine is interesting as always, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have picked out of that.

It is clear to me that Thomas Paine, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and many, many early colonists discussed and were greatly influenced by "Social Contract" philosophies promoted by John Locke, Francis Hutcheson and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. So, the derivation of inalienable rights from "natural law", and the Lockean view that life, liberty, and property could not be surrendered in the social contract permeates the writings of that time and is alluded to in "Common Sense".

As in, "As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings."

The first part "exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature" bases the belief of equality and egalitarianism on "natural law".

[Jester]

It is clear to me that Thomas Paine, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and many, many early colonists discussed and were greatly influenced by "Social Contract" philosophies promoted by John Locke, Francis Hutcheson and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. So, the derivation of inalienable rights from "natural law", and the Lockean view that life, liberty, and property could not be surrendered in the social contract permeates the writings of that time and is alluded to in "Common Sense".

As in, "As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings."

The first part "exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature" bases the belief of equality and egalitarianism on "natural law".

Well, yeah.

Maybe I'm being thick here, but what does Thomas Paine being influenced by the natural law theories of Locke, Hutcheson and Rousseau have to do with a polygamist cult in Texas, even off as we are on a tangent?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Well, yeah.

Maybe I'm being thick here, but what does Thomas Paine being influenced by the natural law theories of Locke, Hutcheson and Rousseau have to do with a polygamist cult in Texas, even off as we are on a tangent?

Yeah, it's a tangent. We were talking about 416 children being liberated from their parents dangerous 180 year old religious views, and the people (men and women, boy and girls) being taught generation by generation that the outside world was evil and to be shunned keeping them in virtual slavery.

My view was that its dangerous ground when the State begins to free you from your own beliefs.

[Bun-Bun]

I'm not against the government acting in response to evidence of a crime, or even with reasonable suspicion investigating an individual. In this case, they did investigate and found out that the person who was fingered was the wrong person, and were unable to find the woman who reported the alleged abuse. Now 416 children have been forcibly removed from their parents by authorities, who are probably grilling them about their lifestyle. I mean, imagine that this was a Catholic Archdiocese in Boston where there were allegations that the Priest was fondling the little boys and the government swooped in an rounded up all the children of the parents belonging to that church. It's outrageous behavior, and excessive for the state to treat all the parents as abusers, or that the people are too afraid, "brain washed", or subjugated to resist or escape.

Predicate act: A report of abuse from the compound.
Official response: Investigate the complaint by going to the compound. The investigation is conducted with an abundance of manpower with an eye to the history of such groups and the capacity of this group to hide people and evidence.
Observed on the property: Pregnant minor females and minor females with children.
Extended response: Since a clear pattern of illegal and abusive behavior exists, remove the children. Investigate the compound for documents involving the age and marital state of the victims.

I fail to see what's so outrageous here.

Your analogy is deeply flawed, in any case. Your example presents a case where the abuse victim(s) are not under the physical control of the abusers. One would expect the authorities to take the actions necessary to investigate; in your example, I would expect them to question the children of the church members, possibly in a neutral place if there was any evidence of collusion with parents. Preventing further harm to the children merely requires the children not have further contact with the priest.

In the FLDS case, prevention of further harm would mandate removal of the children. It would also facilitate the investigation, but that could also be achieved by a neutral-ground questioning in the unlikely event the parents would cooperate. The key factor is the safety of the children.

[kandrathe]

The key factor is the safety of the children.

I see the assumption here of guilt for all the parents of this community. The State has seized all the children from their parents on the assumption of guilt. The language used by the State is that this is a dangerous environment for children, and the intent from the beginning was to seize the children and put them up for adoption and foster care. It was not as you characterize a spur of the moment thing because they saw some young pregnant girls. This was a well planned out action, where all the ducks were in a row. I think they just needed a pretext, and the alleged phone call was the trigger. I agree with the State intervention in that they should question the legality of the "spiritual marriages" as polygamy, and also that this is performed on under aged girls. If they had served each of the parents with warrants based on probable cause and treated each family individually, then I wouldn't have a single issue with this case. Imagine if this were an native tribe practicing long held tribal traditions (including marriage of their 14 yr old girls), and the white man swept in an took all the children from the tribe to be adopted by white families.

I don't want to seem calloused, but I'm not sure I buy the whole "think of the children" argument. Nationally, statistics show that at least 23% percent of all 14-year-olds and 30 percent of all 15-year-olds have had sexual intercourse. The pregnancy rate among 14 year old girls is about 20 per 1000. I don't think YFZ ranch is the source of the Texas teen pregnancy problems. Society has lately made the shift since the 60's to treating teens as children even now up to 21 in many states. Back in the 1850's, which is where these people still live, the age of marriage was mid teens. In fact, until the law was changed in 2002 iirc, 14 year olds could marry in Texas with parental consent.

[Bun-Bun]

I see the assumption here of guilt for all the parents of this community. The State has seized all the children from their parents on the assumption of guilt. The language used by the State is that this is a dangerous environment for children, and the intent from the beginning was to seize the children and put them up for adoption and foster care. It was not as you characterize a spur of the moment thing because they saw some young pregnant girls. This was a well planned out action, where all the ducks were in a row. I think they just needed a pretext, and the alleged phone call was the trigger.

If you have any evidence that the initial phone calls were not completely genuine, please bring it forth. If those were fraudulent, I would turn to your side of the argument and call the raid improper. I have seen no such evidence, so my position is as it stands.

Even if this was a planned action (and I think they did have plans to do such an operation beforehand) I just don't see what step of the operation was unjustified based on the facts in hand at that moment. So that's my question for you: regardless of any nefarious motives, whatever was in hearts and minds, what actions were taken by the authorities that were not merited by the facts plainly in evidence?

I agree with the State intervention in that they should question the legality of the "spiritual marriages" as polygamy, and also that this is performed on under aged girls. If they had served each of the parents with warrants based on probable cause and treated each family individually, then I wouldn't have a single issue with this case. Imagine if this were an native tribe practicing long held tribal traditions (including marriage of their 14 yr old girls), and the white man swept in an took all the children from the tribe to be adopted by white families.

Another bad analogy, unnecessarily loading the issue with racial overtones. Let's try one of mine.

Let's say a policeman enters a house from which has issued a call for help. The caller can't be found, but the policeman can't help noticing a man beating a child. The man claims that it is his religious right to do so. The policeman sensibly arrests the man and puts the child in the care of the State until things get resolved.

Now what if there are twenty families living at this house, all of which profess the same religion? There is evidence that there are several beaten children across different family groups. Some people who have left the house earlier claim this happens all the time. Should the authorities remove all the children? Is this too dangerous an environment? I'd say yes. In fact, I'd say they have no choice in the matter at all.

[Occhidiangela]

She was not of legal age when impregnated, IIRC.
And all the other pregnant minors in that group would tell you what?
Irrelevant sidetrack.

You will note that "age of consent" and "age of legal majority" are not the same. In Texas. Please don't muddle the issue. If there were pregnant minors who were below the age of consent at conception, OK, there is an issue, more specifically a case by case issue. Tell me again why the non pregnant boys were taken by CPS? The non pregnant girls? Or were all 400+ pregnant, regardless of gender? :huh:

I find it rather droll that forty years ago, "communes" were all the rage in this country, and alternative social and familial forms quite the fad. This commune, and this alternative familial and cummunity structure, isn't allowed to develop as a counter culture.

The FLDS model is not my cup of tea. But you might ask yourself why the women stayed. The adult women.

Let's consider a bit of a devil's advocate question here: how diverse is diverse, how multi is multi cultural, and how tolerant is tolerant? Remember that our country makes filty rich a nation whose culture is pretty similar to this FLDS patriarchy, our officials of both parties spouts platitudes about our friends and allies who treat women and children little differently, and in some cases worse.

Inconsistency seems a core issue here.

Occhi