As I have read the various comments on this story, I am struck by some who question why I, or others take the FLDS position, or support them, or seem sympathetic toward them. I have also read comments which I think express extremely well why I, from a Constitutional standpoint stand squarely with my FLDS Sisters and Brothers in Eldorado, Texas. I reproduce some of them below. While doing so do I do not mean to imply support by anyone for criminal conduct, but rather the preservation and protection of Constitutional Rights. Rights that are still afforded even the FLDS community.
Blake Ostler, a prominent Salt Lake City Attorney, and prolific LDS writer commented yesterday:
After having read the affidavit (based on hearsay) and reviewing as much of the transcripts as I could, it appears fairly evident that there have been massive violations of First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. There was no need to search the entire compound. The warrant was so overbroad that it is a travesty.
It also appears to me that the lawyers for the FLDS are doing a half-assed job of defending their rights. This appears to be more about turning the kids over to the Baptists than about getting a hearing in time to get to the fact necessary to support even removing one child. I will state categorically that there is not a sufficient basis for removing all 400+ children from the compound. The Constitution has been violated and no one cares because these people act and look differently that those in Texas. Given the Texas track record of convicting perfectly innocent children, and the number who have died in foster care, the people carrying this out ought to be fired and competent people should take over.
I would never condone child abuse or the kinds of marriage between older men and young women. But the answer is not to displace all of the women and children and blatant disregard for their Constitutional rights. Where is the outcry against this blatant violation of rights? It seems we have early Mormons and the rest of the nation all over again — except this time the Mormons sit silently on the sidelines while it happens.
Anne: As a non-American perhaps you have no appreciation for Constitutional rights — which we regard as God given and not something we cast off at a whim. However, they are absolutely essential to our ordered government and protecting the rights of those deemed innocent until proven guilty. As judge, jury and execution, I can see how you would free yourself of the need to have sufficient evidence before acting. I can see that you would feel free to judge all of the mothers and all of the fathers of these children without evidence that really implicates them in the least. That is the prerogative of someone who gets to judge and execute before looking at any evidence at all. However, I’d hate to be a defendant in any trial where you had any say in matters.
Further, the evidence that young women are being brainwashed is called by any other name raising children to believe what the parents believe. If that is child abuse, then any religious teaching of children is abuse. Note I am not justifying child abuse or older men forcing young, underage girls (or anyone else for that matter) to submit to sexual favors. However, the fact that you simply presume that all men in the compound are guilty of such crimes puts you in the company of those folks in Texas who don’t need any justifying grounds for leaping to such conclusions either. The charges are based on hearsay — on someone’s testimony who doesn’t have personal knowledge. Investigation is warranted — not removing all children because at least one was beat by her husband. Have we learned nothing from the Salem witch trials?
That said, no one is justifying or looking the other way on child abuse. As I said, the appropriate course of actions was to do an investigation into the scope of any criminal practices and then, if the evidence warrants, take further action. The “lifestyle” has been going for at least 4 years in Texas and long before that in Arizona, a few weeks to conduct a proper investigation is certainly not unwarranted.
Finally, how do you feel about all children simply being taken away without sufficient evidence? If that happened to you, undoubtedly you would want the very constitutional protections you seem to so blithely ignore now.
Ardis Parshall, an historian and researcher specializing in the collections at LDS Archives, and Salt Lake Tribune columnist has commented:
Even granting that underage marriages and resultant pregnancies are common, nobody, even the nutters in Tapestry, have ever alleged that infants, girls of 3 or 5 or 7, or little boys, have been involved in inappropriate sexual contact. And while yes, you investigate any plea from somebody alleging abuse, you (at least reasonable people) do not take 401 children away from home on the mere possibility that *one* of them may have been harmed, nor hold their fathers on house arrest, nor force their mothers to choose whether to stand by their husbands or care for their children.
That’s a good reason to have a stake in it, Daniel.
Imagine: This summer some stake will hold girls’ camp in a part of the country where a majority of the population has a fuzzy idea of the line between local government and local mainline Protestantism — and who certainly can’t distinguish between FLDS and LDS. What’s with all those underage girls being sent to a camp, anyway, away from the watchful eyes of public school teachers? Especially when there’s a fence around the compound? And where there are BEDS on the premises? And what about all those adult males who go up in relays? They claim to be priesthood holders guarding the camp … but who really knows? Better safe than sorry — better call out the authorities.
Daniel, you may not have been exposed to some of the same charges I have. When I began work at the Clark County Fire Department (surrounding Las Vegas) in 1978, the Pentecostal department secretary realized I was a Mormon and began to tell me in lurid detail what went on in LDS Temples — she had learned at her church that bishops got first crack at brides in LDS temples. She was deadly serious, no irony, no sarcasm about it. She genuinely believed it. So if I can hear that in a stronghold of Mormonism, imagine what smoke-without-fire is billowing up in places where Mormons are unknown? That taught me that *we* are vulnerable, and eventually I recognized that *they* aren’t necessarily guilty of all the gossip (even gossip sworn out by Texas rangers and printed in respectable newspapers) that swirls around them. Or Scientologists. Or David Koresh. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or Muslims. If I had a coat of arms, I think I would use the motto “What ‘everybody knows’ ain’t necessarily so.”
Sam B., I agree with everything you’ve said. We don’t defend constitutional protections only because we personally might be vulnerable, but because they can be made meaningless for everybody when they’re made meaningless for some.
SamB, an East Coast attorney has commented:
I’d argue further: even if there is no conceivable risk to me at any time (which, realistically, there isn’t: I’m an attorney at a big East Coast law firm with significant knowledge of the community I live in, and I look and act like your standard American), I have a stake as an American. As an American, I have a duty to protect and advocate for the rights that all Americans enjoy, whether or not I like or agree with them, and whether or not there may be an impact on me. (Which is why I love the fact that big corporate law firms are representing the detainees at Guantanamo—even if they are bad people (which clearly, Bush to the contrary, most aren’t), they’re entitled to a fair process.)
Dan,
That’s what everyone has said so far. The thing is, a mere suspicion that something bad is happening (beds in the temple, one of which must have been slept on—clearly a sign of adult men preying on underage girls!) doesn’t pass the muster for disrupting the lives of a hundred families because there may be some abuse going on. There is (sadly enough) undoubtedly a child being abused on the four blocks that surround my apartment building. And that abuse should certainly stop. But the fact that abuse is probably happening somewhere does not justify taking away my daughter and every other child on four New York City blocks; if, on the other hand, there was a credible suggestion that someone in the building next to mine was abusing his daughter, the state should certainly intervene, but at a level that responds to the problem, not at such a broad level.
Johnf, also an attorney has commented, over at BCC:
I think Texas may have been posturing this to create another Branch Davidian situation. As I have followed this story over the last few days, Texas authorities and law enforcement made a big show about how there might be large casualties because they were going to search the temple. I wonder if they are actually disappointed that there wasn’t a huge shootout — after all they rolled in all those ambulances.
Over at Guy’s blog, a commenter asked when it became the practice to take away the children of all the families in a group just because one family is suspected of abusing the children.
If children are being abused, then they need to be removed. But it appears that the touchstone of abuse here is that young women were being put into arranged marriages. Unless they actually marry while underage (Texas raised the legal age from 14 to 16 when the FLDS rolled into the state four years ago — apparently 14 is fine for fundamentalist Baptists but not FLDS), I fail to see how the prospect of an arranged marriage constitutes grounds to remove a child from its parents or its mother. The trauma of that action is severe. I have young daughters and I can’t really imagine their terrified reaction if they were seized from me and my wife by surprise one day and taken to a warehouse somewhere to wait for an undetermined amount of time. I can certainly imagine their terror though and it gives me chills.
There but for the grace of God go we Latter-day Saints, by the way.
re # 67 I guess that’s what happens when you learn about fundamentalist Mormons from a Baptist.
Bingo. Thanks for that succinct statement of the problem here.
Amanda, my heart goes out to you and your FLDS community. I do not share your religious belief in polygamy but wish I had some avenue to protect your rights and the rights of your children in situations such as this. Maintaining due process would be enough.
It’s not very comforting to know that if anyone claims abuse against another family in my church, that the state can come in and take my kids away with no cause.
This is precisely the point. When did it become the standard operating procedure to take the kids away from all of the families in a group because there are allegations that one of the families in the group has abused a child?
I hope that no LDS reader here thinks that what is going on to the FLDS is tangential to our lives. If this course of action flies, it will create horrible precedent for what a state can and cannot do based on what level of evidence.
To a fundamentalist Baptist, we LDS look just as deplorable as the FLDS and it is pretty easy to think that an affidavit can be drafted based on double and triple hearsay that LDS children are in danger of being raised weird and therefore should be removed and exposed to whatever horrors await them in a failing, underfunded state foster care system that is already lacking in space.
Fundamentalist Baptist hillbilly sherriffs in rural West Texas might genuinely believe that Jesus Camp is a more normal and proper upbringing for an FLDS child but the question is who gets to decide such a thing? If it is the government of the State of Texas then, as someone who grew up in Texas, all LDS and not just FLDS should be very concerned about what is happening in El Dorado.
The First and Fourth Amendments referenced by Blake afford everyone the following protections:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What is happening out in West Texas is very much about every LDS person, and every American. The Constitution protects the most reviled and unpopular Religious movement, or it protects none of us. It protects the least of these, our brethern, or it protects none of us. It is for this reason, that I for one, as Blake Ostler suggests, will not be a Mormon who stands silently by on the sidelines. Rather, I will quite vocally stand squarely with my FLDS Sisters and Brothers in West Texas.
Messenger and Advocate 
April 10, 2008 at 8:19 am
Count me as one on the sidelines in this one, then, Guy. Maybe it also is the relative distance (both geographical and cultural) that I have with the FLDS. But I cannot stand with them. Nor against them.
April 10, 2008 at 8:49 am
Stand with the Constitution, Dan. It’s not about the FLDS.
Guy,
Where is the ACLU? I don’t know, but it seems to me that this kind of thing is right up their alley. Maybe they don’t respond rapidly to this kind of thing, but do you expect that they would get involved and help the FLDS stand up for their rights?
April 10, 2008 at 9:08 am
Dan, The “your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you” idea didn’t work well in the past, and doesn’t work well now. Tom is right. The point is standing by the Constitutional rights of our brethren.
Tom,
Good question. You would think these types of Constitutional abuses would be tailor made for a group whose sole purpose is to uphold the Bill of Rights. In today’s political climate, of Constitutional abuse, perhaps it just doesn’t sound very loudly on the alarm meter. Let’s see how things play out.
April 10, 2008 at 9:14 am
Dan, why can’t you stand on the side of due process of law and the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution? You seem to take that approach when Muslim terrorists are concerned — and I would guess that they are more geographically and culturally distant from you than FLDS families in rural West Texas.
I don’t see why you can’t stand for their rights. You can be interested in protecting the due process of law without being sympathetic to polygamy or the abuse of children, or arranged or under-aged marriages.
April 10, 2008 at 9:31 am
Dan,
I don’t have any theological sympathy for the FLDS. While I believe that polygamy was divinely instituted by revelation, I also believe it was divinely removed by revelation. I also don’t think there is any constitutional right to practice plural marriage; the Supreme Court was pretty decisive in Reynolds. And I believe that plural marriage is always the exception, and that it won’t be practiced by us in the future, even in the Celestial Kingdom.
However, I’m also a big fan of the constitution, largely because of the rights it offers to unpopular minorities. It requires the government to use the same care in dealing with the Santeria in Florida as it does in dealing with the Catholic church in Boston.
Guy,
Thank you for your coverage. (And for including my comment with such big-name bloggernacalites as you did!) I’ve wondered, too, where the ACLU is. I do hope they get involved.
April 10, 2008 at 9:36 am
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/
The blog of a person working for the Texas ACLU.
They are aware of the issues.
April 10, 2008 at 9:41 am
..Stand with Texas if You must, but to us looking in, it is Child abuse…Slavery, and created to serve the desire, of sick old men…Hide behind your constitution.Whatever makes You sleep at night…Thank God For Karma
April 10, 2008 at 9:49 am
Very happy to “hide behind my constitution,” Bonnie, as long as there is a shred of it left somewhere. I’ll even hold it up for you to take shelter there when you someday discover it isn’t such a bad thing to hang onto.
April 10, 2008 at 9:54 am
Cicero, thanks for the link, but I actually quit working for ACLU of Texas in 2006. I did ask ACLUTX’s top lawyer whether they planned to get involved, and she said they were “watching” the situation. I replied that it was a shame that, in a truly historic case, ACLU would choose to remain a “spectator.” I’m afraid, though, that confrontational approach might not have been the best way to convince them to jump in. 😉
While I’m here, let me give y’all links to recent Grits posts on this topic, in case you hadn’t seen them. I’d really appreciate any additional feedback this much-more-knowledgeable-than-me crowd has to offer on the topic.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/will-eldorado-case-expose-overwhelmed.html
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-history-repeating-itself-with-raid.html
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/search-warrants-for-polygamist-compound.html
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/big-love-in-west-texas.html
Speaking only for myself, I get uncomfortable when individual allegations are used to paint entire groups with a broad brush. Texas convicts innocent people, including for sex crimes – for that matter we’ve sent innocent people to death row who took decades to prove their false conviction. So it’s always wise to reserve judgment when such extremist charges are made. Prosecute actual child molesters, no doubt, but guilt by association is just not adequate reason to take away someone’s children, and doing so will make it more difficult to go after true abusers.
April 10, 2008 at 10:04 am
“While doing so do I do not mean to imply support by anyone for criminal conduct, but rather the preservation and protection of Constitutional Rights.”
Guy, perhaps you could shed more light on this statement. What treatment of the polygamous group here would meet constitutional muster? Given the information Texas authorities were alerted to regarding potential child abuse, what should they have done?
Removal proceedings differ from state to state, but in exigent circumstances (imminent abuse, etc.) removing a child from his or her home without a warrant may well be constitutionally sound “due process”.
April 10, 2008 at 10:09 am
ECS,
But there’s no suggestion that 400 kids were in danger of imminent abuse. At most, the girls ages (say) 10 or 12 and up maybe, arguably were. But no allegation has been made of abusing boys and, as best I can tell, no allegation that girls younger than maybe 14 were being made to marry and have sex with old men.
April 10, 2008 at 10:14 am
Which, again, is not to justify the sexual abuse of minors. If discovered, it should certainly be prosecuted and, if deemed necessary, such abused children (and those at risk of abuse) should be removed from their homes. But from the affidavits that have come to light up until now, there was nothing that justified the breadth of what the state did.
April 10, 2008 at 10:27 am
From what I understand currently, it seems a matter of “who’s next” if we stand by and don’t speak up against this outrage perpetrated by the Texas authorities.
April 10, 2008 at 10:29 am
ECS,
Given what information I have read that was available to Texas authorities, what they should have done is investigated the complaint of child and sexual abuse of the 16 year old complaining victim. They should have located her, interviewed her, and actually named the correct individual believed to be her husband in a proper arrest warrant, and arrested him if they had sufficient probable cause under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They should probably also have located her parents and interviewed and investigated their role, if any, in sending her to the FLDS compound.
Thus far I have seen no exigent circumstances or threat of imminent abuse, at least as to the other 400 plus minors kidnapped by Texas under the color of law.
April 10, 2008 at 10:29 am
“But from the affidavits that have come to light up until now, there was nothing that justified the breadth of what the state did.”
Perhaps. The constitutional rights of the children, however, should also be considered here. State governments are routinely criticized for failing to prevent physical and sexual abuse of children. Many of these children are killed at the hands of their parents or caretakers.
I don’t agree with the heavyhandedness and prejudice that seems to be present in the Texas case, but I must admit that I’d rather the government erred on the side of protecting the children.
April 10, 2008 at 10:36 am
I appreciate your blog entries on this subject, Guy. The moment we act against the rights of others to make unpopular choices, we endanger our own rights to make choices we deem good and proper. I wish all Americans would understand this basic principle, especially those who are acting out of religious indignation and prejudice.
April 10, 2008 at 10:36 am
“Thus far I have seen no exigent circumstances or threat of imminent abuse, at least as to the other 400 plus minors kidnapped by Texas under the color of law.”
Please. We don’t know all the facts yet. What we do know is that this is an insular community where children have no interaction with the outside world. We also know there are allegations of sexual abuse. I’m not saying that there are sufficient grounds to justify removal, but I support reasonable efforts to protect the children and to signal to this community that they are not free to retreat behind their religion to justify abuse.
April 10, 2008 at 10:42 am
I stand with the FLDS as a fellow US Citizen who believes that the warrant was served incorrectly and much of the FLDS compound has been denied their 4th Amendment Rights.
I don’t stand with the FLDS as brethren in religion. I dislike their religion. I think that some of the men have been participating in child abuse. However whatever crime they have committed does not negate their rights, nor the rights of other members of the FLDS who were also at the compound.
April 10, 2008 at 10:43 am
“I fail to see how the prospect of an arranged marriage constitutes grounds to remove a child from its parents or its mother.”
I disagree. Marrying a 16 year old girl against her will to a 40 year old stranger (or near-relative) is infinitely more traumatic than removing her from her parents’ home. Furthermore, her parents should be prosecuted as accomplices to rape if the marriage is consummated.
April 10, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Perhaps. The constitutional rights of the children, however, should also be considered here.”
How about the constitutional right of a child to remain at home, with parents who love and protect him or her?
April 10, 2008 at 10:53 am
john,
#4,
I don’t think you really want to be bringing up the Constitution in regards to our Muslim detainees.
Secondly, you state,
When it comes to the abuse of children (having been abused myself by my father), my feelings are rather strongly against those who commit the abuse. I pity the men who do this. They are sexually weak men who use religion to get satisfaction from women. Sad folk they are. But they do not deserve my sympathy from a legal standpoint.
From my understanding of the Constitution (and I may be wrong here), it isn’t to protect the guilty. It is to define the behaviors of our society from a legal standpoint. Now, this hurt us, Mormons, in the past because we began practicing abhorrent (from the view of the rest of society) things (polygamy). We, thankfully, chose to let it go and temper our religion to better fit into the society we live in. There are many excesses from the days of Brigham Young that are abhorrent (like his views on race and priesthood-less blacks). The strength of this church is in its ability to stay away from the edges. The FLDS has not done this. They have decided to pursue the course closest to the cliffs. Frankly, I have no desire to build planks so they can walk over the cliff and get even further extreme in their religious practice. This was not the intent of the Constitution, in my view.
April 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
JimD.,
That’s a wonderful principle and one that I wholeheartedly espouse. What happens when those parents, however, are complicit in the brainwashing and marrying-off of those children to 50 year old pedophiles?
April 10, 2008 at 11:36 am
What happens when those parents, however, are complicit in the brainwashing . . .
What happens when those parents, however, are complicit in “brainwashing” and convince their children to do any number of things, under any number of religious systems? Like it or not, there are those who view the Primary program as a “brainwashing” system, too. Whether it’s called “teaching,” “indoctrination,” or “brainwashing has more to do with where the name-caller stands, than it does with the subject.
April 10, 2008 at 11:37 am
ECS, I said the prospect of an arranged marriage.
I have not seen Texas authorities removing Hindu children from their parents’ home.
April 10, 2008 at 11:38 am
ECS, it kind of sounds like you are saying that the state can take a 6 year old girl away from her parents if there is a possibility that at 13 a marriage will be arranged for her to be entered into once she turns 16. Is that right?
April 10, 2008 at 11:39 am
re # 21, I don’t think you really want to be bringing up the Constitution in regards to our Muslim detainees.
Why did you say that? Are you really that ignorant, Dan?
April 10, 2008 at 11:40 am
Dan,
I’d disagree pretty strongly with your view of the Constitution; it certainly serves to protect the rights of the guilty. That is, if you’re driving around with illegal drugs in your car, but your registration is good, they’re not visible, and you’re obeying the speed limit, the police don’t have the right to pull you over and search your car. If they do and they discover the drugs, that evidence will be thrown out in court, even though you are clearly guilty of breaking the law, because they violated your constitutional rights. Even the guiltiest murderer is entitled to a jury trial, with full due process. Even if he killed someone in front of the President, the governor, the mayor, and a whole bunch of upstanding religious and civic leaders, each of whom is a pristinely honest person, he gets to go to trial and try to convince a jury of his peers that he did not, in fact, murder a person. (He may not have a prayer of winning the case, but he has the right to trial.) John’s comparison to detained terrorists and accused terrorists is spot-on, and your (and my) objections there fit in perfectly here. Even if certain Guantanamo detainees are high-ranking Al Queida operatives, they should be given process to prove or disprove it.
April 10, 2008 at 11:42 am
Dan, the Constitution protects the due process of law. From your comment I see you saying that when it comes to child abusers due process does not apply.
I also have no sympathy for child abusers and am in favor of far harsher punishments for them than could ever be meted out to them under our current laws. ECS and I have discussed this before.
But I stand up for the Constitution and the rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment. I am surprised you don’t.
Again, let’s talk about Guantanamo.
April 10, 2008 at 11:45 am
john,
I figure you wouldn’t really want to talk about Guantanamo because as much as I know you (which granted is very little), you’re a fan of this war and such. But I’m assuming here.
Guantanamo was an attempt by the Bush administration to avoid the Constitution. So if you agree with me that everything about Guantanamo is wrong, then we’re cool and there’s nothing that needs to be said further about it.
April 10, 2008 at 11:45 am
“ECS, it kind of sounds like you are saying that the state can take a 6 year old girl away from her parents if there is a possibility that at 13 a marriage will be arranged for her to be entered into once she turns 16. Is that right?”
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. I’m more concerned with actual marriages, especially those of sixteen year old girls to men very much older.
“Fundamentalist Baptist hillbilly sherriffs in rural West Texas”
“Are you really that ignorant, Dan?”
John – clearly you feel strongly about this issue, but comments such as these are unproductive.
April 10, 2008 at 11:47 am
Dan,
What John’s saying is, this is an attempt by Texas authorities to end-run the Constitution. The administration’s treatment of prisoners there is wrong, as is Texas’s treatment of the FLDS. With Guantanamo, though, there is some (albeit, IMHO, very little) wiggle room—the administration is arguing that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens and/or on U.S. soil. I think that’s a bad argument but, irrespective, Texas is doing this to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, so what tenuous claim to ambiguity the Bush administration has doesn’t even exist here.
April 10, 2008 at 11:49 am
Dan,
I agree that the FLDS society is immoral in many ways. But this isn’t a question of right vs. wrong. It’s a question of lawful vs. unlawful. We don’t have to agree with or respect any single tenet of FLDS belief or practice in order to condemn unlawful state actions. In fact, I would say that the true test of one’s level of respect for the rule of law and commitment to an equal guarantee of civil rights is whether we stand up for the rights of people we don’t like or respect and whether we’ll condemn unlawful state action even when we judge the outcome of such action to be just. It doesn’t seem that you’re passing that test right now. It’s ironic given how hard you are on the Bush administration for its actions which you judge to denigrate the rule of law and civil liberties.
April 10, 2008 at 11:53 am
Sam,
Did the Texas authorities overstep their mandate? Probably. Did all the children need to be removed from the compound? Probably not. I just can’t find it in me to get worked up about this, though. I feel, in terms of which is worse—end-running the Constitution, or abusing children—that abusing children is the worst offense here. I’m sorry that I just can’t get all worked up about the authorities jumping the gun. I’ve thought and thought and thought about it and that’s where I stand. On the sidelines.
April 10, 2008 at 11:54 am
I’m amazed at the reasoning here linking the abuses of the prisoners at Guantanamo to the Texas polygamists. The polygamists have the luxury of being charged with a crime or being released from state custody in a matter of hours. If the allegations turn up no evidence of abuse, the children will immediately be returned to their homes and the parents can sue the state of Texas for violating their civil rights.
April 10, 2008 at 11:55 am
Tom,
You’re right. It is about lawful vs unlawful. Abusing children is unlawful! And, in my opinion, a worse crime than the state flexing its muscles. I cannot, in good conscience stand for the rights of those who abuse children. I just cannot. I’m sorry I fail your test. But as one who was abused as a child, who still feels the effects of those actions, I cannot. Judge me as you wish in terms of how hard I am on the Bush administration, but that’s how it is.
April 10, 2008 at 11:56 am
Many prisoners in Guantanamo have been there for years, YEARS, on trumped-up allegations and have not been charged with any crime.
April 10, 2008 at 11:56 am
And many of those prisoners will never be released until they die if Bush and his supporters have their way. The FLDS will get to go home.
April 10, 2008 at 12:08 pm
ECS, the issue is due process of law. That is why a comparison exists. Those who favor due process of law for terror detainees should, it seems, favor due process of law for removing the children of American citizens from their homes.
The issue here is that for the great majority of the children involved here, there are no allegations that they have been abused.
Where specific allegations of abuse exist and a proper warrant has been obtained upon the correct standards for such warrants, a child that is being abused should be removed with all haste and the perp should be very severely punished.
April 10, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I figure you wouldn’t really want to talk about Guantanamo because as much as I know you (which granted is very little), you’re a fan of this war and such. But I’m assuming here.
Yes, you’re assuming and the assumption is ignorant. What you could be basing that on is a mystery to me.
April 10, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Dan: Abusing children is unlawful!
Of course. And as soon as we see evidence that a child is being abused (according to the legal definition of abuse, not according to our own sense of right and wrong) or is in imminent danger (as defined by the law) of being abused (as defined by the law), we should remove that child from the abuser, following lawful procedures. Just as we must insist that accused abusers be investigated and punished according to the law, we must insist on the state following the law as it does so, or we’re all in trouble. It’s truly frightening to me that some of my fellow citizens aren’t troubled by potentially unlawful state actions.
April 10, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. I’m more concerned with actual marriages, especially those of sixteen year old girls to men very much older.
ECS, you took issue with my statement concerning the state taking away children because of the prospect of an arranged marriage. I believe the prospect of an arranged marriage is different than an actual consumated arranged marriage.
So the question I posed you merits an answer: is the state justified in taking a 6 year old girl away from her parents if there is a possibility that at 13 a marriage will be arranged for her [the prospect of an arranged marriage] to be entered into once she turns 16?
April 10, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Guantanamo was an attempt by the Bush administration to avoid the Constitution. So if you agree with me that everything about Guantanamo is wrong, then we’re cool and there’s nothing that needs to be said further about it.
Wrong. If we agree that Guantanamo is a violation of the Constitutional protections of the due process of law, then we need to discuss why you believe that the FLDS don’t get to benefit from the due process of law as American citizens when terror detainees do.
I have voiced my opinion in favor of the due process of law. You appear to be remaining neutral on the topic here despite years worth of exposition on the topic where terror detainees are concerned.
April 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm
john,
#39,
Remember this? This is why I assumed you were a proponent of the war and all its various peripheries.
April 10, 2008 at 12:23 pm
re # 33, I feel, in terms of which is worse—end-running the Constitution, or abusing children—that abusing children is the worst offense here.
Dan, this is just too ironic. I would think that at least some people who support incarcerating terror detainees at Guantanamo could say that they feel, in terms of which is worse — end-running the Constitution, or committed terrorist acts of mass-murder — that committing terrorist acts of mass-murder is the worse offense here.
Thus, given your ambivalence about due process of law here, it is very difficult to anything but pure politics in your previous condemnations of the incarceration of terror detainees at Guantanamo — meaning that in those condemnations it has not been about Constitutional principles or due process of law but rather about democrats vs. republicans and elections.
April 10, 2008 at 12:25 pm
re # 43, Dan, nothing in the link you provided indicates or implies support for the war or the incarceration of terror detainees at Guantanamo.
In the linked comment I point out that your are playing fast and loose with a statement made by Romney in your attempt to justify your class hatred of the man.
April 10, 2008 at 12:27 pm
john,
#44,
Only if the two violations were of equal weight. Unlike you, I view violations on a scale rather than a line, so that a eensy violation of the law does not carry the same weight as a gross violation does. The reason I am not all that troubled by the FLDS incident is that it doesn’t really carry that much weight. Whereas Guantanamo is a gross violation and a black stain on our nation. The two really do not compare, john.
April 10, 2008 at 12:27 pm
John f. – you must be more precise with your definitions before I can answer your question effectively.
You did not provide a definition of “prospect” in your original comment, so I understood the “prospect” to indicate an impending marriage of a sixteen year old girl.
Your original comment said nothing about a six year old girl, instead, you referred to the legal age of marital consent in Texas, which is sixteen. I’m not sure why you’re asking me to answer a question you never asked in the first place.
I’ll answer your re-formulated question, however. In the absence of evidence of abuse, the state is not justified in taking a six year old from her parents merely because they have arranged a marriage for her. But this situation is a very different situation than the one you posited in the comment I quoted. Again, the state _is_ justified in removing a sixteen year old girl from her parents if they force her into an arranged marriage against her will.
April 10, 2008 at 12:28 pm
john,
not just that particular comment, but the whole line of comments on that post. Like I said, I assumed, based on that conversation you were a supporter (and frankly, because of your support for Romney—who desired to double Guantanamo—I can rightly say that you too were just fine with it).
April 10, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Dan,
Nothing in the thread you linked to supports the notion that john f. is a proponent of the war and all its peripheries.
April 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Tom,
Except his support of Mitt “Double Guantanamo” Romney.
April 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It is quite telling that none of your references are women. And I’m not sure where you are coming from when you claim that Gitmo detainees are granted “due process.” This is an out and out lie: anyone deemed an “Enemy Combatant” is not allowed due process which has become one of the biggest threats to the US Constitution.
April 10, 2008 at 12:31 pm
In the absence of evidence of abuse, the state is not justified in taking a six year old from her parents merely because they have arranged a marriage for her.
Thank you. I thought so. I am glad that this is also clear to you. So, why are hundreds of 0-9 year olds being held in a warehouse instead of sleeping in their own beds tonight?
April 10, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Dan, you have voiced strong support of Obama. Does that mean you support every single policy and plan and belief of his?
April 10, 2008 at 12:33 pm
john,
I really don’t understand why you wish to drag on the point. I told you I assumed in #29. Let it go dude.
April 10, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Unlike you, I view violations on a scale rather than a line, so that a eensy violation of the law does not carry the same weight as a gross violation does.
Dan, this statement makes you seem like you are not a liberal at all. To be a benchmark of taking a liberal view of things is strong support for due process.
Many people think that a police officer stopping a vehicle simply because of some physical characteristic of the driver and then opening the trunk of the car with no reasonable grounds for doing so is not a very big deal at all. Each of these actions are blatantly illegal and unconstitutional for a police officer to do. But in truth both are just an “eensy violation of the law”, are they not? In your opinion, should herione found in the trunk of a car based on that scenario be admitted as evidence against the accused in court?
April 10, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“Thank you. I thought so. I am glad that this is also clear to you. So, why are hundreds of 0-9 year olds being held in a warehouse instead of sleeping in their own beds tonight?”
I don’t know, John. I hope these allegations are investigated as quickly as possible, and that these children are well cared for in the meantime.
April 10, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Dan, I must say that your # 48 obviates any comfort given by your acknowledgement that you were assuming in # 29.
April 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm
john,
I’m glad you are noticing that I’m not a liberal. I’m a moderate. It’s just on the war and on torture that I have very very very strong views on.
I really don’t care if a cop stops someone, searches their car and finds heroin. In my eyes, they are guilty and should be punished. I don’t think the cop should be punished for his search. “Unreasonable searches.” Not “all searches.”
April 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm
john f – “due process” is not an immutable concept. What process is “due” depends entirely upon the particular facts and situation at hand. Guantanamo prisoners really are in a different category here.
April 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Whoa.
April 10, 2008 at 12:41 pm
john,
#57,
whatever dude. There’s a time to let things go.
April 10, 2008 at 12:47 pm
(my # 60 was in reference to # 58.)
As to # 59, I simply disagree. Due process is a principle that can be defended as such, on principle.
April 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm
So can Santa Claus, John.
April 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm
ECS, in which instances, in your view, is due process less important to be upheld rigorously. I see that you agree that Guantanamo is an instance where due process merits the full breadth provided by the Constitution.
Is there a scale that goes down from there? Is Guantanamo sort of representative of the most strict side of the scale with other things such as police searches and seizures, jailhouse interrogations, and yes, removal of children from homes arranged in some kind of constellation of seriousness below Guantanamo?
April 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Unlike you, I view violations on a scale rather than a line, so that a eensy violation of the law does not carry the same weight as a gross violation does.
Don’t you think that turning a blind eye to “eensy” state violations of constitutional rights of fellw citizens puts us at greater risk of being victims of state abuse of power?
April 10, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Tom,
Sure, but it has to pass the smell test. In my view, this particular incident doesn’t deserve that much attention, in terms of Constitutional violations.
The David Koresh incident is far more disturbing, and it really didn’t set any precedent.
April 10, 2008 at 1:10 pm
This whole thing is tragic on so many levels. What a disaster. The only remedy is for the FLDS to renounce their clearly illegal practice of polygamy.
They could then be free to get involved in whatever legal methods they choose to change laws that they disagree with.
April 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Dan,
You’re losing all sorts of credibility here. You have every right not to care about the FLDS. But you seem not to care at all about constitutional rights, except where they mesh with your projects. John’s heroin-in-the-trunk example is very very very clearly a violation of due process, irrespective of guilt. What differentiates the lack of due process for that driver from the lack of due process for the detainee? In neither event has guilt been established before the violation; the driver’s guilt is only established because his due process was violated, and whatever detainees are actually bad people, if any, will only be demonstrated as such by violating constitutional protections. If, however, the police officer gets a warrant first, or if the Bush administration had somehow determined that a person in Guantanamo was a bad actor before sticking that person there, there wouldn’t be an outcry because only bad actors would be detained/arrested.
That’s the joy of due process: because we can’t know if someone is guilty just by looking at him or her, we establish a fair process by which we can decide we can restrict that person’s rights.
April 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm
ECS #17,
Which is precisely my point. Texas is rather short on facts, and long on rumor and/or double and triple hearsay.
Here’s a couple of facts we do know:
1. The Texas Rangers haven’t found anyone matching the description of the complaining victim;
2. It appears that Texas authorities have issued an arrest warrant for the wrong man, alleged to have been the victim’s spiritual husband;
3. There are several mothers who are being kept from contacting their children.
4. There appears to be a bed inside the temple. And, there is no evidence it has ever been used for anything other than sleeping or resting.
5. There are still 400 plus minor children, who are not at home with their mothers and fathers.
6. There have been no arrests other than for minor violations of interfering with the investigation.
And none of that is against any law, of which I am aware.
So far, the allegations are pretty weak, and at best apply to one victim. That’s where the investigation should have been directed. There should not have been any removal of other minor children with out better facts having been presented by Texas Authorities.
I think john f and others have done an admirable job of setting forth the Constitutional arguments. I would agree 100% with his analysis and what they have said. And, they have done it much more eloquently than I.
April 10, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Sam,
I don’t know why I’m losing credibility. I’ve been quite consistent in my views. You may disagree with me, but don’t discredit my views when they are consistent. My concerns with Guantanamo are not Constitutional in nature. I find that to be a more academic argument than anything else. I didn’t raise Guantanamo in this debate as a point. That was john’s point. I don’t think they compare, Guantanamo and FLDS’s compound raid.
As for the heroin-in-the-car scenario, if I had heroin in my car and a cop just happened to be searching and he found it, then I am guilty. The Constitution guards against “UNREASONABLE” searches, not “ALL” searches. I do not find it unreasonable to search a car. A home is one thing; a car another. And this again is where I see things differently than you. I see a scale where things are graded by weight, you see a line where all things weigh the same.
April 10, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Dan,
Not only are you not a liberal, you’re also not much of a moderate. [Edited by admin]. You seem to think that legitimate ends can justify routine state suspension of citizens’ civil liberties. You have little regard for equal protection or due process. You favor broad leeway when it comes to limits on state power.
You’re a bit inconsistent [edited] though. I say that because a consistent person [edited] who favors suspension of civil liberties of accused pedophiles wouldn’t think twice about detaining foreigners thought to be enemies of the state.
[Edited]. I’m sure there are good people with good intentions who think the state should be granted broad powers to encroach on civil liberties in order to bring about desirable ends. I’m glad you’re not in charge, though.
April 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I am watching the HBO John Adams mini series now… “Join or Die” all about how John Adams defended the British Soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre- and he got them off.
If only there were more men like John Adams still around.
He was surely obnoxious- but he definitely had integrity too.
April 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Tom,
I don’t take kindly to being called names [edited by admin], and I ask you to apologize. Using such a word in this kind of debate kills the civility of the debate. Please take it back and apologize.
April 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm
One problem I have with all the discussion (beyond my not being a lawyer) is that there appear to be so many facts. I don’t think we know what the state even did to the point where we can say what they should have done.
Case in point the above. Did the State try to do this and find she was no where to be found? Did they have concerns she might be killed? (We don’t know the context of the claim)
Also a few have suggested that the idea underage marriage was widespread is inappropriate rumor. Yet when the theological leader of the group was convicted for arranging just such relationships it seems that there’s prima facie reasons to be concerned. Likewise in this case I think the state has concern that there will be massive coverup by the community.
Did the State overact or act inappropriately? I don’t know but wouldn’t be surprised if in some cases they did. However it seems like many here are assuming the worst of everything with little evidence.
April 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm
No, Dan. You’re guilty, only after the due process of a trial, representation by counsel, motions to quash, and then only if the jury says you’re guilty. You’re not guilty when the police illegally search your car.
Likewise the FLDS are not all guilty of child or sex abuse charges based on what we know at this point. And, they should not be treated as such.
April 10, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Guy,
Forgive me for skipping over all those steps. I was going for brevity. But clearly, I am not guilty until a judge or jury declare so.
April 10, 2008 at 1:39 pm
To add I 100% agree there is a double standard between the FLDS fundamentalists and Evangelical and other fundamentalists. For instance what most of America would consider horrible underage marriages were fine when fundamentalist Pentacostals or Baptists do it but not when FLDS do it. Ditto the concerns of the insular community. It’s OK when Baptist fundamentalists keep their kids home, isolate them from the world, teach them ridiculous things about history and science and so forth. When the FLDS do the same thing it’s horrible.
Put simply most of the things we find troubling about FLDS fundamentalist is found in the fundamentalism rampant throughout Texas but deemed acceptable.
None of this is to excuse the arranged marriages between young women and older men. Something that I strongly feel the state has a compelling need to investigate.
April 10, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Dan, Tom,
Please take a breath, step back, relax, and then let’s go on.
April 10, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Dan,
I apologize; it is not my place to decide your consistency or inconsistency.
What Guy said, however, about the heroin in the car; you don’t have to be sympathetic to him, and you are free to believe that he’s guilty. But the state isn’t until he’s had due processes. I actually think that is the most important thing our system can do–we can’t guarantee that the system will be right, but we can (or at least, we should) guarantee that it will treat you in the same way it treats me and, when it doesn’t, that’s a failure.
Again, I’m sorry; my prior comment attacking your consistency was neither relevant to our debate nor appropriate.
April 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Tom, I’ve edited some of your comments in # 71. Please refrain from personal attacks.
April 10, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Tom,
I should remind you of President Hinckley’s talk from October 2001:
April 10, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Sam,
I haven’t researched due process so you are certainly going to be more familiar on it than I am (and the other lawyers commenting here). And I again go on gut feeling (like that other post on Mormon Mentality). I don’t see the searching of cars as unreasonable. I see the searching of a home as unreasonable, without probable cause. But this is a minor quibble and a side story to the main point here about the FLDS compound.
April 10, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Dan,
Again, that’s fair. The car thing is pretty well-established law, albeit law I never expect to be on the wrong side of.
This is certainly a much greyer area, with competing interests (the constitutional interests of the parents vs. potential harm to children vs. the state’s right to protect its children) and, from a distance and for someone with just enough knowledge to be dangerous (since law school, the extent of what I’ve done with constitutional law professionally has been state tax issues which, although fascinating, don’t have the same immediacy as this), make for an interesting case.
I come down on the side that Texas far overreacted. There is no allegation of imminent harm to any of the children beneath a certain age. Yes, as the worst case, the boys may eventually be pressured into become child abusers and the girls may be forced into underage marriage. But for any child under a certain age (which I don’t know–are they being “married” at 14 or 16? let’s say anyone under 12), there is no allegation of immediate harm, and no reason the state couldn’t go in, evaluate, and determine who was being hurt.
The state certainly did have to go in after the 16-year-old who called. While there, if they saw other signs of abuse, they certainly should have remedied those things. They should have spoken with people, maybe made surprise visits, or done other things that social workers do. But why pull out that many kids solely because of an allegation that in 3, 5, or 7 years, something bad might happen to them? That leaves the state time to prevent bad things in two weeks, and they don’t risk another Waco and they don’t trample on people’s rights.
April 10, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Okay, my last sentence doesn’t make any sense: that would leave the state at least a couple weeks to get things straight and, in the meantime, it could monitor the situation to make sure bad things weren’t happening.
April 10, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Dan, may I suggest that when it comes to matters of due process, constitutionality, and procedure that you stop relying on instinct? Your remarks simply have little to do with the way the law actually works.
April 10, 2008 at 4:11 pm
john,
#55,
I was thinking about this on the way home, about this scenario. What if the cop in question searched this particular car and found a bomb instead of heroin?
April 10, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Dan, Guy,
In my mind fascism is a morally neutral political philosophy like liberalism or socialism. I think it’s a bad philosophy, but not necessarily evil. I was using it to mean what I said it meant in my comment:
It wasn’t my intent to use the term as a slur, as I thought I made clear in my comment. I should have been more aware that it would be taken that way, despite my disclaimer. So I’m sorry.
Substitute in my comment any term you like for a political philosophy like I described. If you have a better term, let me know what it is. Does illiberalism fit?
April 10, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Sam
#83,
Those are good points to make. I think we don’t yet have enough of the state’s rationale behind its actions. It looks like they overstepped their bounds, but we don’t yet have all the information to make that a sound judgment.
April 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Tom,
How about conservatism? 😉
April 10, 2008 at 4:26 pm
This issue cannot really be solved by renouncing polygamy (as the LDS did over 100 yrs ago) because in effect, there is only one valid/legal marriage in each of these families anyway, and it’s not illegal in this country to have sex with and have children with as many people as you want. Does the state intend to take all children away from single mothers? Teen mothers? If the FLDS stopped practicing polygamy, why not just convert to LDS? We could certainly re-patriate them if they were willing.
April 10, 2008 at 4:40 pm
We don’t really know at this point what the authorities in Texas have discovered during their investigations. Therefore none of us with any degree of honesty can truly state whether or not they behaved appropriately. I have been reading the comments, and mostly I have seen a great deal of the old “stick it to the man” attitudes. And more than a few personal insults towards those with opposing viewpoints, the last bastion of those without sufficient argument to support their own views. In other words, if you can’t beat it, insult it.
Consider this. Catholics, Hindus, and Muslims do not throw up a wall and tell their people that there is nothing out there. And parents outside the wall of those who do may be trying to “indoctrinate” their children in their personal belief systems, but those children are still allowed to experience what is out there and ultimately make up their own minds. How much choice were the children, past and present, growing up in the LDS compound allowed? Instead of imagining that your children could be taken away by “the man”, try imagining them living the way those 400 were forced to. Now that’s scary.
I actually have a copy of the Constitution, and I have read it often. I am quite honestly proud of it. And nowhere do I recall reading that Freedom of Religion means that all activity connected with the practice of that religion is sacrosanct. God intended that faith be a matter of personal choice. I abhor any activity of man that would take that choice away. And I will continue to be suspicious of those who would hide their activities behind a wall, then claim Constitutional protection. The Constitution has many protections: unlawful imprisonment for one.
April 10, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Looking at your “wall” comment, what is the difference between the FLDS and the Amish? Are the Amish a cult? If you leave Amish, you are “shunned” by your family. They make their choice at age 18 at which point they have no skills to function in the modern technological world. Because the Amish allow this choice (even though the consequences are dire and the upbringing is highly isolated), does that exempt them from being considered a “cult”?
Here’s a radical suggestion: ban all home schooling and highly regulate all private school. That reduces the isolation issue.
April 10, 2008 at 5:00 pm
SallyB, please distinguish between LDS and FLDS. Your arguments lost all credibility with most of us here when you made that gaffe.
April 10, 2008 at 5:09 pm
SallyB: just a couple minor corrections.
Some Muslim countries (such as Somalia) do have polygamy, and arranged marriages (including child-bearing) with child brides as soon as they reach puberty. Among African immigrants here on various refugee programs, obstetric fistula is a common problem among the women.
And I believe in both the African continent and in some middle-eastern countries, there are some “Muslim compounds” and even many Muslim households where children don’t have contact with the outside world. In some countries, female children don’t have access to education past 12 years of age.
And let’s not forget the thing about FGM in Africa and in some Arabic countries. Ecchh, I don’t even want to type it out.
And I know for a fact, that Hindus also practice arranged marriages for girls as young as 14. A friend’s mother (they’re from India) gave birth to him when she was 14 and his father was 25 or 26. My friend is a vascular surgeon, by the way.
So if the FLDS are systematically abusing children, especially girls, this isn’t restricted to something done only by fundamentalist christians.
I’m reserving judgement on whether the scope of the raid and the removal of the 400+ children was justified.
The state’s affidavit doesn’t seem to justify it. But then we don’t know what all was found after they first went in. The news reports seem to indicate (and I acknowledge that “news reports” are usually inaccurate) that the decision to remove the children wasn’t made until _after_ observations were made on the first trip inside.
April 10, 2008 at 5:13 pm
#90
As practiced now by the FLDS, polygamy serves several purposes (besides religious belief). For one, it causes a need for secrecy and and excuse for removal from the rest of society.
This provides a pretext for living in a compound where those who may be unwilling are more easily controlled and where their rights can more easily be denied. So the result is that those (perhaps few, but who knows?) who may tend to be abusive have an ideal setup. And their furtiveness just adds fuel to the fire for those who are making accusations.
I agree that it is inconsistent that a blind eye is turned towards men who father kids by multiple women as long as they don’t profess to ‘marry’ all of them. But couldn’t that be part of an FLDS argument if they would try to work within the system to legalize their lifestyle?
I’m not personally in favor of legalizing polygamy, by the way. I think it is horrible for women and especially abusive towards the young girls who are never allowed any choice. But I also don’t think it is completely farfetched that a reasonably intelligent grown woman could choose that lifestyle- as long as it is a real choice.
As it stands now, there is little choice for young girls raised in this compound. There is no oversight and no legal protection. It’s a recipe for just the kind of tragedy that is happening now. The right thing would be to give polygamy up.
April 10, 2008 at 5:19 pm
On a semi-related, and almost weird, tangent, get out your copy of the October 2007 Ensign.
On the cover it says “Come to the Temple” and has a couple holding hands, smiling broadly, and carrying what look like overnight bags.
This is also on the Liahona magazine (the international version of the Ensign) for October 2007.
I subscribe to about a dozen copies of the Liahona to give out to non-members.
I didn’t give out many copies of this issue, because from the look on their faces, and the “overnight bags” it looks like the couple is about to check into a motel for “some fun.” Oops, no, wait. The headline implies they’e going to “the Temple.” Uh oh!
Now, all temple-attending LDS know that the bags are for temple clothing (so they don’t have to rent it, or because some temples don’t rent clothing). But to many non-LDS, I’m sure the bags, that they’re holding hands, and especially the look on that guy’s face, would indicate to most people that he’s thinking “I’m gonna get lucky tonight.”
Did anyone else get that impression?
April 10, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I live in an area well populated with Amish and one thing that cannot be said about them is that they live behind a wall. They are very much aware of what is out here. They experience it daily. They take jobs in the same places we do, shop at the same stores, and use the same medical facilities. They know about electricity, central heating, and television. Plus, they make full use of anything that runs on batteries. They have simply made the choice to forego much of what the rest of us bury ourselves in. And they do it in plain sight. An eighteen year old Amish individual has skills, as few or as many as any other eighteen year old. They survive quite well on the outside.
I also know an individual, born Amish, who chose to persue a more modern life. He still sees his family.
It is a mistake to compare the Amish with the LDS. They are not secretive as a group, and they do allow choice. They expect their children to live with the choices that they make. Just as we all do. They may be “shunned” from the day to day life of their culture, but they are still loved.
The Wall that I mentioned not only hides from view. It entrapps those behind it whether they choose to be there or not. It relies on keeping individuals ignorant of the possible. It is a prison. It is an obscenity. It is the real “Big Brother.”
April 10, 2008 at 5:46 pm
SallyB,
You are, unfortunately, dealing with a number of attorneys here. Nobody’s arguing that the FLDS have a constitutional right to practice polygamy; the Supreme Court decided that in the late 1800s in a case called Reynolds v. United States.
Rather, we’re arguing that the search of the FLDS community didn’t meet the Fourth Amendment reasonable cause standards. Those standards apply irrespective of one’s religious beliefs.
There are First Amendment arguments that can be made, like that a law passed specifically to target a specific religious practice (in this case, raising the marriage age from 14 to 16) is unconstitutional. But we’re not making that argument; we’re mostly not interested in that argument.
Seriously, there are a lot more amendments than just the first.
April 10, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Dan,
When Republicans have asserted broad powers of the state that encroach on civil liberties, they were not acting according to the principles of conservatism (in other words, not everything Bush does is conservative; in fact, he’s not much of a conservative at all, in my view). And when Democrats have done the same, they were not acting according to the principles of liberalism.
April 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm
And yeah, it is a mistake to compare the Amish with the LDS. I was educated through law school, as was my sister, while my other sister got a couple Masters degrees. Plus I’m using a computer.
But, of course, what you meant to say was, It’s a mistake to compare the Amish with the FLDS. Which may be true, too. But it’s a mistake to come onto an LDS site, get your groups mistaken, screw up constitutional law, and make unfounded allegations.
April 10, 2008 at 5:57 pm
SallyB, I’m with you that living in a compound is not such a good idea. But contrary to your statement,
“It is a mistake to compare the Amish with the LDS. They are not secretive as a group, and they do allow choice”
LDS members don’t live behind walls. Perhaps you meant to say FLDS.
April 10, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Unfortunately, this must be my last comment due to a previous commitment, but let me say I have found this interaction informative. And even enjoyable.
So to Ardis I will say, I am sorry if my typos upset you. However, I cannot accept your comment about my losing credibility with most of those out there unless you suddenly managed to take an exit pole in the minutes after I submitted my first entry. Since I usually manage to handle entries with typos, this concept is just a bit beyond my ability to comprehend. I refer back to my earlier comment: If you can’t beat it, insult it.
And to Bookslinger. I do not confine my abhorance of “The Wall” to my own country, nor did I intend to imply that other religions, Christian or otherwise, did not have factions capable of practicing such extreme control over their members. The comment sounded too much like, “others do it so it must be okay”. It is never okay.
The problem is that, no matter where in the world they are located, there are those who follow their own base inclinations to the harm of others. It’s just easier to justify it by saying “this is God’s will” and then burying oneself in the Constitution, or whatever passes for one in other countries.
April 10, 2008 at 5:58 pm
(and, for the record, I’m not making fun of the Amish, for whom I have the highest respect. I may, however, be making fun of SallyB, for whom I do not.)
April 10, 2008 at 6:28 pm
SallyB: you appeared to have misconstrued my post. I did not mean to imply that the other examples make it okay that the FLDS do similar things. I gave examples of Hindu and Muslim practices to specifically counter your statement that Hindus and Muslims don’t “throw up a wall” etc. I countered with examples where they sometimes do exactly what the FLDS are being accused of.
I was specifically trying to counter this statement of yours: “Catholics, Hindus, and Muslims do not throw up a wall and tell their people that there is nothing out there. … How much choice were the children, past and present, growing up in the [F]LDS compound allowed?”
(I put the “F” there in square brackets, because I assume that is who you meant, not the LDS.)
Also, I could have given examples of allegations against Catholics, of orphan girls being raised in convents, being shut off from the outside world, forced to be sexual slaves of priests, and then forced to be nuns.
Sexual abuse by clergy is nothing new, nor limited to this country. I was repeatedly told tales about pedophilic priests by people in South America 23 years ago.
April 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm
My earlier question, I think, was missed, but I’d like to repost it for those present:
john,
#55,
I was thinking about this on the way home, about this scenario. What if the cop in question searched this particular car and found a bomb instead of heroin?
April 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm
SallyB: you appeared to have misconstrued my post. I did not mean to imply that the other examples make it okay that the FLDS do similar things. I gave examples of Hindu and Muslim practices to specifically counter your statement that Hindus and Muslims don’t “throw up a wall” etc. I countered with examples where they sometimes do exactly what the FLDS are being accused of.
Also, I could have given examples of allegations against Catholics, of orphan girls being raised in convents, being shut off from the outside world, forced to be sexual slaves of priests, and then forced to be nuns.
Sexual abuse by clergy is nothing new, nor limited to this country. I was repeatedly told tales about pedophilic priests by people in South America 23 years ago.
April 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Having grown up in Lancaster County, I have a hard time reconciling my own experiences with the Amish with the one SallyB describes. It’s true that they are more integrated than they were previously, but to state that they have equal technical skills as non-Amish is beyond absurd. They don’t have iPods or laptops. They don’t drive cars. They don’t take secular jobs. They don’t attend public school. Yes, they use hospitals, and they use phones in their businesses, and they know what technological devices are. They shop in stores, and they allow others to drive them places. Perhaps you are thinking of the Mennonites who are fully integrated in society but still wear the prayer bonnet. My only point is that it is a society which deliberately isolates itself (from technology) and shuns those who chose to leave the religion.
The ACLU (and others) would intervene on behalf of the Amish if such a thing were to happen to them, but there is no love out there for the FLDS because their polygamous practices are so suspicious and foreign. Even the LDS haven’t made a stand because as a missionary church we can’t stomach any more association with polygamy. It’s like the kid who wants to fit in at school not standing up for the kid being bullied for fear of being unpopular. That characterization may be too critical, but merits some thinking. In truth, the ones who should be standing up for them are the ACLU. That is what they do, and they have no fear of associative stigma as we do.
April 10, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“Fundamentalist Baptist hillbilly sheriffs in rural West Texas”
No hillbillies in West Texas, FYI.
April 10, 2008 at 7:13 pm
You are, unfortunately, dealing with a number of attorneys here. Nobody’s arguing that the FLDS have a constitutional right to practice polygamy; the Supreme Court decided that in the late 1800s in a case called Reynolds v. United States.
Rather, we’re arguing that the search of the FLDS community didn’t meet the Fourth Amendment reasonable cause standards. Those standards apply irrespective of one’s religious beliefs.
I’ve got three published civil rights opinions (where I was the attorney), though, alas, I only won two of them.
April 10, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Does the state intend to take all children away from single mothers? Teen mothers?
Interesting question, that. Would deplete the inner cities.
April 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Some of you lawyers (and lawyer wannabes) are juxtaposing things that are eye-opening to me. Such as 14 years old being the minimum marrying age for the predominantly Baptist Texans, and then they (the Texans) said they raised it in response to the FLDS. IE, “14 was good enough for the Baptists, but not for the FLDS.”
I think a more charitable juxtapositioning of facts would be that the Baptist Texans weren’t abusing the privilege of the 14-year-old age limit, and perhaps allowing it in special circumstances (like Utah had, and maybe still does), in cases where there was consentual sex (between two teenagers) resulting in a pregnancy, and the two teens along with their parents petitioned a court to invoke the 14-year minimum rule in order to get married.
As someone who researched this, most state’s minimum age for marriage laws are (or were) something like this:
– 18 for getting married on their own.
– 16 for getting married with parental consent.
– 14 for getting married with parental consent, _and_ a judge’s approval.
Utah and Kentucky and some other states were 14, but most have raised it to 16.
April 11, 2008 at 12:23 am
With respect to due process, removal procedings differ from state to state, but the parent polygamists are entitled to a hearing – preferably before the removal, but definitely soon thereafter. I must confess I’m not entirely familiar with the way things have unfolded in Texas. Have the polygamist parents been denied a hearing?
If the parents have been granted a hearing and the state has followed the established removal procedures, but the Texas courts have decided to isolate the parents from their children pending an investigation of the allegations of abuse, then this conversation should be a conversation about the sufficiency of evidence and biased judges, not about grand notions of “due process”.
Lawyers deriding non-lawyers for holding fuzzy concepts of due process while the lawyers themselves don’t (or can’t) provide a coherent explanation of what process is due in this case are being pretentious and snotty to say the least. Just because you have a law degree doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about. It’s disturbing to see lawyers use their status and education to intimidate others less familiar with the law, especially those who share unpopular political views.
After reading some of the comments on this thread, is it really any wonder why people find most lawyers to be insufferable didactic boors?
April 11, 2008 at 2:51 am
ECS,
I wasn’t too bothered. Isn’t it par for the course?
April 11, 2008 at 4:36 am
Dear Bookslinger, I thank you for your defense. And once again let me apologize for my typos. I had been up for twenty hours, and was at the point where, once the mistake got into my head, I was unable to see me actually make it.
And you were correct. I am a non-lawyer. I am also a non-psychologist, a non-theologian, and a non-social worker. I am a Paramedic. My viewpoints were based on gut level emotion due to personal experience. I have seen children who have suffered. I have tried to comfort them, and let them know they were safe, that it was okay to get angry, that it was okay to cry, that it was okay to be a child. And I have seen Lawyers, in their blind devotion to the process of the law, ignore the heart of the law and send these children right back into hell.
But I know that such arrogance is not restricted to one group of people, just as I know that many Lawyers exist that are compassionate individuals who wish to make life better for others. Everyone is capable of feeling superior to others because they know more of some type of knowledge, or they come to believe that they alone have all the right answers. They don’t understand that the answers are multiple choice, and most of them are equally correct depending on the circumstances.
When I get to the point where I begin to feel superior when faced with individuals who know less about something than I do, I draw upon a memory to bring myself back down again. Years ago I was taking a course in Botany called Plant Propogation. The PhD level instructor announced one day that a special individual would be joining us to teach us about Orchids. To my youthful amazement in walked a man, weight around 400 pounds, who barely managed to put a grammatically correct sentence together, and who looked as if he should have been more comfortable anywhere other than a classroom. What followed was one of the most amazing hours I had ever spent in any class. The lesson that I learned: never underestimate the intelligence of the under-educated. And when I find myself beginning to feel superior I ask myself “What do they know that will blow me out of the water?” Or as one of my nephews once phrased it to a friend “Get off your high-horse and enjoy the possibilities!”
I do not know whether or not the Texas authorities behaved rashly, but I have been asking myself what they might know that I don’t. Perhaps some of these Lawyers could offer their services to the families of the children in order to put themselves in the position to discover what has actually occurred. Wade into the thick of it and find the wrongs that need correcting. Finger pointing never solved anything. I read somewhere that when you point a finger, three fingers point right back at you. What a concept!
April 11, 2008 at 4:41 am
Excuse me ECS for misidentifying my protector. I think I need to get some sleep now. I go back to work in a few hours.
April 11, 2008 at 5:07 am
SallyB, it isn’t a typo when you repeat it, even after being corrected by multiple comments. In this discussion, on this board, it’s an especially egregious mistake to make. And I have no doubt that if we *did* take a poll here, your credibility would be nil specifically because you repeatedly conflate LDS with FLDS. The devil is in this particular detail.
April 11, 2008 at 5:11 am
re # 105, What if the cop in question searched this particular car and found a bomb instead of heroin?
Dan, there are well defined and complex rules for what provides the requisite probable cause for a police officer to open the trunk of someone’s car.
Suffice it to say that the color of the driver’s skin is not one of the factors, whether there is heroine or a bomb in the trunk. Any court in the country would throw out that evidence and any evidence derived from it as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Don’t get me wrong, Dan. I have gut feelings too. It is why I greatly enjoyed it in the film “Dirty Harry” when Clint Eastwood tortures the serial killer/rapist in the middle of the football field to force him to reveal the location where he is keeping his current victim. But that is just fiction. Even though my gut feeling was gratified in that movie in seeing a perp get treatment commensurate with his crimes, in real life, I cannot condone the types of violations of due process that Clint Eastwood commits in the movie (search of perp’s home without a warrant or even probable cause, torturing perp to force confession of location of current victim).
Even in the movie, Eastwood has to deal with the consequences of his actions. The DA refuses to bring a case against the obviously guilty serial killer because there is simply no chance that the evidence obtained from the perp’s home during the illegal search and seizure would be admissible in court even though the evidence links the perp to the crimes (the rifle used in the sniper slayings).
The DA’s decision is correct according to our laws and constitution, even though it made Dirty Harry livid according to his gut feeling. As we know, Dirty Harry ended up pursuing the perp on his own and throwing away his badge to do so.
April 11, 2008 at 5:18 am
re # 112, ECS, are you of the opinion that questions about the sufficiency of evidence do not fall under the ambit of due process concerns more broadly?
April 11, 2008 at 6:28 am
john,
#117,
I went back to reread the original comments that got us on this tangent, and I realize that you and Sam were talking about racial profiling. I was not. So I think we’ve been speaking past each other on this topic of cops pulling over cars. I’m talking about it generally, and you’re talking about a cop pulling over some black kid and searching his car because he is black. I’m looking at it generally, and, here in downtown New York, cops pull over vehicles at their will to check them. Smaller vehicles are rarely pulled over, but the trucks are checked. I see nothing wrong with that. And if they, when they check your car, find that you are carrying heroin (and not just the other example of a bomb), then heck, you’re toast.
April 11, 2008 at 6:49 am
Awww . . C’mon ECS. That’s only true for those of us who practice. The professors, are actually quite loveable. Makes you want to reach right out and hug them. 😉
April 11, 2008 at 6:55 am
#47, “Again, the state _is_ justified in removing a sixteen year old girl from her parents if they force her into an arranged marriage against her will.”
Is there legal precedence for this?
April 11, 2008 at 6:56 am
A few news articles:
Women: several plead for chance to see the children
Colorado City CPS call resembles one made in Texas
April 11, 2008 at 7:01 am
<a href=”Custody issues complex
Sheriff defends timing
April 11, 2008 at 7:02 am
Justin,
Thanks for the news article links, and also your reference above to the Church’s prior statements. I’m out of town, and probably won’t be able to spend much time on the Internet(s) today–appreciate your updates.
April 11, 2008 at 7:12 am
john – there are mulitiple levels of analysis here.
First, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has enacted specific regulations to protect the interests of the children and their parents while investigating allegations of abuse.
I won’t quote them at length, but check them out here if you’re interested:
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_5230.asp#CPS_5240
Provided these procedures comport with the federal constitution and provided that the Texas courts and social workers followed these procedures when removing the children from their polygamist parents, then the parents’ procedural due process rights were probably not violated.
Furthermore, because of the indeterminate contours of polygamous families, perhaps the state was warranted in removing all of the children from the polygamous compound. Note the Texas Family Code explicitly deals with the situation where a sibling or other family member has been sexually abused:
[In] determining whether there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of a child, the court may consider whether the child’s household includes a person who has
· abused or neglected another child in a manner that caused serious injury to or the death of the other child; or
· sexually abused another child.
Is your argument that these removal procedures weren’t followed by the Texas courts when the social workers removed the children from their homes? Or is it that the proper procedures were followed, but that there is insufficient evidence to (1) justify removal in the first place, and (2) to isolate the children from their parents while the allegations of abuse are investigated?
April 11, 2008 at 7:15 am
A few more articles:
Polygamous sect’s faithful defend accused abuser of teen bride
Faithful surrounded temple but didn’t fight raid
April 11, 2008 at 7:16 am
Guy, I think a comment of mine was caught in a spam filter.
April 11, 2008 at 7:20 am
Justin,
free at last
April 11, 2008 at 7:24 am
Thank you, Guy. I suppose you saw my link to the affidavit on the other thread (Smoking Gun link).
Polygamous crackdown echoes 1953 Short Creek arrests
April 11, 2008 at 7:36 am
Justin,
Yeah, I did. Thank you for sending that as well. I only briefly skimmed the actual affidavit, so I need to really go back and spend some time on it. There was certainly more to it, than what was published in the Tribune; but, from what I could tell on my brief skim, the essential meat and potatoes of it were what the Tribune described. But, when I get back, I’ll look at it some more.
April 11, 2008 at 7:37 am
ECS, I think the AZ Attorney General described the sentiment many of us have in today’s AZ Republic news article when he said:
I think that the same is true, technically speaking, of Texas law — that there isn’t really much of a legal basis under due process or sufficiency of evidence to sweep up 400 kids because one girl called in to a hotline.
April 11, 2008 at 7:38 am
Tim J – yes. Check out the link to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
Furthermore, the Texas Family Code states:
“Danger to the physical health or safety of a child” includes exposure of the child to loss or injury in a manner that jeopardizes the health or safety of the child without regard to whether there has been an actual prior injury to the child.
Texas Family Code §101.009
If a parent is preparing to marry off his or her sixteen year old daughter against her will, then the state is justified in removing her from the home to protect the girl from imminent sexual abuse.
April 11, 2008 at 7:44 am
Thanks ECS.
April 11, 2008 at 7:44 am
Thanks for the links Justin.
ECS, this saga is just getting more bizarre.
Now that the state has over 400 kids on its hands, it must start thinking about sorting out custody in case courts don’t side with the action they have taken in removing them from their homes. But it is difficult to establish custody for these kids since many of them lack standard documentation recognized by the state. Mothers will need to submit to a DNA test to get their kids back. Unreal.
Also, although it is truly incredible, the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Texas state officials are arguing that “parents should be required to pay support for the time children spend in state custody”!
April 11, 2008 at 7:45 am
john f – yours is a reasonable position to take. I’m disagreeing with it for the time being, however, because we do not know all of the facts here (and neither does the Arizona A.G.).
That said, I hope the FLDS attorneys are preparing to file their lawsuit against the state of Texas for violating the polygamists’ parental rights.
April 11, 2008 at 7:47 am
john – I understand your outrage, but if people insist on living off the grid without birth certificates, school records and the like, it’s not surprising that the government has to try to sort the custody issues out somehow.
April 11, 2008 at 7:56 am
Furthermore, because of the indeterminate contours of polygamous families, perhaps the state was warranted in removing all of the children from the polygamous compound.
It does make sense to me that the state could take all of the children of a family/household into custody when there is probable cause to believe that only one of the children is being abused. What I don’t understand is how they can take children of other families/households. Obviously (I hope), the state can’t take my kids when my neighbors are accused of abusing their children, even if we spend a lot of time together and hold the same religious beliefs. Part of the justification being given for taking all of the children in the community, which you repeat, has been that the community is one big family/household. But is that true in a legal sense? Can the state really legally consider everyone in that community as part of the same family/household?
April 11, 2008 at 8:03 am
Additional articles:
Texas raid prompts First Baptist ministry
I find it more than a bit odd that the sheriff contacts the pastor of the First Baptist Church on the morning of Friday, April 4 to ask for use of the church’s buses. (Police and state workers arrived in Eldorado on Thursday night.) What was the plan if the Baptists declined?
Texas Baptists minister
April 11, 2008 at 8:03 am
“Can the state really legally consider everyone in that community as part of the same family/household?”
Yes, if they live at the same address and share living space.
According to the Census definition, a household is:
one person living alone, or
a group of people (not necessarily related) living at the same address with common housekeeping – sharing either a living room or sitting room, or at least one meal a day.
April 11, 2008 at 8:04 am
Authorities are still looking for the girl in question:
Week-long raid of FLDS ranch leaves Texas authorities with few answers
April 11, 2008 at 8:14 am
Yes, if they live at the same address and share living space.
Do we know if these conditions are met in this case? I don’t know, but I would doubt that all 400+ children live under the same roof and share one common living room or sitting room or one meal a day. It’s possible, but hard to imagine how that would work practically. I guess that’s something that will have to be settled in court.
April 11, 2008 at 8:27 am
re # 138, interesting link from the Baptist Standard Justin.
Having insight into what Baptists in general think of Mormons, and relatively confident that they don’t particularly distinguish between FLDS and LDS, I must confess that I initially bristle at the thought of Baptists hoping to use this as an opportunity to preach to them and convert them to creedal Christianity.
Upon further reflection, however, I must admit that I actually would not be too worried if they were successful in doing so — in converting some of these women with their children to the Baptist sect of creedal Christianity. At least in that scenario, the young girls in the group would not be at risk of being forced into marriages that they do not desire once they turn 16. In truth, I do actually believe these children would be better off as members of the Baptist sect rather than the FLDS sect — assuming, that is, that they remain with their mothers who have also converted.
I remain very concerned at the thought of these FLDS children being separated from mothers who are not abusing them based on the abstract fear that they might end up in arranged marriages once they turn 16 and placed in a foster home instead.
Also, I should note that I appreciated the Baptist Standard article and have a sense that many of them are serving purely for the sake of service without an ulterior motive.
April 11, 2008 at 8:34 am
john – there is actual evidence that these forced marriages and rapes regularly occur. As you know, Warren Jeffs, their former prophet and leader, is currently serving prison time in Utah for his conviction as an accomplice to rape.
If the mothers refuse to or are unable to protect their daughters from rape (which seems likely given the doctrines and practices of the FLDS), then these girls absolutely will be better off living with a nice Baptist family than married off against their will.
April 11, 2008 at 8:45 am
ECS-
There are definately cases where Mormon Bishops have been tried and convicted of child abuse. Should it follow then that Bishops in other states are suspect?
What evidence are you referring to that this happens regularly. I haven’t seen anything but heresay.
April 11, 2008 at 8:59 am
mmiles – If you want evidence, read the court opinions convicting Jeffs as an accomplice to rape.
April 11, 2008 at 9:08 am
Is there anything we can do to help? Should we make phone calls or write letters the govenor?
This is awful those poor mothers and babies. CPS seized hundreds of children based on a phone call and the judge approved it because they were “at risk.” What kind of grounds is that? How could a judge give a warrant to seize them?
I disagree with what went on, but to everyone who agrees with it based on abuse, why aren’t they being given the same services as other victims of domestic violence? Like helping them apply for orders of protection, file for temporary custody and child support, and serve the alleged abusers to leave the house. The system is very streamlined for those situations. If the mothers are now homeless they should get priority on housing assistance (like projects or section 8) and expideted food stamps to help them.
Once a minor has a baby doesn’t that make her an adult for legal things?
Please post if there is something we can do like who to write a letter to.
April 11, 2008 at 9:23 am
Brooke Adams’s latest blog post on happenings in Fort Concho.
April 11, 2008 at 9:48 am
re # 146, well, the State of Texas is arguing that the mothers should pay for the warehousing of the kids during the raid, if that helps at all.
April 11, 2008 at 10:10 am
Other recent news:
Volunteer lawyers needed
State troopers find documents on marriage, birth, and cyanide
April 11, 2008 at 10:35 am
Apparently a clip-on tie and a pregnancy test were also seized.
April 11, 2008 at 10:48 am
That clip-on tie must be crucial evidence in the state’s case.
April 11, 2008 at 12:29 pm
#139
Usually FLDS polygamous families have separate homes for a man and his wives and children.
So they do not all share a living space. This clearly the case as can be seen from the aerial photos showing several separate dwelling units (houses).
CPS has complained about the FLDS moving the children around during the search- but that could merely be a mother taking her children over to the neighbor while the police search her house. In any normal neighborhood we’d probably consider that behavior understandable- but people seem insistent on interpreting every single event in the worst light possible.
That is what prejudice is all about.
I don’t like the FLDS, and I have a voice in the back of my head that views this as a great chance to crush the FLDS once and for all.
However, when I get those kinds of feelings I usually try to slow down and make sure I’m not rushing to a judgment based on my bias rather than the facts.
April 11, 2008 at 12:36 pm
If being a pregnant teen is what they are basing this on, why don’t they start with the teen moms that are AFDC recipients in their own organization. There are many teens and pre-teens having abortions, getting birth control, delivering in hosptials, and receiving AFDC. I’m sure many files within the state’s child support enforcement list a teen mother and a adult male as the father.
How can they judge the age just by looking at them, these aren’t worldy kids, girls look younger with no makeup and conservative dress and being socialized to act like a young ladies not loud mouths. Same thing with their assessment of their being no psychological trauma from the removal! These are polite kids they aren’t going to “act out” around strangers that does not mean there are OK.
I don’t understand how these people can make assessments and take such drastic action on their assessment when it doesn’t sound like they have any experience with a conversvative subculture.
John f it’s common for CPS to bill the parents, I guess the cash from the state & fed government when they seize kids isn’t enoough.
I hope and pray they will get good men for lawyers and they will protect these kids from the system.
April 11, 2008 at 1:05 pm
ECS–
I understand Jeffs was convicted, but does that make anyone in his church guilty by association?
April 11, 2008 at 5:06 pm
mmiles, no, but if the people who took over from Jeffs are continuing to perpetrate his crimes against children, they should be prosecuted.
April 11, 2008 at 8:59 pm
ECS,
Of course they should be prosecuted. But we don’t know for sure that they continue what he did. The FLDS church split in 3 ways after Jeffs was arrested. One person is loyal to him (that person is NOT in Texas). The other two are not. The leadership in the Texas compound was becoming fractured also–
Let’s wait until there is evidence, tried in a court of law with civil liberties still intact.
April 11, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’ve been in Los Angeles since last evening, and just now have been able to return and read all of these fabulous comments. Thank you to Justin, and also to John F for the many links they provided to news stories related to this saga. They have certainly enhanced my understanding further of what is happening.
I was especially grateful to learn of the discovery of the “tie clip” that has been confiscated—now if they could only find that 16 year old mother of one, and pregnant with another–that would be helpful about now I think.
To my friend ECS–who I think argues eloquently and with great passion in defense of the minor children, but on the side of Texas–I think John F’s article link about the Arizona A.G. is very compelling. I believe Arizona’s response was more Constitutionally sound, and infinitely more practical. (And, as an aside, I will readily concede you likely understand due process much better than I, however, the violations here are so egregious, one need not be a preeminent Constitutional scholar to point them out).
While I agree with all the Texas Family Code Statutes you cite, and even the police power of the State to remove children in appropriate circumstances–I don’t see those circumstances here, at least to the level of 400 plus minor children now being held incommunicado by Texas from their own flesh and blood.
This is turning out to be, in some ways, much more of an invasive and pernicious raid than Waco.
April 11, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I am not a member of any religion. I am not because I believe if there was a just God, the one I grew up believing in, he would take out any adult male or female before he or she could harm a hair on a child’s head, much less rape a child. The same would go for other adults who arranged forced sex between an adult and a child. And the beauty part would be that the world as we know it would be better off. Who would miss these dregs of society?
As for the Texas government needing funds to care for these FDLS women and children until all can be sorted out, it is no different. I will venture that the men folk arranged for all the social services for their old women brides and children and their child brides and their babies.
So maybe the men do without food stamps and WIC. They can eat dirt for all I care.
April 12, 2008 at 2:01 am
This is an important issue. It would be good if you would make your site easier to read
April 12, 2008 at 2:07 am
Hundreds of children are being denied access to their mothers and none have been accused of any crime. If the state of Texas wants to accuse these women of crimes, then accuse them. If not, let them go
April 12, 2008 at 2:47 am
So where is the ACLU when we need them? There is no way in Hell to contact them. Were I them, I would be there screaming bloody murder–but they seem to be dead in the water. This is a collective group fantasy over our inability to deal with Islamic terrorism and those poor kids are gonna pay for it.
April 12, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I think it was unfair and a violation of the 4th ammendment to search without a warrant.
However I do think what they do to children, arranged/forced/”SPIRITUAL” marriages, statuatory rape, NEEDS to be investigated.
Whatever happened to polygamy being illegal? It is clear that it is happening, and that should be enough to do a warrant.
A lot of FLDS members feel fine about their religion. This is because of indoctrination. Sure, they have the right to religion. But what is in their religion’s “rules” is illegal.
This, my friends, is where politics meets religion.
April 12, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Texas authorities better read the 1948 UN Genocide Statute before proceeding farther in the Eldorado FLDS case. The statute defines the means of genocide in several ways; including “transferring children from one group to another”. Just advocating genocide is punishable under international law. You can get away with it in the US because of the 1rst Amendment but traveling abroad can provide nasty surprises that range from being denied entry to arrest, trial and imprisonment.
April 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I would like to suggest that at this point, sending in a bunch of lawyers is not going to remedy this problem. The damage has been done. In similar situations I am familiar with, it took the parents months or years to recover all their children from state custody. The children were brutally traumatized and will ever remember their nightmare experience. Lawyers can never hope to heal such wounds.
It appears that Texas authorities are resolute in their determination to split up the families and scatter the children far and wide. Nothing short of a small-scale military assault could stop that from happening now, and such an act would not likely assuage the suffering of the child victims.
It is probable that the people who implemented the abduction of these children have been scheming this up for a long time. Perhaps, if they are lucky, many of the kids will prove resilient enough to survive through this without too much permanent scarring.
On the other hand, it would seem that events like this may also serve well for planting the seeds of a future apocalypse. I can envision myself as a child being subjected to such an experience. Given a bit of future mentoring, with a steer in the right direction, should produce a whole group of enthusiastic jihadists, just waiting for their chance to return punishment upon the evil system.
This time they won’t have to infiltrate as aliens from afar.
April 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm
YO! To all of you attornies here that are complaining about the FLDS having their constitutional rights trampled and who claim it’s KILLING YOU yatta yatta yatta and have
ONE PHRASE FOR YOU
and that is:
TALK IS CHEAP BUT DEEDS ARE PRECIOUS!
Haul your ARSES down to El Dorado and HELP THESE PEOPLE!
I sure as hell know that if I had a law degree and a background in constitutional law, I WOULD!
I’d be doing it PRO BONO too if necessary!
It the CONSTITUTION is a CAUSE TO YOU that you’re willing to “die” for…
…then prove it by LIVING FOR IT!
Otherwise, just stop your pretty speeches because without action they just make me SICK TO MY STOMACH! 😦
April 12, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Jim,
The only way this can be resolved right now is through the criminal justice system, as horrifying a thought as that is in West Texas. So, the lawyers are needed.
Keepbetssmall, Learn to spell
April 13, 2008 at 1:01 am
When CPS first took the smaller group of children, before they filed to take all of them, did they have something with a judges signature then to take them?
What did they use to show the FLDS parents & lawyer showing they could take the smaller group of kids away? I’m guessing they lied or used intimidation but I am wondering if they actually had something saying they had custody of that smaller group of kids.
April 14, 2008 at 9:48 am
If there’s a good chance many of these people are guilty, then that’s all the more reason not to trample their constitutional rights right out of the starting gate. You know that if the ACLU takes the case and they get off “on a technicality” many will blame the ACLU instead of blaming the people who planned and executed the raid in an unconstitutional manner. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even those you think are probably criminals, and it has helped us walk the fine line between protecting citizens from criminals and protecting citizens from being falsely accused and unfairly punished for a couple hundred years.
The atheist exmos of Main Street Plaza have fairly lively discussion of this subject going as well…
April 14, 2008 at 10:42 am
CL you are right CPS treats honest people like they have no rights. They have nothing to charge these people with, that is why they are threatening their kids to say things against their parents.
You are right police treat even known bad guy criminals (like a man found with a missing child dead in the basement)with rights, he will not be denied the chance to talk to a lawyer as to not mess things up but a honest parent will be. They won’t enter his home without permission or a search warrant but CPS will do that to honest parents. CPS is above the consitution. They get away with it all the time:
http://www.hslda.org/media/default.asp
http://www.fdno.org/
http://www.massoutrage.com/index.htm
http://www.fightcps.com/
April 15, 2008 at 7:49 am
Why doesn’t the mormon community come together to help the women and children in these communities?? As Flora Jessop said, Texas did in four years what Arizona and Utah couldn’t do in 100 years. Why?? Could it be the fear of mormon leaders in these states, who are still trying to distance themselves from these groups and their beliefs. Don’t support these people. Don’t stand by them. Years of inaction let them become what they are now! Support the women and children and support vengence upon the men who have perpetuated these evils. The Texas State Police are not the enemies, heresy and pedophilia and abuse are! If you claim to be a family-loving belief, hate these things.
April 15, 2008 at 11:48 am
To all of the men defending the FLDS’ “rights”….what rights are you defending? Their “right” to rape teenage girls? Do you think wimmenfolk are property?
April 15, 2008 at 6:17 pm
For many people sympathetic to the rights of the FLDS in Texas- I think that if you do more research on this particular group, you’ll find that there are far worse things going on than polygamy. The sect under Warren Jeffs has grown increasingly cult-like under the last few decades, and has been skating by under the very things you’re discussing: freedom of religion, constitutional rights, etc. But if you look more closely you will find that this right, IN THIS CASE, is likely to have been used for some time to avoid prosecution for various criminal activity. There are numerous civil suits against the group from former members for such charges as child abuse & abandonment, child rape, etc. And the raid on the Texas compound has already revealed evidence of these things – documents attesting the “marriages” of girls as young as thirteen (which were immediately consummated.) Their prophet Warren Jeffs is in prison ALREADY for forcing a 14 year old to consummate her “marriage” to a cousin. Children, both boys and girls, are denied an education, quitting school around puberty. Boys labor for free for the sect. Girls get married and have children, and it’s increasingly common for fourteen year olds to be giving birth. Girls are routinely instructed to marry men three times their age who have multiple wives, with two or three days notice.
Furthermore, the group has expelled up to 1,000 young men in the last few years (just google “Lost Boys”), for minor infractions, by just dropping them off somewhere, and driving away (after telling them they are going to burn in hell forever and may never speak to their families again.)
So it isn’t just the one call from the 16 year old, you see
April 16, 2008 at 3:17 am
I’m not sure that people here are necessarily “sympathetic” to the FLDS and the way they live their lives. Rather, objections that have been raised relate to whether Texas has appropriately respected due process. Insisting on due process is not an exercise in defending the substantive religious practices of the FLDS but rather in upholding the freedoms of all Americans.
April 16, 2008 at 9:56 am
From “A Man For All Seasons”:
“Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
The Texas state government surely has access to some smart lawyers. Let them figure out a way to break up the FLDS without breaking up the Constitution.
April 16, 2008 at 11:32 am
Where dose it stop if we don’t stand up for our and thier rights of due process. The Catholic preist have abused alter boys for years Due we take away all kids of parents that still let thier kids go to the catholic church or become alter boys
April 16, 2008 at 11:33 am
just becouse they may be abused in the future
April 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm
If these people committed a crime then they’re still due process and the full protection of the law that you or I is afforded. I don’t care if the person in question has allegedly parked illegally – or raped and murdered a child, every citizen is accorded the same rights under the law. Your rights do not automatically diminish simply because the crimes you commit are more reprehensible in the eyes of the public, anymore than they should increase because of the fatness of your wallet or whiteness of your skin.
April 16, 2008 at 2:16 pm
May I add that I also think that many of the Catholic priests went severely underpunished. All those people who knew about the abuse, and who covered it up and even “passed along” abuser priests to another unsuspecting parish… they were aiding criminals. , and they should all be held culpable. Apparently, many of the abusers themselves weren’t even jailed. They did lose their priesthoods. That seems to have been considered enough. But why? I guess part of the problem is that a lot of people waited too many years to complain- because of their respect for these religious figures, and not wanting to shame the church. But really, those are the very people it’s most important to get rid of: high-ranking figures who abuse their positions of power. Especially religious figures, because they’re abusing a sacred trust.
But anyway…
About the FLDS, from what i’ve read there are many previous accounts in the police files, of young girls running away…a lot of times they’ve been returned to their parents despite their stories of arranged marriage. Plus there’s the civil suits from alleged victims, the conviction of the cult’s leader, and then the crimes against children that we DO know about- the Lost Boys, & various proven underage brides in several states.
But now I have a question about due process- I don’t know if it’s legal for the police to take into account previous reports such as those? Legally, are they supposed to only take into account that one specific phone call?
April 16, 2008 at 2:33 pm
As far as evidence of ALL of the kids being abused… for me it’s more of a question of all of the sect’s parents, proving themselves unfit parents. Because, they all were witnesses to these continuing underage marriages and pregnancies. Therefore, to me, they should all be held culpable, just as those in the Catholic church who helped conceal abuse should be held culpable. And I don’t think anyone who witnesses such a thing continually and countenances it, should be trusted with kids.
April 17, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I have two problems with FLDS and any other organization like it. First, they appear to be breaking laws regarding under-age girls. That is a travesty and needs to be stopped immediately. My second concern is the massive “brainwashing” that occurs there. (I couldn’t think of a better word, although there probably is one.) By that I mean that these kids are confined from birth to a compound. They are not allowed to see any other facet of the world. That is cruel and amounts to brainwashing, because even as they get older, they will follow the same tenents and not understand that they have a choice.
The greatest thing about America is the large amount of choices a person can make. We talk about religious freedom, but the women and children of this cult do not have religious freedom, nor any kind of freedom. They are captives of the “prophet”, who is of his own making….
Texas was right to do as they did, to try to provide these children (and their mothers if they so wish) some choices in how they lead their lives. It might go against the constitution, but morally it was the right thing to do.
April 21, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Looks like ACLU has started to wade in… shame they are timid on such an easy target.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/20/polygamy.sect/
April 24, 2008 at 2:12 am
[…] toward them.? I have also read comments which I think express extremely well why I, from ahttps://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/standing-with-our-flds-sisters-and-brothers/Man Arrested In Las Vegas For Killing Of Woman On Hwy. 80 NBC 11 Bay AreaA 24-year-old Richmond man […]
April 28, 2008 at 10:42 am
[…] for his continued coverage of the case in Eldorado, Texas as it continues to unfold. His post, Standing with Our FLDS Sisters and Brothers, sparked my interest when I read it earlier this evening–especially as I read the reactions […]
April 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I agree with Mr. Ostler. There was no need to remove the children from the mothers without serious, immediate threat type evidence that each child was a risk. Illegal aliens get treated better than these people. In fact, a lot better.
May 2, 2008 at 9:28 am
All this is is Kidnapping and torturing women and children to get back at some men who MIGHT have done something SOMEONE doesnt like.
Anyone who thinks kidnapping and torturing women and children for something their male family members MIGHT have done has some serious moral shortcomings.