BF2S Forums So...Innocent Texan Kids Get Sent Back To Hell

LividBovine wrote:

unnamednewbie1 wrote:

And if a religion advocates crime?

Stingray24 wrote:

When anyone commits a crime they must be prosecuted.

That's not quite the question.

"What I have a problem with is the government stepping beyond the law and regulating religion in any way, shape, or form." -stingray

LividBovine wrote:

I quoted his first line.  Then he said the rest.  If you do wrong pay the price.  If they don't violate any laws leave them alone.  My point here is the famlies were split up.  This was wrong.  They acted on a false tip.  They found there was some shenannigans going on with some of the members.  Remove them, and let the rest be.

His 'second line' was written in the same post as his 'first line,' so it's a bit harder than that to disassociate them, but an interesting intervention nonetheless. I know what he's getting at, but if things were that simple, we'd no longer have scholars arguing about it (freedom of religion vs government regulation).

I agree that removing all the children was a bit of a heavy-handed act, as, obviously, not all of them were in imminent danger. They should've kept to the investigative stage for the most part.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-06-01 03:52:41)

Lotta_Drool wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bah.

They had all those women seperated from their " rapists " and gee...not one expressed relief or anything but a desire to return to their families.

Some people are idiots, like Warren Jeffs, like the public who clap and cheer while state authorities blatantly violate law come in with heavy handed tactics and break up families.

How gullible are you people? Warren Jeffs was a twisted fuck, his behavior went far beyond what is considered acceptable even in the most stringent FDLS groups; why do you think other polygamist where willing to testify and put him behind bars?
He used his position of authority to abuse children. He is now in prison. [b] This would not have been possible if the polygamist accepted this as rational or good behavior. Ervil Labaron was of the same ilk. When people tried to leave the lifestyle, he had them killed and now he is dead and many of his children are in prison. Somewhere around 25-50 people were killed on his orders; does he represent all polygamists? How does Warren Jeffs represent all polygamists? The whole thing started with a false police report placed by a black women in Colorado, it seems to me 99% of you have no clue as to what you are advocating and in this instance justice has been served for now.

Does one sick fuck make it right to round of hundred and ultimately tens of thousands for re-education?

If you think so, you're fucked up.

The fact is that their actions are against the law.  Marrying Multiple women is against the law and knocking up underaged girls is against the law.  Both of these things happened to multiple girls in the compound.  Putting the girls back in that same environment where those documented activities happened to a high percentage of the girls there is about as stupid as you can get.  I hope they don't kill too many of these girls performing home made abortions on them so DNA can't convict the child rapist. 

Facts:

1. They live in a Compound.  - normal people see this fact alone as a red flag.
2. The Compound they live in is exclusive to a Fundementalist Morman group that believes in polygamy and old school morman beliefs.  - hmmm, red flag?
3.  Pictures of the leader of the group tonge kissing his 12 year old bride. - hmmm, I am sure the followers were all outraged and left, right?
4.  Multiple pregnant teen age girls in this CLOSED society they created.  - Gee, just real hard to supervise those 13-15 year old girls that live in an ultra religious compound hidden from society I guess.
5.  Documented illegal activity of polygamy being practiced in the Compound.  An activity that involves screwing multiple women openly in a structured environment and calling it family which is what these young kids get to return to because some Judge doesn't have the childrens best interest in mind or finds this acceptable and healthy living conditions.

All I can say is that I find your lack of concern for little girls surprising because I would take a baseball bat to the Judges head if he made my little girl live in that environment.

now, is polygamy really illegal in the US, or isn't it ? Because if it is, why would you allow polygamist communities in the first place ?

The question is, was due process followed ? And if it was, did the DA and State welfare present sufficient information for the court to uphold the removal ? If they didn't, what choice did the court really have ?

The problem I see though, is that freedom of religion in the US has gone beyond what I - personally - would consider acceptable. To allow any religious community to remove themselves so much from the rest of the american society, with closed compounds, private kindergarden and school, and all minors barred from getting to know the "outside world ( i.e. real life ), that is something that I would never allow to happen here.

Why ? Because inside those communities, social control and social pressure is so huge, that authorities have no way of knowing what really goes on in there, even if it is illegal.  If you reach a point where you cannot enforce the law because you have no way of even getting the relevant information, you open to door to manipulation, brainwashing, and all sorts of other problematic issues.
Freedom of religion ends where the personal rights of the individual are being infringed upon.

This is also, btw, why I am such strong opponent of homeschooling. Closed communities like the FDLS should imho never be allowed to homeschool their kids.I mean, if those kids never see life outside of the compound, how are they gonna be able to make a qualified judgement on the legality of what goes on there ? And how do we know that the quality of education is up to par with the rest of the world, let alone what is actually taught, for example with regard to evolution ?

I realize that most of the parents probably believe that by withholding them from the rest of the society, they are doing their kids a favor. The world outside is bad, sinners and temptation everywhere....

But where is the line ? At what point does one stop being a responsible parent and starts becoming a religious nutjob ?

I have heard FDLS parents say on Larry King that anyone is free to leave the compound at the age of 18. But who would want that, after years of indoctrination and brainwashing ? And would they even be prepared for a life outside of the community ?
Moreover, after years of brainwashing, can we even trust those FDLS members who say that the allegations of child abuse are wrong ?
After all, they live in their own little world. Why would they say that anything that goes on there is wrong ?

I don't know what to think, honestly. On Larry King, the parents that were being interviewed looked like totally normal parents ( apart from the weird hair, and the dresses ), concerned about the well-being of their children. But then again, how do we know this isn't simply the result of very sophisticated manipulation ?

I guess I am too secular, and too much of an agnostic to be able to understand why anyone would take their religion so far. It escapes me.

I am , however, pretty certain, that no child should be forced to grow up in such a secluded environment. There should be a minimum exposure to the "real" world, i.e. mainstream america. This would ensure that they get some kind of perspective on the life inside the community, and enable them to make better judgements on what they want to believe themselves.
Because right now, those kids have no choice but to grow up as members of the FDLS. And this may sound harsh, but who in his right mind would want that?

Not really.
It is only in the last 100 years or so that marrying at 12 became unacceptable.
Lifes were short and hard back then and bearing children was the best key to the groups survival.

The FDLS is a primitive soceity, in many ways. Addicted to old ways.
Like the natives that are protected in the jungles of South America who shoot arrows at helicopters.

ATG wrote:

Not really.
It is only in the last 100 years or so that marrying at 12 became unacceptable.
Lifes were short and hard back then and bearing children was the best key to the groups survival.

The FDLS is a primitive soceity, in many ways. Addicted to old ways.
Like the natives that are protected in the jungles of South America who shoot arrows at helicopters.

I agree, but the world has changed and a 13 year old girl and boy is not mentally or emotionally prepared to raise a child in society today. 

Now you could argue that if a 40 year old man is the father then he is prepared to raise the child, but how would you feel about a 40 year old man marrying your 12 year old girls, moving them into his house, and screwing them?  Then who would be left to raise the child when the 40 year old pervert decides to move on?  Or worst yet he stays with your 12 year old daughter, how the hell do you think she would be treated because all she would be good for is a sex toy because a 40 year old and a 12 year old intellectually have nothing in common and a 12 year old can't drive, cook, clean, shop, manage finances, and still needs schooling to be worth a shit for anything?

The department of child services was designed to protect children and if they feel a child is in danger they can remove the child from a house and they plead their case to a Judge and the Judge decides weather their is evidence to support the accusations and if the child is in fact in danger.  I find that the FACTS known in this case prove that this obvious polygamist cult is an unheathy and illegal environment.  It is illegal to be raised by your 2-5 mothers and 1 father in this country for a reason, they live in a compound for a reason, and these reasons make the people unfit to raise children.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

I don't blame the Texas high court, I blame the children's welfare services for not doing their job and taking the kids away legally. Which they could have very easily done.

The reason these poor kids are going back to hell is because they were not taken away legally and when it went to court the protection agencies had very little weight to justify their actions.

Then I do blame the Texas High Court for maintaining legal bureaucracy at the expense of abused children.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

When the government's stamp of approval is required for your beliefs, religious freedom has ceased to exist.  On that day, the US that the founding fathers risked their lives for will be no more.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=102129

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/un … rifice.png
FREEDOM!!!

[karma]Oh for FFS what a petty reply[/karma]
Weenie alert! Random, anonymous karma ftw.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-06-02 15:01:31)

paul386 wrote:

And what would the government inspect for? Allowed to continue on as normal otherwise? Guess what buddy, not your or the government has the right to tell someone how to live. The government does not have the right to stop someone from living how they want and raising their children how they want, as long as it is in the legal limits. You do NOT have to prove yourself to be legal, the government has to prove you to be illegal. One does not have to "earn" their freedom or rights. The government has to make a compelling argument to take them away.

You make me sick. Your concept of government has been shaped by the socialist programs in Europe and here in the US. The government has overstepped its boundary, everywhere.

My concept of government has been shaped by pragmatism and some socialism indeed.  I'm more libertarian about certain things, but when it comes to kids, I'm very protective.  I'm sorry if that offends you, but this is where my priorities are.

paul386 wrote:

You show how naive you are. You truly don't know what "conservatism" is. Please don't associate modern neo, social, or nationalist conservatives with real conservatives. Real conservatives (classical liberals) live by this principle:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
-Thomas Jefferson

You are a socialist.

I'm a socialist/neoconservative on this issue for sure, and believe it or not, I agree with you that the original conservatives are a very different bunch (one that I normally agree with more).  It's just that, on this issue, I prefer the modern conservative approach, not the old school one.

Speaking of naivete, practical and realistic people don't consistently follow one ideology or another.  They pick and choose what works for them according to each issue.  This is why moderates generally get elected, and why Ron Paul may have a staunch following but is generally not preferred by the average voter.  Very few of us are pure liberals, pure libertarians, pure neocons, or pure populists.

I normally despise neocon stances, but on this issue, I generally find it to be the most practical one.  Assimilation is important in the long run, which is why cults like this one need to be watched.  Isolated environments breed abuse.

You can be "sickened" all you like, but perhaps one day, you'll realize that government intervention is sometimes necessary in these things.

religious freedom

Turquoise wrote:

paul386 wrote:

And what would the government inspect for? Allowed to continue on as normal otherwise? Guess what buddy, not your or the government has the right to tell someone how to live. The government does not have the right to stop someone from living how they want and raising their children how they want, as long as it is in the legal limits. You do NOT have to prove yourself to be legal, the government has to prove you to be illegal. One does not have to "earn" their freedom or rights. The government has to make a compelling argument to take them away.

You make me sick. Your concept of government has been shaped by the socialist programs in Europe and here in the US. The government has overstepped its boundary, everywhere.

My concept of government has been shaped by pragmatism and some socialism indeed.  I'm more libertarian about certain things, but when it comes to kids, I'm very protective.  I'm sorry if that offends you, but this is where my priorities are.

paul386 wrote:

You show how naive you are. You truly don't know what "conservatism" is. Please don't associate modern neo, social, or nationalist conservatives with real conservatives. Real conservatives (classical liberals) live by this principle:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
- Thomas Jefferson

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
-Thomas Jefferson

You are a socialist.

I'm a socialist/neoconservative on this issue for sure, and believe it or not, I agree with you that the original conservatives are a very different bunch (one that I normally agree with more).  It's just that, on this issue, I prefer the modern conservative approach, not the old school one.

Speaking of naivete, practical and realistic people don't consistently follow one ideology or another.  They pick and choose what works for them according to each issue.  This is why moderates generally get elected, and why Ron Paul may have a staunch following but is generally not preferred by the average voter.  Very few of us are pure liberals, pure libertarians, pure neocons, or pure populists.

I normally despise neocon stances, but on this issue, I generally find it to be the most practical one.  Assimilation is important in the long run, which is why cults like this one need to be watched.  Isolated environments breed abuse.

You can be "sickened" all you like, but perhaps one day, you'll realize that government intervention is sometimes necessary in these things.

All that means is that you are inconsistent and confused with your beliefs. Try thinking about things in generality, not in specific cases. One should always be able to sum up their political beliefs in a few sentences that has NOTHING to do with current events or specifics.

Please Read:

"Rules instead of Authorities

If we can achieve our objectives neither by relying on the working of a thoroughly automatic gold standard nor by giving wide discretion to independent authorities, how else can we establish a monetary system that is stable and at the same time free from irresponsible governmental tinkering, a system that will provide the necessary monetary framework for a free enterprise economy yet be incapable of being used as a source of power to threaten economic and political freedom?
    The only way that has yet been suggested that offers promise is to try to achieve a government of law instead of men by legislating rules for the conduct of monetary policy that will have the effect of enabling the public to exercise the control over monetary policy through its political authorities, while at the same time it will prevent monetary policy from being subjective to the day-by-day whim of political authorities.
The issue of legislating rules for monetary policy has much in common with a topic that seems at first altogether different, namely, the argument for the first amendment to the Constitution. Whenever anyone suggests the desirability of a legislative rule for control over money, the stereotyped answer is that it makes little sense to tie the monetary authority’s hands in this way because the authority, if it wants to, can always do of its own volition what the rule would require it to do, and in addition has other alternatives, hence “surely,” it is said, it can do better than the rule. An alternative version of the same argument applies it to the legislature. If the legislature is willing to adopt the rule, it is said, surely it will also be willing to legislate the “right” policy in each specific case. How then, it is said, does the adoption of the rule provide any protection against irresponsible political action?

The same argument could apply with only minor verbal changes to the first amendment to the Constitution and, equally, to the entire Bill of Rights. Is it not absurd, one might say, to have a standard proscription of interference with free speech? Why not take up each case separately and treat it on its own merits? Is this not the counterpart to the usual argument in monetary policy that it is undesirable to bind the hands of the monetary authority in advance; that it should be left free to treat each case on its merits as it comes up? Why is not the argument equally valid for speech? One man wants to stand up on a street corner and advocate birth control; another, communism; a third, vegetarianism, and so on, ad infinitum. Why not enact a law affirming or denying to each the right to spread his particular views? Or, alternatively, why not give the power to decide the issue to an administrative agency? It is immediately clear that if we were to take each case up as it came, a majority would almost surely vote to deny free speech in most cases and perhaps even in every case taken separately. A vote on whether Mr. X should spread birth control propaganda would almost surely yield a majority saying no; and so would one on communism. The vegetarian might perhaps get by though even that is by no means a foregone conclusion.
    But now suppose all these cases were grouped together in one bundle, and the populace at large were asked to vote for them as a whole; to vote whether free speech should be denied in all cases or permitted in all alike. It is perfectly conceivable, and I would say, highly probable, that an overwhelming majority would vote for free speech; that, acting on the bundle as a whole, the people would vote exactly the opposite to the way they would have voted on each case separately. Why? One reason is that each person feels much more strongly about being deprived of his right to free speech when he is in a minority than he feels about depriving somebody else of the right to free speech when he is in the majority. In consequence, when he votes on the bundle as a whole, he gives much more weight to the infrequent denial of free speech to himself when he is in the minority than to the frequent denial of free speech to others.
Another reason, and one that is more directly relevant to monetary policy, is that if the bundle is viewed as a whole, it becomes clear that the policy followed has cumulative effects that tend neither to be recognized nor taken into account when each case is voted on separately. When a vote is taken on whether Mr. Jones can speak on the corner, it cannot allow for the favorable effects of an announced general policy of free speech. It cannot allow for the fact that a society in which people are not free to speak on the corner without special legislation will be a society in which the development of new ideas, experimentation, change, and the like will all be hampered in a great variety of ways that are obvious to all, thanks to our good fortune of having lived in a society which did adopt the self-denying ordinance of not considering each case of speech separately.
Exactly the same considerations apply in the monetary area. If each case is considered on its merits, the wrong decision is likely to be made in a large fraction of cases because the decision-makers are examining only a limited area and not taking into account the cumulative consequences of the policy as a whole. On the other hand, if a general rule is adopted for a group of cases as a bundle, the existence of that rule has favorable effects on people’s attitudes and beliefs and expectations that would not follow even from the discretionary adoption of precisely the same policy on a series of separate occasions.
If a rule is to be legislated, what rule should it be? The rule that has most frequently been suggested by people of a generally liberal persuasion is a price level rule; namely, a legislative directive to the monetary authorities that they maintain a stable price level. I think this is the wrong kind of a rule. It is the wrong kind of a rule because it is in terms of objectives that the monetary authorities do not have the clear and direct power to achieve by their own actions. It consequently raises the problem of dispersing responsibilities and leaving the authorities too much leeway. There is unquestionably a close connection between monetary actions and the price level. But the connection is not so close, so invariable, or so direct that the objective of achieving a stable price level is an appropriate guide to the day-to-day activities of the authorities.”

-Milton Friedman

God Save the Queen wrote:

religious freedom

Yes, but whose freedom?

paul386 wrote:

And what would the government inspect for? Allowed to continue on as normal otherwise? Guess what buddy, not your or the government has the right to tell someone how to live. The government does not have the right to stop someone from living how they want and raising their children how they want, as long as it is in the legal limits. You do NOT have to prove yourself to be legal, the government has to prove you to be illegal. One does not have to "earn" their freedom or rights. The government has to make a compelling argument to take them away.

You make me sick. Your concept of government has been shaped by the socialist programs in Europe and here in the US. The government has overstepped its boundary, everywhere.

With the way the word socialism is thrown around here, one could think this is the McCarthy era all over again. Jesus.

Let me ask you this then, paul. I realize the burden of proof is on the government, and that's a good thing. But how are you going to find out if laws are actually broken within closed compounds of religious groups such as the FDLS, if you have no way of getting that information ?
How exactly do you know that children aren't abused there, when no one ever leaves the compound, or talks with someone outside ?
How do you adress that problem ?

And guess what, of course the government has the right to tell you how to live. It's called legislation, and the laws set the boundaries for what is acceptable ( i.e. legal ) in society, and what isn't. If that's not the government telling its citizens how to live, then I don't know what is.
You are deluding yourself if you think that's not the case. Every society needs rules to live by. That's not socialism, that's common sense.
The question is not if the government can make rules that regulate the life of its citizens, only to what degree it should be regulated.

paul386 wrote:

All that means is that you are inconsistent and confused with your beliefs. Try thinking about things in generality, not in specific cases. One should always be able to sum up their political beliefs in a few sentences that has NOTHING to do with current events or specifics.

what ?! so you are saying that one should always follow a certain political ideology ( approach ), regardless of the problem that one is facing ?
Conservative for life, so-to-speak ?

That's insane. If history has taught us anything, wouldn't it be that no political ideology has the perfect answer to every question ? Wouldn't it be that sticking to a certain political belief, regardless of the consequences is the recipee for failure ?

Come on, haven't we moved beyond this kind of party indoctrination ? You call it being confused, and inconsistent, I call it keeping an open mind, and chosing the best possible solution to a problem, regardless of the any political ideology. I mean, seriously, why should I limit myself to one specific approach to a specific problem. Life is not a generality. It is a series of specific cases, and therefore each cases should be adressed individually, without regard for political dogma.

And with all respect, paul, this sentence here:

Try thinking about things in generality, not in specific cases

is probably the most backward, closed-minded thing I have heard anyone say here for a long time. It's like you are stuck in the 1950's.

One can have a liberal approach to one issue, and be more conservative with regard to another issue. This is not inconsistency, or confusion, it's called having an opinion of your own, and not letting some kind of ideology or dogma decide for you.

-----------------

back on topic.

Of course freedom of religion is important. But that freedom should end when the individual rights of the children are being violated because of the religious beliefs of their parents. The state must have an opportunity to check on that, otherwise the laws are useless because they cannot be enforced.

In germany, we adress that problem as follows:

- no homeschooling. This is to ensure that a) all children receive at least a basic education according to unified standards, and b) all children get some exposure to "reality", and society gets to "see" them, and make sure they're ok.

- mandatory check-ups for small children by a state doctor. This was introduced after a series of abuse cases of smaller children, who were not yet in the school system. Parents are asked to visit with state doctors regularly. You may call this invasion of privacy, we call it safety precaution.
Because history has shown that abusive parents will almost always try to hide their child from the rest of the world, and not allow any contacts with the social environment, for example neighbours, or friends.
These mandatory check-ups were introduced to make sure the child at least gets to leave the house from time to time, so authorities can make sure it's ok. You know, the usual stuff. Is the child healthy, are there signs of malnutrition, any signs of physical abuse, what's its emotional state, is it apathic or lively, etc...

We take privacy very serious here in germany, but at the same time, we have had to accept that privacy must have its limitations when it comes to protecting those who cannot protect themselves.