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

Some said that it is OK to prosecute (persecute) all the people in the ranch because they are one "household", I said this is BS and you should not punish them as group, base on a fact that they have the same belief system and criminal prosecution and justice system is about individual actions.

Some said that children were in danger and should be removed because they are growing up in an environment that makes them a bad person later in life, I said that is BS and child protection act is about protecting children from real dangers and not because we don't like the parents belief system or life style.

Here is a court transcript and it explains quite well how stupid and nonsense, the opinion of someone was. It is also interesting that the transcript clearly shows how much of nonsense these whole thing was despite all the allegations and Texas could not show any evidence behind their "experts" opinion.

Texas court of appeals decision (PDF)

Those who say fundamentalist Mormons are not Mormons, remind me of another guy in this forum that always claims Catholics are not Christians and only the hill billies in his Church are Christians.
The difference between "official" Mormons and fundamentalist Morons is that the first group decided to surrender to the political pressure and persecution in order to be accepted and more importantly protect it's properties while the other one decided to continue with what they believe in as their religion and damn the consequences.

 

The statutory law goes to the immediate, physical danger of these children. It does not address that the children are being raised in an environment where such physical harm is highly likely to take place. The state rested on that environment, and lost. The Supreme Court acknowledged the mothers concede the children require relief - in the way of child welfare services overview:

Additionally, again, the decision was not unanimous. A significant, and appropos, dissent was given:

I would agree with this justice, and disagree with the appellate decision. Furthermore, again, the Supreme Court decision did not stay departmental investigation and overview of these children; quite the opposite. This cult will never again be able to proceed unfettered in its abuse of these kids. Good.

This cult is nothing like the Mormon church, any more than Al-Qaeda is "Islam," or any other of a number of F%$ked up perversions of a given religion represent the decent people practicing their everyday faith. I'm an atheist and I don't care what people believe, so long as what they believe doesn't do harm to human beings here and now. As I earlier said when another member essentially equated my brother to a pedophile, my brother's family is Mormon; good people raising good children.

 

On that note, welcome back. I could not agree more. The beliefs are the same, the only key difference is on sect no longer practices plural marriage. Outside of that, the difference is negligible.

Enjoy the ensuing attacks, and continual harassment which will no doubt follow you as a result of posting this reality.

 

No, false. You'll forgive me when people have their head up their ass and directly compare folks like my brother and his family to pedophiles when I tell you what you can do with your twisted prejudices, Mia. You scream and rail about prejudices against catholics, but seem to have a singular vision respecting other faiths, other races.

Nice try. Nice pandering, while you're at it.

 

You can change the subject as much as you want and copy and paste as much as you want and you can possibly fool some people but those who read and understand, they can see through this thread I argued that group punishment is wrong and future danger can not be used as an excuse and you exactly argued the opposite that it is one household and group and the future danger excuse can be used.

It was a discussion about the law which you claimed somewhere to be expert and worked in that field. Now we have the decision from appeal court and guess what? It clearly states that you don't know what you are talking about and your eloquent presentation was nothing but hot air.

I recommend everybody to read the court of appeal decision (PDF), to see how it knocks down every argument that you presented in this thread to justify the fact that you believe the end justifies the mean.

 

I'm so sick of conflict on the forum, otherwise I would have been a petty little worm and gone back and dug up quote after quote from the people who indicated that I was pro-rape or pro-pedophilia. Just reading back, some of the comments were so outrageous about (paraphrasing) "justice will be served", "protecting the children", "it's the law".

Live and let live I say. Laissez-faire.

 

You can continue to paint whatever picture you would like, Gworld. I don't claim to be an expert in law, though I have experience working within it.

The fact that it was myself that first posted the Supreme Court decision is testament that I am not changing any subject, or shying from anything. I posted that decision, I posted the dissenting opinion, and I am glad you posted the appellate decision, which I didn't have. I encourage everyone to read all of it. I disagree with the appellate conclusion, for reasons given. You agree with the appellate decision, for reasons given.

I agree with the dissenting opinion of the Texas Supreme Court, for reasons given. And the Supreme Court itself specifically stated the mothers concede there is relief required on the part of these kids, and that a stringent set of departmental policies - including unannounced visits, and so forth - will very much stay in place. Properly, in my opinion.

I am not concerned with "winning" DP arguments. I am concerned with maintaining integrity while looking at the world and its problems.

 

I maintain my integrity by standing for the principals even when it is not a popular cause and feeling the pain and suffering of other people even when it is not my own pain, and that is where we differ.

 

Good. As do I. We have a different view on whose welfare, and what welfare, we were protecting. I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

 

And even though the FLDS denied ever doing anything wrong, their current leader says that from now on, underage marriage is forbidden.
So, IMO, something good came out of this.

 

I can see someone is still not taking their medication.

 

Yes they were outrageous, myself included. My apologies if I crossed that line!

 

Unintended consequence, but you have a good point.

Thanks, and likewise, I've probably crossed the line several times myself.

Laissez-faire.

 

Good one, Jeremy - really takes the sting off your unsupportably biased view. Well done!

 

Don't know if you read through the dissenting opinion, Kaethy, but this justice specifically included the above notion - that mothers saw nothing wrong in this - as evidence of possible endangerment to these children.

 

Not sure I would consider myself biased on the subject. Just giving an honest and open observation of how "Mormons" are perceived in general, fundy or not.

Hey, we'd all like to bang a different women every night, I'm just not sure we can all handle more than one set of "that time of the month"

 

Well, that's a try that doesn't even rise to mediocre, Mia. No one is talking about how Mormons are perceived "in general." We are discussing how you perceive them.

Your view was that there really isn't any difference between Mormons, generally, and the FLDS - further adding to your bile that "they" are pedophiles, in so many words - by reliance on yet another prejudice, that there isn't any difference between Muslims, generally, and Islamic Fundamentalists.

You have backpedaled a bit, by saying the only key difference between "Mormons" and FLDS is that the latter no longer practices polygamy. Any way you slice it, a deeply flawed and vilely prejudiced worldview. You have yet to apologize for classifying Mormons - whether the Mormon members of this community, or, closer to home for me, my brother and his family - as pedophiles, in essential belief.

Sad, but true.

 

In principle, if you practice what is preached, nope - no difference.

In principle, if you practice what is preached, nope - no difference

No backpedaling here. Just helping stave off your eversion of reality.

The only reason the later no longer practices plural marriage is because a law was passed banning it. Some chose to obey that law, over their own law, some did not.

Again, In principle, if you practice what is preached, nope - no difference.

I'd like to meet your tailor some day. He's seems rather talented to have made a set of pants large enough to encompass the obviously enormous set of balls you have to continually name call.

Grow up, this is really beneath the old you, pre-whatever has knocked you off an even keel.

 

The fundamental and philosophical difference between I and you is the fact I believe the most important task of the law in the society is to protect the innocents and the sword of the law should protect the innocents at any price including some guilty skipping the justice while you believe that the main task of the law is to punish the criminals and the sword of the law should punish the guilty at any price including some innocents being punished.

It is interesting that while you talk about Mia prejudice, you are the one who jumped on the bandwagon of state, calling them pedophiles while court of appeal found no evidence of pedophilia. It is even more interesting that all state claims about small children being abused and unusual broken bones among these children (wink wink abuse) that you and others jumped on and repeated in these threads, just evaporated in thin air when they had to show proof in a court of law instead of hinting in front of media.

 

"Practice what is preached" - have no idea what the hell you are talking about, unless you're saying places like my brother's church preaches pedophilia, in which case, again, saying so might get your teeth knocked out in certain close quarters.

By your tragic illogic, the Catholic church - you know, the place with the infallible guy at top, from Peter through now - also believed witches were women to be tortured and burnt to death in an abominably painful way. That abandonment of that practice - is this apostasy, while the "true church" proceeds in a fundamentalist fashion to torture women?

Don't know about the size of my balls, Jeremy, as much as the willingness to speak to truth - "webby friends" formerly or not. Grow a pair, own up to a seriously biased worldview, and realize it's a big world out there, and not all of them need fit Jeremy's tight fit.