Texas Authorities Raid Polygamist Compound(400 kids taken from a polygamist compound)

Even if this was true, then the rapists should be punished and if girls who are teenager and in danger, there can be justification to remove those girls but how do you justify removing infants and children who are not more than couple of years old? Do you think that there is a chance that a 2 year old boy gets raped and gets pregnant?
For once in your life, try to be honest in a discussion, instead of muddying the water and taking grand stand about your moral of protecting children. From my personal experience in life, I have found out that people who have desperate need to advertise their high moral, usually have very little of it.

 

You didn't answer my question. Also, arguing to the law, means that some laws are unjust. Which undermines your position.

The question I am asking you is, how long is the measure (in date/time)?

So your argument is that first people should be arrested then evidence should be gathered against them. Is this correct?

Now, you are insisting that there have been crimes. Fine. Who is the victim, and who is the perpetrator? We don't arrest victims.

You say the police do not arrest just because there is a victim. I would argue that they seem to arrest without a victim!

So you're saying that the difference of where the sex occurs is the difference between rape and consensual sex? Does that sound logical to you?

AFAIK, gworld and I are the only ones who seem to care what happens to the girls/women, the children now that they are in custody. I haven't seen anyone else arguing to reunite the kids with their mothers. I haven't seen anyone else for sheltering the children from the ugly accusations their parents will have to face, right or wrong.

Most others in this thread seem obsessed with the criminals, not the victims.

As far as you, I already know you couldn't give a toss about these people. You're a militant atheist who enjoys stamping out religion , discrediting it, humiliating it and exploiting it every chance you get. There are literally dozens of threads in this forum that show your true motive.

I'm an agnostic. Maybe these FLDS people have religion right. Maybe the Jews. Maybe the Muslims. Maybe the Buddhists. Maybe the Atheists. I'm not into trampling other people's religious beliefs because I am humble enough to admit, I have no idea what the divine is or isn't about.

 

gworld if there are children in an environment where underagre girls are foced in to marriage, raped and impregnanted all children have to be removed from that environment. What would you say if in a care home underage girls are being raped and impregnated? would you say the boys should stay there?

I told you, I don't know what the Texas law states. The point is that it will be no different for these people, Texas law will apply to them as it applies to everyone with regard to how long they can be held before either being charged or released. You can argue that the time they are held is too long or too short but it isn;t relevant to this particular case. The law applies to everyone equally.

No, I'm saying allegations have to be investigated and suspects have to be held and questioned. don't think that because at present no charges have been brought that nobody is guilty of a crime. If the police need more time in building their case they will apply to have an extension. If the judge, after looking at the evidence they have currently collected, decides that furthering the time allowed for the investigation will result in a successful and accurate prosecution of someone guilty of rape that extension will be granted. This applies to all people suspected of committing a crime.

Like i said, the underage girls raped and impregnated are the victims. The identity of the perpetrators isn't public knowledge yet.

well i guess your only option now is to deny the patently obvious. There are victims, They are the underage girls who were raped and impregnated.

From a legal stand point, yes. From a moral standpoint, I would argue that any 13 year old girl forced into marriage with a 50 year old man is a victim of a crime, regardless where it occurred and regardless of local laws.

My position on this has nothing to do with these peoples religion (I have repeatedly made this point), Besides the fact they they shouldn't be afforded special privileges because of their beliefs. I do hate religion, I have made no secret of it, But i hate child abuse more. Someones religiosity has no effect on how opposed i am going to be to evil committed by their hands.

 

The law does not apply to everyone equally. if you truly believe the law is moral, then I'd say it would be logical for you to conclude that the law should be consistent.

That's like saying I have the right to "X" (say, free speech) and it's a basic human right. But in England I have less free speech than Cameroon. Well, then it's not universal and applicable to all humans then is it?

Again, this is a non-crime (based on the facts as I understand it) if it happens a few states over in South Carolina. In fact, in South Carolina right now, some 14 year olds may be having sex with 70 year olds. And it's legal. Is that acceptable to you, because it is legal in South Carolina?

Have any of these girls said they were raped? If so, who?

see quote above.

I'll take it one further than you. Any 18 year old girl forced into marriage is a victim. Anyone who is forced to do anything is a victim. Whether it is two 13 year olds, or a 13 year old and a 50 year old. The crime isn't the age disparity, it's forcing people against their free will. If a 15 year old girl wants to have sex with a 20 year old, this is not exactly radical stuff. I may not approve (and I don't), but it has been going on for ages, and as long as it is consensual, who am I to impose my morality, the way the religious fanatics impose their morality on gays, drugs, movies, video games etc?

Interesting however that you would draw a line of distinction between morality and law. That is exactly what I have been trying to do in this thread. But my "opponents" choose to use morality against me when I argue law, and law when I argue morality, contradicting themselves continually.

 

In this case, we have to remove all the children from USA because teenage pregnancy happens everyday and majority of it is with older man, look at the stats that I previously posted in this thread.
This is not a care home, these are DIFFERENT families, people who are innocent should not be punished and their children be taken away because they believe in the same religion and you like to make them a group based on that. The law states that children should stay with their parents as much as possible, in this case some women offered to leave their husbands in order to keep their children but they were denied. This is not about child protection, this is about to destroy a religious belief by removing the next generation and their future. It is no different than to remove Christian children, so they can be raised as Muslims or remove atheist children, so they can be raised as Christians.

 

Texas authorities investigate more polygamy charges (This is the House of Yahweh: a different, even darker sect that the state has been investigating for years)

Behind guarded, ornate gates at the end of a rural road, a self-proclaimed prophet warns his followers about the end of time and rails against a dangerous and unclean world outside their West Texas compound.
The women are covered in long skirts and long-sleeve shirts. Many of the children have different mothers and share the same father.
But this isn't the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' ranch, which authorities raided last month in Eldorado after receiving reports that underage girls were being forced to marry much older men.

Full text : http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdtkEy-_-VDCktXIbtlDTH-UD2gQD90L0UTO0

 

I find it amazing that G and G keep arguing against the action of the Texas authorities.

Several hundred young children have been removed from a complex situation that wrapped probable child abuse around a religeon. The kids have been subjected to a religeous society that is controlling in such a way that it will be difficult to obtain easy evidence against specific individuals. In light of probable cause considerations under the constitution that precipitated the raid, in light of the 4 year investigation process during which the compound wasn't raided due to constitutional protections of the adults, in light of the fact that it was found that a lot of young girls between the probable ages of 13 and 17 had sex over the last 4 years.....(that could mean that girls were subjected to sex between the ages of 9 to 17) the authorities have separated the children from the adults to further investigate.

Prior claims of attacks on the group for religeous reasons alone seem specious and bogus. Of interest Arizona and Utah police and authorities have left adult polygamous groups alone in the past and over a long period of time and experience. The focus of the state authorities is on those groups that specifically target young girls for forced marriage which equates to rape in the eyes of the authority.

But as referenced nobody is in jail. The investigation proceeds.

If you are concerned about potential abuses of power take a look at this occurrance in Philadelphia wherein about 20 police kicked the sh!t out of a couple of crime suspects; http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/07/police.beating/#cnnSTCVideo

Now to me that is a clear abuse. There is little question about the physical abuse on the suspects and little question about the overwelming amount of violence on the suspects.

Most people without an agenda, see the difference between these two examples and are able to make easily define examples of government and/or police abuse versus examples where government action is justified.

Those with extreme examples tend to argue endlessly about an issue, bringing endless minutia and points up to try and show government abuse.

If you are so worried about government abuse, go to Philadelphia and demand that those cops be suspended.

 

Of course you find it amazing, you value the state over the individual. Your compassion for these people ends at the last post of this thread.

FLDS ranch raid aftermath
Caregivers blast Texas' treatment of polygamous sect's women, children
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9238520?source=email

Excerpt

 

If the treatment of the young girls is not satisfactory there is an opportunity to correct it. That is a mature way to deal with the situation.

Its good that the status of the girls is being monitored.

That is exactly the opposite of young girls being sequestered in an exclusive, hidden, secretive compound under the control of men who were using the dictates of a religeon to engage in sexual child abuse.

That is an entirely favorable position. IF the treatment isn't appropriate there is room for improvement. The young girls status is no longer hidden. Thirty/forty/fifty year old men no longer have the opportunity to have sex with any 13/14/15/16 year old they want under a system that probably negated the possibility of the concept of consent....on the occaision when the girl was older.

It is indeed favorable.

I still find it fascinating that with a political agenda against all government you and your buddy have taken a situation where young girls' welfare is on the line and argued non stop for over a month that caring for these girls is inappropriate.

In other words, I assume you don't thing that governments have the right to step in and protect the most innocent, in any way, or any form whatsoever.

Its pretty ironic that someone who espouses a theory of politics wherein the first premise, according to you is non-violence, is so overwhelmed by the fear of government action that one can't see the premise of protecting non-violence against these defenseless young girls in any way whatsoever.

Meanwhile....I flash a video of government violence and you can't even comment on it, Guerilla. Exactly where do you defend violence and where do you ignore it?

 

I have a high time preference. There is too much news and knowledge to absorb in one day than to read or follow everything you post, particularly since you tend to run on, and on, and on, and on...

Your argument once again is a casual lie, a strawman. Neither gworld or I have argued that no one should care for or protect the girls. This typical of your use of these children to further an agenda of the forum against myself. It's sickens me, and should disturb anyone following this thread that you act in such an irresponsible manner.

You don't care if these children are in limbo, separated from their parents, and likewise, or that they are in the state's care, and being damaged by such. Your agenda is strictly one of atheist punishment of any religious groups, and the continual harassment of myself.

As usual, you are assuming wrong, but trying to perpetuate the lie that I do not believe the innocent have rights. On the contrary, these children are being mistreated by the state, which is your preferred abuser.

Meanwhile....

Defenseless young girls? What about the baby boys? What about the other children who were not of the age of marriage or breeding? Why are they being abused by the state Earl? Why do you not only condone state abuse, but encourage and demand it?

To my knowledge, there remains ZERO charges of a crime, and ZERO victims making accusations of such. Until there are, or you know something the rest of us do not, you are exploiting these people and their situation, for your own purposes on the forum, in a shameful and disgusting manner.

 

I have shown in previous posts that Children in Texas state care, get poisoned, raped and killed. If a 3 years old boy that was in no danger previously, gets raped or killed while in foster home, how are you going to correct it?

 

Earl's issue with the FLDS is strictly based on his radical atheism.

In this case, he gets a double dip. He gets to attack a religion, and he gets to empower the state to put children in dangerous positions, under the guise of protecting them.

Meanwhile, no charges have been laid, and no accusations made by the very people he wants imprisoned, the families he wants destroyed and the lives he has put at risk.

Apparently we are the bad guys because we want to see the law followed, the innocent set free, the guilty punished and the children safe.

 

G and G:

I'm aware that foster care is not perfect. It is an imperfect effort to create a transitional status where a child ultimately moves to adoption.

Hopefully that occurs. In society it doesn't always occur. There is no surprise there.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, I'm fairly aware of the horrors of child abuse. It so happens I've known 3 women intimately each who were abused as children.

The scars into adulthood were enormous. I was so unaware of the issue until getting to know them and became more aware of the horrors over time, from getting to know one, then the other, then the third.

The scars are significant and often lifelong. The pain into adulthood is enormous.

Upon learning of the horror I then viscerally began to understand the enormity of the crime when you connect an innocent defenseless child with a powerful adult.

As bad as the crime is on an individual basis imagine the level of horror when it is institutionalized by a relgious setting wherein all men are given this unspeakable power and it is proclaimed "sociatally appropriate" within that religous setting.

Certainly this is an issue that American society has deemed to be more than inappropriate. It has been deemed illegal.

It is a blessing when we can protect children from this level of abuse.

As it reflects religeon, as I stated earlier...Arizona and Utah authorities neither prosecute or address polygamy among adults. They have described how they evolved into this position over about 50 years. It appears the Texas authorities are acting in a similar vein.

As to my own religeous background, its interesting you should make such vehement charges, Guerilla. I have scarecley referenced my own religeous background here.
Long ago in services as I was taught, religeon and politics were to be kept separate. More specifically within a religeous setting politics were not to be brought up. I learned that from my religous leader as a youth, my parents followed it to a tee and I have incorporated it into my life.

I had far more religeous training than most of my peers growing up as my father came from a very religeous background. I am far more converssant than most of my peers.

I tend to keep my religeon dramatically private. It is what I learned and what I practiced. Of interest, as NPT described in his review of religeon in the writings of the framers of the constitution it is exactly how they envisioned religeon being practised within the US.

In so far as my own religeous prascises I am far far far from an atheist.

In so far as a religeon is used as an excuse to abuse children, there is no excuse for that amongst the mainstream of laws within the US.

GWorld: I repeat If there are some examples of abuse of children in foster care situations it is neither unexpected or unusual. Foster care is an interim step. It is certainly not perfection. Its goal is temporary.

At least possible abuses of foster care see the light of day. That is a plus. That allows for correction. That is the character of a strong nation wherein problems see the llight of day and are subejct to being corrected.

That is far preferable to seeing young girls subjected to a controlling environment that fosters sexual abuse.

I find it fascinating that neither of you had a single reference at any point to the discovery that quite a number of the young girls were found to have had sex over a 4 year period. Those girls were as could be best determined between the ages of 13 and 16/17. That means that while the state was NOT ACTING....young girls were being forcably raped by older controlling men.

I'm surprised neither of you commented on this issue.

Moreover if you are concerned about government abuse why don't you raise your voices about the video I referenced wherein many cops beat the living h*ll out of a couple of suspects they stopped.

That is government abuse.

I wonder, several years ago, Ron Paul's mailings suggested that blacks in urban areas such as in Philadelphia where this occurred were essentially subhuman.

could it be that you two have similar feelings? Could it be that this example of government abuse that I pointed out doesn't get a peep out of either of you?

Just curious.

 

Earl, for the sake of brevity...

1) I've got experience with abuse. Don't lecture me on it.

2) If there was abuse at the FLDS, it wasn't prevented. Society failed. But of course it did, the expectation that making something illegal will stop it is stupid and naive.

3) I recall your post on religious home schooling. I also recall you wouldn't respond when I asked why you would infringe on the rights of a minority. Seems particularly relevant now. Interesting you claim to be a believer or agnostic. Your posts don't support such a position.

4) You believe that these children facing abuse in foster care is good because it exposes a problem. Here's an idea then. Let's sell them to pharma companies so they can do drug testing on them. That might have a productive benefit from their pain too. Are you really this obtuse?

5) You keep claiming sexual abuse, and yet you will not substantiate it. Why are you making such claims so casually? Is it as I think, because you are exploiting this situation for YOUR political agenda?

Substantiate the abuse claim with a specific victim or leave it, because you are really becoming repugnant to me with this tact of exploiting children.

6) Forcible rape. Source?

7) Your notion that the state should act prematurely is an argument for taking all children from all parents before abuse can happen. it justifies violating the constitutional right of these people to be considered innocent until proven guilty. And it also leads to the ignorant invasion of countries like Iraq, were an interventionist, preemptive mentality is considered "just" and "moral".

8) I didn't watch your video. I don't plan to. If I have a problem with blacks, that's tough for you because I'm much closer to being visibly black than I am visibly white.

9) Do you still endorse Clinton's strategy of bombing hospitals and schools in Kosovo? I'm curious to know why you would vote for Hillary since she participated extensively with the executive branch that authorized those war crimes.

 

If this is true, then why do you want to send small children to foster care where they can get raped or killed? What will you say to a small child who was having a normal life with his parents, after he/she gets raped that you supported his removal from home to a place where he/she got raped because of your political agenda?

 

btw: guerilla: I still stand by my claims about the public education system. Historically public education has been one of the greatest accomplishments of the US. It is the underpinning for a society of achievement. It is the great equalizer that has created the opportunity for individual accomplishment regardless of caste or class. It was developed as a reaction to private and caste based education systems that kept the talented from learning and achieving.

There have been competing education systems in the US for decades, in fact well over 100 years. Religeous schools have been prominent and have offered an alternative choice for generations. Private schools have been around for generations, primarily serving a wealthier class. They too have done fine. Home schooling is fine if people choose it. I've been religeous schooled and a recipient of public schools. I've had family that have home schooled.

My problem with alternatives occurs when they yell so loudly and scream so much and pull from resources of the public education system that has worked so well. It would be a dramatic and fundamental change toward one of the foundations and best aspects of America to destroy public education.



GWorld: upon getting to investigate the girls, the state found that 31 between the ages of 14-17 had had sex or been pregnant. We know that was with older men. We know it was in an environment that is the antithesis of "consenting adult"

You are claiming concern about children being raped or abused in foster homes. Earlier you made light of the rape and child abuse claims.

Frankly, I don't know where you are coming from. If you think that rape and child abuse are wrongs and crimes why don't you support removing these girls from a situation wherein rape and child abuse was institutionalized, hidden, and applied on a regular basis.

Frankly, I maintain, that if there are crimes against kids in foster care it will be subject to correction. The Texas Compound situation was one where nothing was being corrected or changed over years. Each year more young girls were subject to rape and child abuse.

 

Why don't you answer my question? Even according to you 31 girls have been pregnant and there are 53 teenage girls, even if accept that all 53 where in danger, why the other 350 were removed? You have no concern about the safety of the other 350, do you? Is this your idea of logic to put 350 in danger to save 53?
You are so concerned that older man, possibly had sex with teenage girls and determined to stop it that you can not think about suffering and risk to every other child. It almost sounds that you are motived by jealousy to those men than anything else.

 

Earl, we both know, forget it. He long ago had his answer already, but he isn't interested.

This is utterly, disgustingly inappropriate. You have pursued this kind of attack throughout this thread, and you need to stop.

 

I see you have no answer either to such a simple question either.

 

1. The investigation was done because of a suspicion of adult abuse of young children. Authorities suspected this 4 years ago. No mystery there.

2. Its not according to me. Its according to reports by the news citing the authorities that, I suppose, physically investigated the girls.

3. Assuming, or being suspicious of a group that might violate, abuse, and rape young girls against their consent, why wouldn't you remove all of them for their safety from the adult males of this group. Think of the girls who might have been deemed too young to date, but may well have been forced to have sex within a short while. The further evidence is that a large number, significantly higher than is statistically reasonable, had broken bones.

4. The state is investigating child abuse. It stands to reason to remove all the kids for their safety and future safety as the investigation proceeds. here is nothing holey or inviolate about "parents" that abuse children.

Now, having responded why I think it was fine and appropriate to remove all the kids, kindly respond to why you can't see any element of potential criminal behavior from these adult males, in so far as rape, child abuse, etc. when you are calling out about the danger of rape child abuse in a different setting?