Polygamist sect raided - 400+ children separated from their families

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
Ok so this has been in the news for a week now and I was hoping someone would start a thread about it, since it's one of those subjects that is apt to spark opinions from all over the map. Nobody has yet, so I guess I will.

For those unaware of the story, start here, google for more.

Personally, I find the whole event very disturbing. The only evidence they have is one anonymous phone call from a supposed 16 year old that claims she was abused, and still not verified or found - and somehow that is justification to remove over 400 children from their families?

This is a very dark turn we are watching a government take. And I hope the lawyers for the religious sect take the state of Texas to the bank.

BTW- I realize that the allegations of child abuse is most prominent in the news, and that shouldn't be tolerated. But they should need evidence in every single case before they can come remove children from their families, which is/can be severely mentally damaging.

I can see where this is going. Obviously, if there is any wrong-doing here it is by the men/fathers. But because of the way the law works, the state will need mountains of evidence for each man to put him away, and they will likely never get that on most of them. But instead, we will see most of those kids put in foster homes. Very backwards, and very spookey, imho.
 
I don't know all the details about this case, but my overall viewpoint would be that if anyone over the age of 18 wants to be a part of this faith and this lifestyle (polygamy), by all means, feel free to do so.

However, anyone under the age of 18 should have the upbringing to understand that there is a life OUTSIDE of this, and that they have a right to explore and understand that life before fully leaving home. They should not, under any circumstances, have their marriage decided for them or be married prior to 18.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']

However, anyone under the age of 18 should have the upbringing to understand that there is a life OUTSIDE of this, and that they have a right to explore and understand that life before fully leaving home. They should not, under any circumstances, have their marriage decided for them or be married prior to 18.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

I can see where you are coming from. It makes sense. They are shut out from the outside world, for the most part, and you can make a case for their brainwashing (like most religions). These guys don't practice arranged marriages, as far as I know.

But what about strict Muslims that come here and practice arranged marriages? Should the government make that illegal? It's just an aspect of their faith/tradition. They are not required by law to abide by it.

Nobody at that compound is ultimately a prisoner. They can leave the place and/or the religion any time they chose. And they know that.

But I agree, the marriages to under age girls must stop, since that is the law.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Depends on how many hymens are intact.[/QUOTE]

You know, you're slowly creeping up the list of my favorite posters around here.

[quote name='thrustbucket']These guys don't practice arranged marriages, as far as I know.[/QUOTE]

Yes, they do.

[quote name='thrustbucket']But what about strict Muslims that come here and practice arranged marriages? Should the government make that illegal? It's just an aspect of their faith/tradition. They are not required by law to abide by it.[/QUOTE]

What about them? Arranged marriages aren't illegal. Pedophilia is. What does one of them have to do with the other?

[quote name='thrustbucket']Nobody at that compound is ultimately a prisoner. They can leave the place and/or the religion any time they chose. And they know that.[/QUOTE]

Yes, they are, and no, they can't. The point is precisely that kids can't just remove themselves from a fucking desert compound with no means to support themselves in any meaningful way.

[quote name='thrustbucket']But I agree, the marriages to under age girls must stop, since that is the law.[/QUOTE]

Really? You're going to concede that one, are you? But doesn't the Big Bad Government make the law?
 
[quote name='trq']
Yes, they do.[/quote]

Do you seriously know how it works? How much studying have you done? Or are you just reading headlines?

A man approaches a woman/girl and tells her he has had a revelation that he is to mary her. She is then to pray about it herself, and find out if she feels the same way. That's the way it's SUPPOSE to work there, officially. And unless you've been there and seen that it's otherwise, you don't know - it's heresay.

What about them? Arranged marriages aren't illegal. Pedophilia is. What does one of them have to do with the other?
Click to expand...
In most states, marrying a girl around the age of 16 is not illegal with consent of the parents.

Do I think girls younger than that have been brainwashed, married, and abused? Possibly. But I have no proof, and neither do you. It's still all hearsay by anonymous tips.

The point is, one anonymous tip does not justify the mass separation of every child in a religion, imo. If you disagree with that, then say so.


Yes, they are, and no, they can't. The point is precisely that kids can't just remove themselves from a fucking desert compound with no means to support themselves in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about kids. Kids grow up. They get cars (yes even there). And they don't have to stay. There is no evidence of neglect there. But if the state was worried about it so much, they can send in social workers to interview, examine, and treat each child-case individually, like they do in every other situation.



Really? You're going to concede that one, are you? But doesn't the Big Bad Government make the law?
Click to expand...
Yes and every religion has to obey the law of the land they reside, especially when harm to children can be documented and proven.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Do you seriously know how it works? How much studying have you done? Or are you just reading headlines?[/QUOTE]

Well, I've done enough studying to know the self-admitted beliefs of the FLDS, and its leader, Warren Jeffs, who's sitting in a Utah prison doing 10 to life on two counts of being accomplice to rape. I know he's looking at eight indictments in Arizona for sexual conduct with a minor and incest. I know that former members of the sect have testified under oath time and time again about the details of the practices. I know that Jeffs is believed to still be leading his followers from behind bars. I know that his followers have yet to distance themselves from his practices. So ... what's your counter-point again? "You weren't there, personally"? Mountains of evidence collected about the sect over the years leading to Jeffs' spot on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list, during the trial, and from the compound after the fact amount to "hearsay"? I guess. But you'd better consider everything from the War of 1812 to the existence of every city you've never been to "hearsay," too.

[quote name='thrustbucket']The point is, one anonymous tip does not justify the mass separation of every child in a religion, imo. If you disagree with that, then say so.[/QUOTE]

What I disagree with is distilling this whole thing down to "one anonymous tip." First off, it's not anonymous. That's just factually incorrect. The girl gave her name, just not her location. Also, it's not "every child in a religion" -- there are branches all over the southwest, and they're still humming right along. The kids were removed from a single, specific compound. So sure, it's entirely possible that the police were pranked or whatever. Anything's possible. But since we're not a court of law, and we can deal with "probably," I'm going to put my money on the group with a long history of child abuse probably being guilty of it here, too. And hey, if it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't let my kids have a sleep-over with Michael Jackson, either.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I wasn't talking about kids. Kids grow up. They get cars (yes even there). And they don't have to stay. There is no evidence of neglect there. But if the state was worried about it so much, they can send in social workers to interview, examine, and treat each child-case individually, like they do in every other situation.[/QUOTE]

"Kids grow up"? Are you fucking kidding? Why, then, is child abuse reprehensible in the first place? If kids don't want to be abused, eventually, after four or five years of being forced to have sex with adults, they're going to get a driver's license, and then they can just scoot away! Problem solved! Further, in other situations, they do frequently remove all the children, until the allegations of abuse can be settled, because all removing one child does is shift the abuse to the ones who remain.
 
I think that if they didn't want to get raided they should have moved to a country that allows for plural marriages. Seriously, if it's against the law, what do you expect. If there were 400 innocent women and children living on a compound where meth was being produced and the whole place was raided and people were separated would it be any worse / better?
 
Has anyone else here read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer?

thrust in particular should read it.

Little chance of that seeing as thrust could not even be bothered to google the name Warren Jeffs.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Has anyone else here read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer?

thrust in particular should read it.

Little chance of that seeing as thrust could not even be bothered to google the name Warren Jeffs.[/QUOTE]

I know all about Warren Jeffs, I have been to Colorado city. I personally know a few of the Big Water polygamists. I am willing to bet I have more ties to polygamy and know more about each of the different sects and how they differ from each other than any of you.

That's why this issue is important to me, and why I created the thread - to get an idea how many people out there really believe what is portrayed in the media.

I know enough of them, and enough about them, to know that polygamists are certainly not one in the same. Plural marriage practitioners have about as much in common as Msut77 and I, since we both have jobs.

Trq, you are a good example of someone that easily categorizes all of them into one simple umbrella of "child abuse". And it's sad that you can be so heavily influenced by the media like that. The media only focuses on the extremist wacko's, and even then only the worst of the extremist wackos. So John Q Public is programmed to equate polygamy with child abuse. Bravo for playing your part.

You are assuming ALL those kids are abused. You are ASSUMING that their lifestyle alone is abuse, because it isn't your lifestyle.

elchbulle, you can say the same thing about homosexuals that want to be married. It ultimately comes down to an argument of staying out of peoples lives, and religions, unless you can PROVE abuse of children. This is further proof that tolerance only goes as far as the flavor of the current generation

Again, unless any of you actually personally know practicing polygamists, all you have to go by is propaganda. Msut77, I can't believe you'd even bring that book up as a respectable source of religious information concerning these people. That book just covers a few cases of sickos, which every religion has.
 
Ya that's all well and good, but laws aren't in place just to protect someone from being physically hurt. Either change the law, or go somewhere that isn't governed by that law. If you live somewhere that it's illegal to do whatever it is you are doing, especially on a daily basis that is the primary point of your life, then you should anticipate repercussions at every turn. That is regardless of whether or not anyone is getting physically hurt or abused. A law is a law just like that, kind of how it is.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
You are assuming ALL those kids are abused. You are ASSUMING that their lifestyle alone is abuse, because it isn't your lifestyle.
[/quote]

Not at all. If somebody were to claim Caitlyn was being abused, the government would take her away from me until it was determined she lives in a healthy environment.

Of the little girls that were removed from this compound, how many are not virgins?

If the number is above 0, there was sexual abuse.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Trq, you are a good example of someone that easily categorizes all of them into one simple umbrella of "child abuse". And it's sad that you can be so heavily influenced by the media like that. The media only focuses on the extremist wacko's, and even then only the worst of the extremist wackos. So John Q Public is programmed to equate polygamy with child abuse. Bravo for playing your part.

You are assuming ALL those kids are abused. You are ASSUMING that their lifestyle alone is abuse, because it isn't your lifestyle.[/QUOTE]

Dude, we weren't talking about polygamists in general. We were talking about the FLDS and Warren Jeffs specifically. So yes, I'm categorizing Warren Jeffs' followers -- the "extremist wackos" you're talking about, and the people who had their children removed -- as probable child abusers. Did I say anything about polygamists as a group? No.

Nor did I assume all the kids have been abused -- just that the system frequently removes all the children from a home where there have been allegations of abuse, because leaving them in a potentially dangerous environment while an investigation is conducted is foolish in the extreme. That's how it works, and it works that way for a very good reason. So stick your self-righteous six-shooter back in the holster, Quick Draw.

I mean, for fuck's sake -- did you even read what I wrote?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am willing to bet I have more ties to polygamy and know more about each of the different sects and how they differ from each other than any of you.[/QUOTE]

Bet what? Your latest unemployment check?

You have shown that you know next to nothing about this subject.


Msut77, I can't believe you'd even bring that book up as a respectable source of religious information concerning these people. That book just covers a few cases of sickos, which every religion has.
Click to expand...

So you read it?

Or are you just spreading ignorant BS around again?
 
[quote name='trq']Dude, we weren't talking about polygamists in general. We were talking about the FLDS and Warren Jeffs specifically. So yes, I'm categorizing Warren Jeffs' followers -- the "extremist wackos" you're talking about, and the people who had their children removed -- as probable child abusers. Did I say anything about polygamists as a group? No.

Nor did I assume all the kids have been abused -- just that the system frequently removes all the children from a home where there have been allegations of abuse, because leaving them in a potentially dangerous environment while an investigation is conducted is foolish in the extreme. That's how it works, and it works that way for a very good reason. So stick your self-righteous six-shooter back in the holster, Quick Draw.

I mean, for fuck's sake -- did you even read what I wrote?[/QUOTE]

Yes I did. But even in the FLDS church there is going to be a huge rainbow of activity. Not all kids are abused etc. Which is why your analogy with taking all the kids out of an abusive house doesn't really fit because there were many houses, many families, many parents. Just because they all belonged to the same religion, imo, isn't reason enough to treat the entire church/location as a "house".

I apologize for jumping down your throat, I didn't mean for it to come off that way. I wasn't just reacting to you. I realize you are looking at this pretty level headed.

You may be right about the extreme nature of how this was done, but it better be sorted out VERY fast. As in, days. Not weeks. With most kids being returned. Or this is going to turn into a huge civil rights cluster fuck for Texas (as it should). I guess it's a wait and see situation.

[quote name='Msut77']Bet what? Your latest unemployment check?[/quote]
What makes you think I'm unemployed? Is that another sad attempt at being derogatory? Guess that is your MO.

You have shown that you know next to nothing about this subject.
Click to expand...
Have I? Please list how I have shown that. In fact, where did I attempt to prove how much I know at all either way? Your argument is about as valid as me trying to explain to you that I know more about how you feel about your sister than you do.

And unless you can prove that you know more than I do on the subject, beyond reading one biased anti-religious book, then you might want to drop this before you look more foolish.


So you read it?
Click to expand...
No I did not read it. But I know people that did, and I don't have to read something to have an opinion on something. Just like I'm sure you have an opinion on religious texts you've never read.

Or are you just spreading ignorant BS around again?
Click to expand...
Well one of us is. ;)
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Not at all. If somebody were to claim Caitlyn was being abused, the government would take her away from me until it was determined she lives in a healthy environment.[/quote]

Agreed, that's how it should be. But given your example, the government just came and took every little girl in your neighborhood, or every little girl in the church you belonged to.

Of the little girls that were removed from this compound, how many are not virgins?
Click to expand...
Is there really a way to conclusively prove that?

Even if there was, there are lots of ways to abuse a child without breaking the hymen. And all the medical examinations (which the FLDS church feels is abuse) in the world can't detect much.
 
Has thrust made one argument ever that did not exclusively rely on people he knows who probably do not exist or having supposedly been within a hundred miles of a given area?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Has thrust made one argument ever that did not exclusively rely on people he knows who probably do not exist and having been within a hundred miles of a given area?[/QUOTE]

Who are you to tell someone else that people they don't know don't exist? Go back to NYU and get your money back, their marxist imprinting did not take.

Oh and it's clear that others in this forum can offer real intellectual discussion, you almost never offer anything but derogatory child-like remarks, so you get to be the first person on my ignore list.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Who are you to tell someone else that people they don't know don't exist?[/QUOTE]

I do not concede that you have any relationship with reality.

BTW for anyone who gives a damn (and I doubt many do) the book I named is not biased, at least anymore than any collections of facts that thrust calls biased because he is a moron and can do little else.
 
So why is polygamy illegal anyways? Monogamous couples abuse their kids, so that can't be the deciding factor.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Agreed, that's how it should be. But given your example, the government just came and took every little girl in your neighborhood, or every little girl in the church you belonged to.


Is there really a way to conclusively prove that?

Even if there was, there are lots of ways to abuse a child without breaking the hymen. And all the medical examinations (which the FLDS church feels is abuse) in the world can't detect much.[/quote]


Only if we lived in the same house, it would be.

Yes. That is the easiest way to determine in something or someone has violated a specific part of the child's anatomy. Of course, the child should be sedated during the procedure. Other forms of sexual abuse can be determined by throat cultures and skin exams.

Medical exams don't detect much IF the problems are covered up thoroughly. However, the abuser(s) would need advanced warning and some medical knowledge to conceal the abuse.
 
[quote name='Kayden']So why is polygamy illegal anyways? Monogamous couples abuse their kids, so that can't be the deciding factor.[/quote]

Taxes and government forced morality.
 
More or less what I figured. Good ol Uncle Sam making sure everyone not a politician has morals.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Taxes and government forced morality.[/quote]
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Taxes and government forced morality.[/QUOTE]

I rarely agree with you, but you hit the nail on the head.

There isn't really a good reason for polygamy to be illegal. Which is why polygamists aren't hunted down any more like they were in the 1800's. It's an antiquated law of a different era, much like anchor babies.

In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the producers of Big Love admitted their ultimate agenda was gay rights. They figured if they could get people to be sympathetic to one alternative lifestyle, it would help the gay agenda too. Wish I remember where I read that...

The more morality got removed from government, the less they cared about polygamy, except when children are being abused (which happens in a lot of cults/sects, not native to polygamy).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I can see where you are coming from. It makes sense. They are shut out from the outside world, for the most part, and you can make a case for their brainwashing (like most religions). These guys don't practice arranged marriages, as far as I know.

But what about strict Muslims that come here and practice arranged marriages? Should the government make that illegal? It's just an aspect of their faith/tradition. They are not required by law to abide by it.

Nobody at that compound is ultimately a prisoner. They can leave the place and/or the religion any time they chose. And they know that.

But I agree, the marriages to under age girls must stop, since that is the law.[/quote]

My whole gripe with this is has nothing to do with polygamy, nothing to do with arranged marriages, but the fact that none of these people are allowed safe passage from the area if they choose to leave, and none of the kids are shown that there is another way of life. Being set "free" in the middle of nowhere is hardly safe passage.

The point behind any faith is that there is a conscience decision whether or not to practice it, and that seems to have been removed from the equation in this case. That is where the crime lies.

Even with arranged marriages in the Muslim faith, the two children involved still have the choice to not go through with it, and though they are scorned and probably abandoned by their family in the extreme cases, they still have the FREEDOM to do what they will with their own life, and to make something of it.

These girls have nothing but a future to pump out babies and be rode every few days, the boys to be shunned from the group and expelled if they rise against the "elders". If you need any proof that these people are secluded from the outside world, check their wardrobe (I didn't know Calvin Klein existed in the 1800s, those mono-color dresses are bangin', literally!)

All in all, those kids need a chance to see that there is a life outside of a heavily guarded fence and the desert beyond, and if you need any proof of that, take 5 minutes and listen to ANY of those mothers try to defend as to why they deserve their kids back. Those women have absolutely no backbone whatsoever (and are either reading from a card or won't look the cameraman directly in the face).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/15/sect.mothers/index.html?iref=24hours#cnnSTCVideo

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']My whole gripe with this is has nothing to do with polygamy, nothing to do with arranged marriages, but the fact that none of these people are allowed safe passage from the area if they choose to leave, and none of the kids are shown that there is another way of life. Being set "free" in the middle of nowhere is hardly safe passage.

The point behind any faith is that there is a conscience decision whether or not to practice it, and that seems to have been removed from the equation in this case. That is where the crime lies.

Even with arranged marriages in the Muslim faith, the two children involved still have the choice to not go through with it, and though they are scorned and probably abandoned by their family in the extreme cases, they still have the FREEDOM to do what they will with their own life, and to make something of it.

These girls have nothing but a future to pump out babies and be rode every few days, the boys to be shunned from the group and expelled if they rise against the "elders". If you need any proof that these people are secluded from the outside world, check their wardrobe (I didn't know Calvin Klein existed in the 1800s, those mono-color dresses are bangin', literally!)

All in all, those kids need a chance to see that there is a life outside of a heavily guarded fence and the desert beyond.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

They aren't like the Amish, they have all amenities we have, minus tv. They dress like that because their religion dictates that they must make their own clothes, and they must cover themselves from wrist to ankle.

I have no direct evidence one way or the other, but I have watched interviews with some that have left the sect. Yes they are shunned, but they are not prevented. They maintain that it's a choice to stay there at all times. There are many that have left. I think it's more of a choice than you think. It's not a cult like Waco where they are essentially prisoners. But again, I don't have enough evidence to prove it.

But you are right, the children are not allowed to leave, just like our children are not allowed to leave. As they get older, I'm sure they learn about the outside world enough. It's just a question of whether their "indoctrination" about the outside world sticks, and they just assume stay secluded by adulthood.

In some ways I envy them. There is an awful lot of filth in the world that I wouldn't want my kids to be exposed to. Sometimes I don't want to be exposed to it. But I don't have the strength to go seclude myself from society.

Edit: The polygamists I know actually go to regular schools and their parents don't force it upon them. They are not FLDS though, they are just their own small sect. When asked to a 12 year old girl if she wants to be a polygamist when she gets older she said "I don't know, maybe. It depends on who I fall in love with and what he thinks".
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']In some ways I envy them. There is an awful lot of filth in the world that I wouldn't want my kids to be exposed to. Sometimes I don't want to be exposed to it. But I don't have the strength to go seclude myself from society.[/QUOTE]

That's not strength, that's cowardice. I had an anarchist friend (surprised? ;)) who wanted to start his hippie lil commune way up in northern Canada. Distance himself from society and create a self-sustaining environment (best of luck growing things up there).

But while the goals are admirable, why not create a self-sustaining property and still participate in society? You're not going to change it, but you don't have to try. You can be who you are, recognize there are things you do and do not like, and focus on those things (whatever it is: racism, sexism, murder, foul language, or Seventh-Day Adventists - the world is your oyster of annoyances) you find critically detrimental to society (would you believe one of my major pet peeves is an anti-intellectual culture in American in general, but concentrated in disaffected poor communities?).

But seclusion is running away. That's boring and easy. If you want to go all Thoreau, then do it; he couldn't have pulled a "Walden" in the middle of Milwaukee.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's not strength, that's cowardice. I had an anarchist friend (surprised? ;)) who wanted to start his hippie lil commune way up in northern Canada. Distance himself from society and create a self-sustaining environment (best of luck growing things up there).

But while the goals are admirable, why not create a self-sustaining property and still participate in society? You're not going to change it, but you don't have to try. You can be who you are, recognize there are things you do and do not like, and focus on those things (whatever it is: racism, sexism, murder, foul language, or Seventh-Day Adventists - the world is your oyster of annoyances) you find critically detrimental to society (would you believe one of my major pet peeves is an anti-intellectual culture in American in general, but concentrated in disaffected poor communities?).

But seclusion is running away. That's boring and easy. If you want to go all Thoreau, then do it; he couldn't have pulled a "Walden" in the middle of Milwaukee.[/QUOTE]

I agree. And that's exactly what I try to do. But there are days that I wish I could shut off the world and be left to my own devices for a while. If that makes me a coward, fine. But I think most people have those days.
 
How come polygamy never lets women have more than one husband? Is that because it is based in patriarch principles?

Why does a 40 year old man need a 16-17 year old wife?

Why are all the marriages decided by 1 man or a council of men?
 
[quote name='davidjinfla']How come polygamy never lets women have more than one husband? Is that because it is based in patriarch principles?

Why does a 40 year old man need a 16-17 year old wife?

Why are all the marriages decided by 1 man or a council of men?[/QUOTE]

The answer to all three is that fundamentalists rarely ever see women as being anywhere equal to men.
 
How could someone's biggest pet peeve be an anti-intellectual america, yet still be a huge fan of professional wrestling? Something doesn't sit right.
 
[quote name='davidjinfla']How come polygamy never lets women have more than one husband? Is that because it is based in patriarch principles? [/quote]

Most religious polygamist sects are trying to live the same laws that were lived throughout most of biblical history as far as families operate. There aren't too many cases, historically, of women having lots of men.

The general reason for polygamy originally, at least as far as the last 100 years in America, is to grow families quickly. It was started in the 1800's after war and strife left the ratio of women far outweighing men. In those days, women had a very hard time taking care of themselves. They also believe that god is a polygamist, so they view it as a "higher law". If the ultimate goal is to be like god, then when they are spiritually ready they should practice polygamy.

Why does a 40 year old man need a 16-17 year old wife?
Click to expand...
He doesn't. And not all polygamist groups allow this. But I believe the reason some do that is simply because up until about 80 years ago, it was no big deal for a woman to be married at 16. And if you haven't noticed, some polygamists try not to be socially modern. It's really only the extremists that you find this happening a lot.

That being said, I know of older men marrying teenagers legally that aren't polygamists. Society frowns on it, but world-wide it's rather common.

Why are all the marriages decided by 1 man or a council of men?
Click to expand...
I actually don't know that this is the case in any known polygamist sect. I'm not sure where you heard this.

Usually what happens is a man confronts the woman, explaining that he has had revelation to marry her. It is then up to the woman to find out, through revelation, if she basically feels the same way. Of course, in some sects, it's rather rare for a woman to "disagree" because of social stigma and pressure.

Forced marriage comes up mostly because of the age issue. But these girls aren't going to the alter kicking ans screaming. I guess the best way to put it, is that they are brainwashed into believing they are doing what god wants.

But again, there are many small polygamist groups. Most of them are as modern as you and I (see Big Love of HBO for a glimpse of how it most often works)

The media only covers the really shocking stuff, even if it's more rare - like with everything. Which is why when I go over to Europe, I meet many people that really believe we have shoot outs and car chases everywhere all the time. And many of them really believe American cities are quite dangerous.
 
Happy to see that a Texas Appeals court agreed with me today, That the removal of 440 children from their families was unlawful and their was insufficient evidence to back up CPS's claims.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.
Click to expand...

Mark my words. We will see the state of Texas sued on a scale rarely seen before in the next decade for this.
 
Hopefully, this will shed some light on the "anonymous tip" method of law enforcement. How a judge can sign a warrant based on an anonymous tip, or agree that it amounts to probable cause is beyond logic, IMO.
 
That is good news. It would be far worse to seize the children of innocent families than it would be to allow a suspected abused child to stay with the abusers where there is insufficient evidence of abuse.

Nothing whatsoever, by the way, would prevent law enforcement from keeping an eye on the kids and removing them if proper evidence of abuse surfaces.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

Nothing whatsoever, by the way, would prevent law enforcement from keeping an eye on the kids and removing them if proper evidence of abuse surfaces.[/QUOTE]

I agree. It would be understandable if evidence existed beyond anonymous tips.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I agree. It would be understandable if evidence existed beyond anonymous tips.[/quote]
That dude they worshipped impregnated minors, what more evidence do you want? Half the Texas Supreme Court look like polygamists, why didn't this go to the real supreme court. Poor kids.
 
[quote name='HuppSav']That dude they worshipped impregnated minors, what more evidence do you want? Half the Texas Supreme Court look like polygamists, why didn't this go to the real supreme court. Poor kids.[/QUOTE]

If that's true, does that mean all 400+ kids were violated too?

The reason they were returned to their families today is simply because the state of Texas couldn't prove they were.

Scooping up 400+ children away from their families should never have happened to begin with, it's draconian. Guilt by association doesn't and shouldn't apply here.
 
Your stupid if you can't see that they get violated everyday. They are clearly brainwashed and abused. Maybe not all of them physically, but all mentally.:robot:
 
[quote name='HuppSav']Your stupid if you can't see that they get violated everyday. They are clearly brainwashed and abused. Maybe not all of them physically, but all mentally.:robot:[/QUOTE]

I'm stupid? Then what are you if you can presume to know everything about a group of people you've never met or known and only know about from what you read in the news. At best you are being close minded and intolerant, at worst you are being bigoted and stupid.

Brainwashed? Aren't we all, buddy. You can make brainwash arguments for every form of religion, every institution of learning, and every form of media.

Nobody is a prisoner there. When kids come of age they can and sometimes do leave, without repercussion. To say that they are brainwashed because they are cut off from the worlds arrogant modern-defined standards for education and media indoctrination makes you no better than the westerners that called the American Indians savages.
 
[quote name='HuppSav']Bottom line is they worship that dude and he bangs 15 year olds.[/QUOTE]

Who? Their leader? No they do not worship him any more than Catholics worship the pope.

And even if HE does bang 15 year olds, that doesn't mean 400+ kids are in danger.

And, so many 15 year olds are screwing, and screwing guys over 18, in modern society, I'm sure you know a few yourself. But by your definition, it should be considered a fuckin plauge of the ages. You are ultimately just being a bigot because they are super religious, just admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top