The main issue with the FLDS is the same issue with many Amish communities; they isolate members so as to limit their ability to make choices.
You DO know that the Amish require their young folk to spend a year in the world at large to even become a full adult member, and then the person has to willfully choose to do so, right?
yeah, but after being brought up in an environment spending a year outside of it won't be the easiest thing ever. you'd probably get very intimidated and run back to where you came from.
thus limiting their ability to make an actual choice.
They also tend to throw these super crazy wild parties with drugs (including illegal if they can swing it) and such so that there's no fucking way in hell that they can handle the new scenario.
The main issue with the FLDS is the same issue with many Amish communities; they isolate members so as to limit their ability to make choices.
You DO know that the Amish require their young folk to spend a year in the world at large to even become a full adult member, and then the person has to willfully choose to do so, right?
yeah, but after being brought up in an environment spending a year outside of it won't be the easiest thing ever. you'd probably get very intimidated and run back to where you came from.
thus limiting their ability to make an actual choice.
Actually, there are a lot of Amish that hang around areas that are fairly modern. I see them every now and again when I head up to the Indiana/Michigan border.
But yeah, you're still right. I don't think I'd stay in Korea if I were thrown there for a year after living here my entire life.
A lot of Amish communities are also much less Amish than the stereotype.
Some of them have electricity and telephones and colorful clothing.
No, the Amish aren't as isolated as people think. But more importantly, their isolation is not the same as the FLDS, who view the outside world as actively against them.
A lot of Amish communities are also much less Amish than the stereotype.
Some of them have electricity and telephones and colorful clothing.
No, the Amish aren't as isolated as people think. But more importantly, their isolation is not the same as the FLDS, who view the outside world as actively against them.
Exactly, the Amish are probably one of the most benign odd religious sects we have in the US.
No, the Amish aren't as isolated as people think. But more importantly, their isolation is not the same as the FLDS, who view the outside world as actively against them.
I'm quite aware of how isolated they are and are not.
They're still in a situation designed to limit their choices so as to ensure they remain in the community.
People can do this in the middle of New York City.
I understand that Texas courts may be somewhat gunshy after Waco, but this sore of conduct is in fact what allowed the Branch Davidians to become a threat - the courts should not obtuse legal theory to turn a blind eye to what's happening.
When exactly were the Branch Davidians "a threat"? Yes they didn't take kindly to the BATF sitting outside their "compound" and yes they were fucking crazy but I'm not sure who they were threatening, at least until threatened.
FLDS are also batshit crazy but a) they weren't necessarily threatening anyone and while there may indeed be some shady stuff going on the incidences appear isolated and don't justify every child getting removed from their families, at least from a legal standpoint and more importantly in my opinion b) whatever child services does to "fix" the situation is likely worse than their life with FLDS. Yanking kids away from families, putting them through a round of fucked up questioning and then putting them in foster care is probably worse than making these kids live in some cult. Either way they are probably fucked for life.
I understand that Texas courts may be somewhat gunshy after Waco, but this sore of conduct is in fact what allowed the Branch Davidians to become a threat - the courts should not obtuse legal theory to turn a blind eye to what's happening.
When exactly were the Branch Davidians "a threat"? Yes they didn't take kindly to the BATF sitting outside their "compound" and yes they were fucking crazy but I'm not sure who they were threatening, at least until threatened.
Let's see, millenialist cult illegally stockpiling weapons? Yeah, that's not a fucking huge red flag. And lets not forget the allegations of abuse occurring on the compound. The Branch Davidians were not the polite, misunderstood group that the right wing likes to make them out to be.
FLDS are also batshit crazy but a) they weren't necessarily threatening anyone and while there may indeed be some shady stuff going on the incidences appear isolated and don't justify every child getting removed from their families, at least from a legal standpoint and more importantly in my opinion b) whatever child services does to "fix" the situation is likely worse than their life with FLDS. Yanking kids away from families, putting them through a round of fucked up questioning and then putting them in foster care is probably worse than making these kids live in some cult. Either way they are probably fucked for life.
Seriously, you keep acting like your title of "most uninformed poster" is under attack. Warren Jeffs was on the FBI Most Wanted list. You don't get there by being a nice guy. And the incidences are far from isolated. And while the kids may suffer some trauma in the foster care system, it sure as hell beats (for the girls) getting married off to a guy three times your age as wife #5 or (for the boys) getting booted on the street because you're superfluous.
Seriously, you keep acting like your title of "most uninformed poster" is under attack. Warren Jeffs was on the FBI Most Wanted list. You don't get there by being a nice guy. And the incidences are far from isolated. And while the kids may suffer some trauma in the foster care system, it sure as hell beats (for the girls) getting married off to a guy three times your age as wife #5 or (for the boys) getting booted on the street because you're superfluous.
You're generalizing here. I was of the understanding that the person who placed the infamous phone call doesn't even exist. If there is proof of abuse then pursue it, but don't go after the whole clan and sequester every single kid.
Just because we don't personally agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. Other people have other values. If there is evidence of rape then fine, punish those responsible. There is no such evidence for every child here.
People are allowed to be weirdos if they want to in this country. Sorry.
As much as I love the occasional-- yet personally offensive "Well it's Texas so.." comments that show up whenever anything that takes place in Texas is mentioned, I have to agree with the fact that while we don't agree with these practices, myself included, that doesn't mean that we can rule it out as wrong.
The country was founded by people who wanted to live by their own standards as long as they didn't hurt anyone. True, history shows that these people were douchebags.. but until we find proof that people are actually being hurt, we gotta leave them alone.
Just because we don't personally agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal.
Thing is, this is the basis of law, and laws of this nature are passed all the time. Some of them are even useful to society.
Other people have other values. If there is evidence of rape then fine, punish those responsible. There is no such evidence for every child here.
People are allowed to be weirdos if they want to in this country. Sorry.
Honestly?
This isn't true.
I'd say that America has made too many harmless things illegal, and left too many harmful things legal.
---
A lot of this is that children are involved. Consenting adults can enter into whatever horribly unhealthy relationship they want after a healthy background has provided them options, but children have no choice in the matter, and so some lifestyles will always be potentially harmful to those who are incapable of consenting to them.
Seriously, you keep acting like your title of "most uninformed poster" is under attack. Warren Jeffs was on the FBI Most Wanted list. You don't get there by being a nice guy. And the incidences are far from isolated. And while the kids may suffer some trauma in the foster care system, it sure as hell beats (for the girls) getting married off to a guy three times your age as wife #5 or (for the boys) getting booted on the street because you're superfluous.
You're generalizing here. I was of the understanding that the person who placed the infamous phone call doesn't even exist. If there is proof of abuse then pursue it, but don't go after the whole clan and sequester every single kid.
Just because we don't personally agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. Other people have other values. If there is evidence of rape then fine, punish those responsible. There is no such evidence for every child here.
People are allowed to be weirdos if they want to in this country. Sorry.
So, it's okay that women are basically treated as property? And that boys who don't toe the line are essentially abandoned? Seriously, the level of cognitive dissonance here is astounding. Read up about the FLDS sometime. You might find it illuminating.
So, it's okay that women are basically treated as property? And that boys who don't toe the line are essentially abandoned? Seriously, the level of cognitive dissonance here is astounding. Read up about the FLDS sometime. You might find it illuminating.
Its not illegal to treat woman like property. If the women decide they don't want to be treated like property and are forced to stay, then a law has been broken and we can do something. However if the woman allows it to occur, then there is no crime, and no reason to be removing children from the parents.
I do not condone their religious beliefs, or practices. However that in now way removes their civil rights. For the government to step in and take the children they have to prove there was a child safety issue. The courts have decided that they have not met their burden of proof.
On the subject of Waco, the ATF fucked that one up very bad. The whole reason for going in? A couple of bounced checks, and the fact that they were buying perfectly legal firearms, and black powder. Oh and a neighbor heard what might have been machine gun fire. Bad situation all around, made worse by the actions of the ATF.
if your going to kick in someones door, lock them up, and put their children in foster care. You damn sure better have a good solid legal reason for doing so.
No, the Amish aren't as isolated as people think. But more importantly, their isolation is not the same as the FLDS, who view the outside world as actively against them.
I'm quite aware of how isolated they are and are not.
They're still in a situation designed to limit their choices so as to ensure they remain in the community.
People can do this in the middle of New York City.
And they do. There's at least one orthodox jewish sect there who are pretty much at the burqas-and-intimidating-non-members stage of opposition to the rest of the world.
The Cat on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I thought the hard evidence was the pregnant 14 year olds.
They turned out to be adults I heard.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
People are allowed to be weirdos if they want to in this country. Sorry.
And what choice did they give their children? I don't see where they ever got to decide that for themselves, they were forced to and you think that should be permitted?
Its not illegal to treat woman like property. If the women decide they don't want to be treated like property and are forced to stay, then a law has been broken and we can do something. However if the woman allows it to occur, then there is no crime, and no reason to be removing children from the parents.
That is utter bullshit. Your argument justifies ignoring obvious domestic violence against either gender, excuses support for female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East, for the caste system in India, for ritual spearing of criminals and the marrying off (real marrying, none of this 'spiritual marriage' horseshit) of 9 to 13 year olds in Australian Aboriginal culture. It is hateful and stupid, and you are hateful and stupid for saying this.
I thought the hard evidence was the pregnant 14 year olds.
They turned out to be adults I heard.
Well, what happens is that its impossible to tell, because the sect makes a practice of obscuring the birth dates of their female members so that they can weasel out of these charges.
The main problem with this prosecution was that the tipoff call was suspected to have been made by an ex-member with a bone to pick. Given what I've read, that bone was probably very understandable, but it was still on the level of that vigilante kid in H/A. It threw the entire investigation into doubt, even though there very likely is some illegally creepy shit going on in that compound.
The Cat on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
The main problem with this prosecution was that the tipoff call was suspected to have been made by an ex-member with a bone to pick. Given what I've read, that bone was probably very understandable, but it was still on the level of that vigilante kid in H/A. It threw the entire investigation into doubt, even though there very likely is some illegally creepy shit going on in that compound.
No doubt there's some shit going down but until there's solid evidence for it you can't just go around detaining people.
And no Angel, the fact that their leader is a nut job and generally there's all kinds of things wrong does not help prove that specific claim X must be valid as well.
If the DIRECT evidence isn't there, what can you do?
And no, you can't just say women 'choose' to live this way without a very long discussion and research into how gender roles and the patriarchy play a role in limiting choices.
Its not illegal to treat woman like property. If the women decide they don't want to be treated like property and are forced to stay, then a law has been broken and we can do something. However if the woman allows it to occur, then there is no crime, and no reason to be removing children from the parents.
That is utter bullshit. Your argument justifies ignoring obvious domestic violence against either gender, excuses support for female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East, for the caste system in India, for ritual spearing of criminals and the marrying off (real marrying, none of this 'spiritual marriage' horseshit) of 9 to 13 year olds in Australian Aboriginal culture. It is hateful and stupid, and you are hateful and stupid for saying this.
Mind explaining to me how we go from Its not illegal in the United States of America to treat woman like property as long as they allow it to talking about FGM in Africa. Did I miss an exit to crazy town somewhere along the line? Its a beautiful straw man you've constructed there but lets get this straight.
You do not kick down someones door, arrest them, take their children away, put their children in foster care, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I don't care how crazy these people are, and i frankly detest religious zealots. They are still protected by the constitution of the United States. They have the right of due process. If they had a good reason to go in there and take those children, then by all means take the children. However from what this court has ruled they did not have a good reason. Which can lead to all evidence that they might actually have been guilty of something being thrown out of court.
These dumbass gun-ho no evidence cops could have just poisoned the fucking tree. Thats really not good for the children if in fact there was some wrong doing.
If you want to make a thread about FGM, or any other of the atrocities committed world wide against women, thats fine. Ill be more than happy to chime in about how i wish we could kill any son of a bitch who would do that to a woman, slowly.
However just because we disagree with someones cultural practices doesn't give us the right to change them. We have no right to say our culture is right, and yours is wrong. American culture has its own brand of fucked up shit going on. The idiots cult who this thread is about for instance. That does not give us the right to tell other cultures how to be. Cultural change NEEDS to come from within not without. If we are going to pretend we have the right to alter another peoples culture, then lets stop fucking around. Send in the troops, occupy their lands, and do what needs to be done. Lets see how it works in Iraq before we start advocating America tell other cultures how to live.
None of this changes the fact that just because we think it sucks, does not make it illegal.
You do not kick down someones door, arrest them, take their children away, put their children in foster care, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Well there have been court orders to give children medical treatment that their parents refused because of religious grounds, so it's not like the courts intervening for the benefit of children in defiance of religious belief is entirely unheard of.
And no, you can't just say women 'choose' to live this way without a very long discussion and research into how gender roles and the patriarchy play a role in limiting choices.
We could go into a long discussion on why their choices are limited, the mental, social, and economic factors that led to it. However at the end of the day we do not have the right to force them out of that lifestyle. If they choose to stay and do not wish to leave, that is their choice. It sucks, but the best we can do is offer those in circumstances like these help on getting out of it.
We do not have the right to force our views upon them, no matter how wrong we feel they may be.
Well there have been court orders to give children medical treatment that their parents refused because of religious grounds, so it's not like the courts intervening for the benefit of children in defiance of religious belief is entirely unheard of.
And thats usually in the case of an immediate threat to the children's life with documentation and evidence supporting if the child does not get this treatment right now.
That documentation and evidence is whats currently lacking in this case.
Its not illegal to treat woman like property. If the women decide they don't want to be treated like property and are forced to stay, then a law has been broken and we can do something. However if the woman allows it to occur, then there is no crime, and no reason to be removing children from the parents.
That is utter bullshit. Your argument justifies ignoring obvious domestic violence against either gender, excuses support for female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East, for the caste system in India, for ritual spearing of criminals and the marrying off (real marrying, none of this 'spiritual marriage' horseshit) of 9 to 13 year olds in Australian Aboriginal culture. It is hateful and stupid, and you are hateful and stupid for saying this.
Mind explaining to me how we go from Its not illegal in the United States of America to treat woman like property as long as they allow it to talking about FGM in Africa. Did I miss an exit to crazy town somewhere along the line? Its a beautiful straw man you've constructed there but lets get this straight.
You don't appear to know what a strawman is, but you do fail at basic reasoning. Arguing that any treatment of a person is ok so long as 'they allow it' is retarded. Arguing that laws only apply when people want them to apply is retarded. Not being treated as property is a basic human right, and you cannot wish those rights away no matter how brainwashed you've been by the people around you.
Incidentally, to explore yet another layer of your basic incoherency, arguing that a woman 'allowing' herself to be abused means her children can't be removed to an abuse-free environment is also retarded.
It would be awesome if you'd knock all of that off.
You do not kick down someones door, arrest them, take their children away, put their children in foster care, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
NO ONE DID THAT. They acted on what at the time was (and frankly still is) reasonable suspicions about the conduct of those sect members.
However just because we disagree with someones cultural practices doesn't give us the right to change them. We have no right to say our culture is right, and yours is wrong.
When they deny basic human rights, yes we damn well can. This applies just as much to the rights-denying aspects of American or other culture as any other group.
Cultural change NEEDS to come from within not without.
You're implying that any external pressure to change is therefore wrong, which is idiotic. Ideas don't become movements in a vaccuum. Your vacuous moral relativism is repulsive.
You don't appear to know what a strawman is, but you do fail at basic reasoning. Arguing that any treatment of a person is ok so long as 'they allow it' is retarded. Arguing that laws only apply when people want them to apply is retarded. Not being treated as property is a basic human right, and you cannot wish those rights away no matter how brainwashed you've been by the people around you.
Laws only apply when people want them to apply? How about laws only apply when laws have been broken. If no laws have been broken the POLICE have to right to kick in your door, and take your children away. You may or may not be familiar with American laws, however these people have rights that were violated. Whether we agree with them or not, is irrelevant. The point is LEGALLY the police had no right to do what they did. Do you understand LEGALLY. The LAW. I keep stressing this, and bolding it. No matter what we may PERSONALLY feel about their beliefs and practices, that does not give the POLICE the right to kick in their door. If a LAW is not broken, then the POLICE has no reason to act.
Incidentally, to explore yet another layer of your basic incoherency, arguing that a woman 'allowing' herself to be abused means her children can't be removed to an abuse-free environment is also retarded.
It would be awesome if you'd knock all of that off.
I would be awesome if reading comprehension somehow came into this topic. Get this raising your children in the ways of your backwards religious beliefs is not 'child abuse'. For the state to remove the children from their parents BEFORE an investigation takes place their needs to be documented proof that the parents are a physical danger to the children. How do we know the children were not in any physical danger? Well I dont however if you read the article the judges were nice enough to say
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger,"
NO ONE DID THAT. They acted on what at the time was (and frankly still is) reasonable suspicions about the conduct of those sect members.
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger,". They did not have "reasonable" suspicions for what they did. They had no legal right to do what they did. They had every legal right however to open an investigation into their activities.
When they deny basic human rights, yes we damn well can. This applies just as much to the rights-denying aspects of American or other culture as any other group.
What basic human rights are we denying here?
The first "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."
No guns so the seconds out, and the third.
How about the fourth? 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.
One phone call from someone they cant even FIND is suddenly sufficient? For an investigation most certainly, for a full on raid? No fucking way.
How about the 8th Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Taking a child from its parents, sending if halfway across the state to live with a foster family when you cant even prove any wrong doing?
They have also determined that some of the "children" that needed to be stripped from their families were as old as 27.
You're implying that any external pressure to change is therefore wrong, which is idiotic. Ideas don't become movements in a vaccuum. Your vacuous moral relativism is repulsive.
You really need to stop SHOVING your beliefs down others throats. You do not like someones culture. Thats fine until you start demanding they change for you. You have 0 right to tell another human being how to live. You may not agree with their choices. You may think their culture sucks. Their culture may suck, their culture may butcher women, it may marry 9 year old girls to 50 year old men, it may do a bunch of shit that you find completely disgusting. That does not make you right, and them wrong.
You do not have the moral high ground when you move into someones culture and start telling them how to behave. However i do suffer from moral relativism. While I may personally feel I have no right to tell a culture that practice x and practice y are amoral.
I however have absolutely no problem saying you sick fucks are going to stop practice X because if you dont im going to kill every, single, fucking one of you until your culture lies dead and forgotten. I may not believe we have a moral right to tell them to change. That however does not mean we cannot use amoral methods to solve the problem.
However if your going to hide behind the law, then you better damn well make sure a law is broken before you kick in a mans door. Now those children are going back to their zealot parents, on their zealot ranch, to be brainwashed, their women are going to end up being property for another generation or two, and nothing is going to change except them getting a bigger ranch off the settlement checks they are going to get from suing the police. Why? Because some dip shit could not be bothered to make sure he had enough evidence to get those children out of there for good.
Laws only apply when people want them to apply? How about laws only apply when laws have been broken. If no laws have been broken the POLICE have to right to kick in your door, and take your children away. You may or may not be familiar with American laws, however these people have rights that were violated. Whether we agree with them or not, is irrelevant. The point is LEGALLY the police had no right to do what they did. Do you understand LEGALLY. The LAW. I keep stressing this, and bolding it. No matter what we may PERSONALLY feel about their beliefs and practices, that does not give the POLICE the right to kick in their door. If a LAW is not broken, then the POLICE has no reason to act.
So if a girl calls the police and says she has been systematically abused and raped on a regular basis for the past several years, but the police can't prove it before investigating, they don't have probable cause for a search or an arrest? I see. Tell us more about this "THE LAW" of which you speak, it seems different from the law. It seems "THE LAW" also doesn't include a sound-mind provision for agreements and consent.
The problem is that the girl who called wasn't there. That's like me calling the cops and saying I live at your house and snort coke while firing off automatic weapons. Then when ATF busts down your door and puts a knee on your neck, you're okay with it?
The problem is that the girl who called wasn't there. That's like me calling the cops and saying I live at your house and snort coke while firing off automatic weapons. Then when ATF busts down your door and puts a knee on your neck, you're okay with it?
Except that it's not like that at all unless the judge issuing the warrant has an IQ in the teens.
The problem is that the girl who called wasn't there. That's like me calling the cops and saying I live at your house and snort coke while firing off automatic weapons. Then when ATF busts down your door and puts a knee on your neck, you're okay with it?
Except that it's not like that at all unless the judge issuing the warrant has an IQ in the teens.
No, it's more like he called and said he lived with you and you raped little girls.
The problem is that the girl who called wasn't there. That's like me calling the cops and saying I live at your house and snort coke while firing off automatic weapons. Then when ATF busts down your door and puts a knee on your neck, you're okay with it?
Except that it's not like that at all unless the judge issuing the warrant has an IQ in the teens.
No, it's more like he called and said he lived with you and you raped little girls.
In fact, it is exactly like that.
And when the police busted down my door and found no little girls, they would leave, and likely go and arrest him.
Edit: And I would sue him to replace my door as well as however much my hypothetical lawyer can get out of him.
Edit 2: There would certainly not be a knee at my neck though.
The problem is that the girl who called wasn't there. That's like me calling the cops and saying I live at your house and snort coke while firing off automatic weapons. Then when ATF busts down your door and puts a knee on your neck, you're okay with it?
Except that it's not like that at all unless the judge issuing the warrant has an IQ in the teens.
No, it's more like he called and said he lived with you and you raped little girls.
In fact, it is exactly like that.
And when the police busted down my door and found no little girls, they would leave, and likely go and arrest him.
Yeah, just like all the little pregnant girls they found in Texas?
The problem is that the girl who called wasn't there. That's like me calling the cops and saying I live at your house and snort coke while firing off automatic weapons. Then when ATF busts down your door and puts a knee on your neck, you're okay with it?
Except that it's not like that at all unless the judge issuing the warrant has an IQ in the teens.
No, it's more like he called and said he lived with you and you raped little girls.
In fact, it is exactly like that.
And when the police busted down my door and found no little girls, they would leave, and likely go and arrest him.
Yeah, just like all the little pregnant girls they found in Texas?
Not really, I don't have a compound that I keep people in. Situation's quite a bit different.
No, the Amish aren't as isolated as people think. But more importantly, their isolation is not the same as the FLDS, who view the outside world as actively against them.
I'm quite aware of how isolated they are and are not.
They're still in a situation designed to limit their choices so as to ensure they remain in the community.
People can do this in the middle of New York City.
And they do. There's at least one orthodox jewish sect there who are pretty much at the burqas-and-intimidating-non-members stage of opposition to the rest of the world.
Sadly this is true. If the impetus for the raid is doesn't pass the legal mustard, than the results found in said raid are not submittible in court, irreguardless of any wrong doing uncovered.
Unfortunately for the kids, pretty much everything, from obtaining probable cause, to the raid, to the the initial court preceedings were bungled. When the police and the court fuck up that badly, there's no way that anything can be prosecuted.
A lot of issue was taken on the fact that they basically took down the entire compound rather than establising the evidence of who were the molesters and who was being molested. And then they found out that they can't prove anyone was even being molested, despite CPS' attempts to isolate everyone they could.
CPS, the sheriffs, and the courts were shooting from the hip the whole time on an election-year crusade. It blew up in their faces, massively.
And, it's really sad for the women and children involved, because not only did they get violently pulled out to be "saved", they are going to be just as violently shoved back in, with no real chance of being helped, ever, due to the complete ineptness of the people that are supposed to protect them.
Actually, there are a lot of Amish that hang around areas that are fairly modern. I see them every now and again when I head up to the Indiana/Michigan border.
But yeah, you're still right. I don't think I'd stay in Korea if I were thrown there for a year after living here my entire life.
But, Korea is where they learn their new rake fighting techniques.
Sadly this is true. If the impetus for the raid is doesn't pass the legal mustard, than the results found in said raid are not submittible in court, irreguardless of any wrong doing uncovered.
Unfortunately for the kids, pretty much everything, from obtaining probable cause, to the raid, to the the initial court preceedings were bungled. When the police and the court fuck up that badly, there's no way that anything can be prosecuted.
A lot of issue was taken on the fact that they basically took down the entire compound rather than establising the evidence of who were the molesters and who was being molested. And then they found out that they can't prove anyone was even being molested, despite CPS' attempts to isolate everyone they could.
CPS, the sheriffs, and the courts were shooting from the hip the whole time on an election-year crusade. It blew up in their faces, massively.
And, it's really sad for the women and children involved, because not only did they get violently pulled out to be "saved", they are going to be just as violently shoved back in, with no real chance of being helped, ever, due to the complete ineptness of the people that are supposed to protect them.
That's the thing that got me. I'm sure that someone, somewhere was probably abusive to their children/family. When you have that many people living together, there's bound to be bad parents lurking somewhere. But Texas CPS completely over-stepped their bounds by pulling everyone out. They could have handled the situation a lot more delicately.
If the situation is any different, it is even more screwed up because this isn't a household but an entire community of different people. This just isn't that hard to understand.
If the situation is any different, it is even more screwed up because this isn't a household but an entire community of different people. This just isn't that hard to understand.
That was one of the things that Texas CPS talked about. They viewed the entire community as one family, because it was really hard to separate out different groups of people because of the way the marriages were set up. But if I were CPS, and I were looking at the same thing, the intertwining of different families would probably give me greater reason to be more diplomatic, and try to work something out with these people, and hopefully gather up more information so that I don't botch any intervention.
Basically, this whole thing reeked of piss-poor-planning.
Posts
yeah, but after being brought up in an environment spending a year outside of it won't be the easiest thing ever. you'd probably get very intimidated and run back to where you came from.
thus limiting their ability to make an actual choice.
It's like throwing a caveman into Tokyo.
It's a brilliant illusion of choice.
Actually, there are a lot of Amish that hang around areas that are fairly modern. I see them every now and again when I head up to the Indiana/Michigan border.
But yeah, you're still right. I don't think I'd stay in Korea if I were thrown there for a year after living here my entire life.
Some of them have electricity and telephones and colorful clothing.
Yes, this.
No, the Amish aren't as isolated as people think. But more importantly, their isolation is not the same as the FLDS, who view the outside world as actively against them.
Exactly, the Amish are probably one of the most benign odd religious sects we have in the US.
I'm quite aware of how isolated they are and are not.
They're still in a situation designed to limit their choices so as to ensure they remain in the community.
People can do this in the middle of New York City.
When exactly were the Branch Davidians "a threat"? Yes they didn't take kindly to the BATF sitting outside their "compound" and yes they were fucking crazy but I'm not sure who they were threatening, at least until threatened.
FLDS are also batshit crazy but a) they weren't necessarily threatening anyone and while there may indeed be some shady stuff going on the incidences appear isolated and don't justify every child getting removed from their families, at least from a legal standpoint and more importantly in my opinion b) whatever child services does to "fix" the situation is likely worse than their life with FLDS. Yanking kids away from families, putting them through a round of fucked up questioning and then putting them in foster care is probably worse than making these kids live in some cult. Either way they are probably fucked for life.
A large segment of society has certain things they believe that children should have access to regardless of parental desires.
A large segment of society disagrees.
Let's see, millenialist cult illegally stockpiling weapons? Yeah, that's not a fucking huge red flag. And lets not forget the allegations of abuse occurring on the compound. The Branch Davidians were not the polite, misunderstood group that the right wing likes to make them out to be.
Seriously, you keep acting like your title of "most uninformed poster" is under attack. Warren Jeffs was on the FBI Most Wanted list. You don't get there by being a nice guy. And the incidences are far from isolated. And while the kids may suffer some trauma in the foster care system, it sure as hell beats (for the girls) getting married off to a guy three times your age as wife #5 or (for the boys) getting booted on the street because you're superfluous.
You're generalizing here. I was of the understanding that the person who placed the infamous phone call doesn't even exist. If there is proof of abuse then pursue it, but don't go after the whole clan and sequester every single kid.
Just because we don't personally agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. Other people have other values. If there is evidence of rape then fine, punish those responsible. There is no such evidence for every child here.
People are allowed to be weirdos if they want to in this country. Sorry.
The country was founded by people who wanted to live by their own standards as long as they didn't hurt anyone. True, history shows that these people were douchebags.. but until we find proof that people are actually being hurt, we gotta leave them alone.
Thing is, this is the basis of law, and laws of this nature are passed all the time. Some of them are even useful to society.
Honestly?
This isn't true.
I'd say that America has made too many harmless things illegal, and left too many harmful things legal.
---
A lot of this is that children are involved. Consenting adults can enter into whatever horribly unhealthy relationship they want after a healthy background has provided them options, but children have no choice in the matter, and so some lifestyles will always be potentially harmful to those who are incapable of consenting to them.
So, it's okay that women are basically treated as property? And that boys who don't toe the line are essentially abandoned? Seriously, the level of cognitive dissonance here is astounding. Read up about the FLDS sometime. You might find it illuminating.
Its not illegal to treat woman like property. If the women decide they don't want to be treated like property and are forced to stay, then a law has been broken and we can do something. However if the woman allows it to occur, then there is no crime, and no reason to be removing children from the parents.
I do not condone their religious beliefs, or practices. However that in now way removes their civil rights. For the government to step in and take the children they have to prove there was a child safety issue. The courts have decided that they have not met their burden of proof.
On the subject of Waco, the ATF fucked that one up very bad. The whole reason for going in? A couple of bounced checks, and the fact that they were buying perfectly legal firearms, and black powder. Oh and a neighbor heard what might have been machine gun fire. Bad situation all around, made worse by the actions of the ATF.
if your going to kick in someones door, lock them up, and put their children in foster care. You damn sure better have a good solid legal reason for doing so.
And they do. There's at least one orthodox jewish sect there who are pretty much at the burqas-and-intimidating-non-members stage of opposition to the rest of the world.
They turned out to be adults I heard.
And what choice did they give their children? I don't see where they ever got to decide that for themselves, they were forced to and you think that should be permitted?
That is utter bullshit. Your argument justifies ignoring obvious domestic violence against either gender, excuses support for female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East, for the caste system in India, for ritual spearing of criminals and the marrying off (real marrying, none of this 'spiritual marriage' horseshit) of 9 to 13 year olds in Australian Aboriginal culture. It is hateful and stupid, and you are hateful and stupid for saying this.
Well, what happens is that its impossible to tell, because the sect makes a practice of obscuring the birth dates of their female members so that they can weasel out of these charges.
The main problem with this prosecution was that the tipoff call was suspected to have been made by an ex-member with a bone to pick. Given what I've read, that bone was probably very understandable, but it was still on the level of that vigilante kid in H/A. It threw the entire investigation into doubt, even though there very likely is some illegally creepy shit going on in that compound.
No doubt there's some shit going down but until there's solid evidence for it you can't just go around detaining people.
And no Angel, the fact that their leader is a nut job and generally there's all kinds of things wrong does not help prove that specific claim X must be valid as well.
If the DIRECT evidence isn't there, what can you do?
And no, you can't just say women 'choose' to live this way without a very long discussion and research into how gender roles and the patriarchy play a role in limiting choices.
Mind explaining to me how we go from Its not illegal in the United States of America to treat woman like property as long as they allow it to talking about FGM in Africa. Did I miss an exit to crazy town somewhere along the line? Its a beautiful straw man you've constructed there but lets get this straight.
You do not kick down someones door, arrest them, take their children away, put their children in foster care, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I don't care how crazy these people are, and i frankly detest religious zealots. They are still protected by the constitution of the United States. They have the right of due process. If they had a good reason to go in there and take those children, then by all means take the children. However from what this court has ruled they did not have a good reason. Which can lead to all evidence that they might actually have been guilty of something being thrown out of court.
These dumbass gun-ho no evidence cops could have just poisoned the fucking tree. Thats really not good for the children if in fact there was some wrong doing.
If you want to make a thread about FGM, or any other of the atrocities committed world wide against women, thats fine. Ill be more than happy to chime in about how i wish we could kill any son of a bitch who would do that to a woman, slowly.
However just because we disagree with someones cultural practices doesn't give us the right to change them. We have no right to say our culture is right, and yours is wrong. American culture has its own brand of fucked up shit going on. The idiots cult who this thread is about for instance. That does not give us the right to tell other cultures how to be. Cultural change NEEDS to come from within not without. If we are going to pretend we have the right to alter another peoples culture, then lets stop fucking around. Send in the troops, occupy their lands, and do what needs to be done. Lets see how it works in Iraq before we start advocating America tell other cultures how to live.
None of this changes the fact that just because we think it sucks, does not make it illegal.
Well there have been court orders to give children medical treatment that their parents refused because of religious grounds, so it's not like the courts intervening for the benefit of children in defiance of religious belief is entirely unheard of.
We could go into a long discussion on why their choices are limited, the mental, social, and economic factors that led to it. However at the end of the day we do not have the right to force them out of that lifestyle. If they choose to stay and do not wish to leave, that is their choice. It sucks, but the best we can do is offer those in circumstances like these help on getting out of it.
We do not have the right to force our views upon them, no matter how wrong we feel they may be.
And thats usually in the case of an immediate threat to the children's life with documentation and evidence supporting if the child does not get this treatment right now.
That documentation and evidence is whats currently lacking in this case.
Incidentally, to explore yet another layer of your basic incoherency, arguing that a woman 'allowing' herself to be abused means her children can't be removed to an abuse-free environment is also retarded.
It would be awesome if you'd knock all of that off.
NO ONE DID THAT. They acted on what at the time was (and frankly still is) reasonable suspicions about the conduct of those sect members.
When they deny basic human rights, yes we damn well can. This applies just as much to the rights-denying aspects of American or other culture as any other group.
You're implying that any external pressure to change is therefore wrong, which is idiotic. Ideas don't become movements in a vaccuum. Your vacuous moral relativism is repulsive.
Laws only apply when people want them to apply? How about laws only apply when laws have been broken. If no laws have been broken the POLICE have to right to kick in your door, and take your children away. You may or may not be familiar with American laws, however these people have rights that were violated. Whether we agree with them or not, is irrelevant. The point is LEGALLY the police had no right to do what they did. Do you understand LEGALLY. The LAW. I keep stressing this, and bolding it. No matter what we may PERSONALLY feel about their beliefs and practices, that does not give the POLICE the right to kick in their door. If a LAW is not broken, then the POLICE has no reason to act.
I would be awesome if reading comprehension somehow came into this topic. Get this raising your children in the ways of your backwards religious beliefs is not 'child abuse'. For the state to remove the children from their parents BEFORE an investigation takes place their needs to be documented proof that the parents are a physical danger to the children. How do we know the children were not in any physical danger? Well I dont however if you read the article the judges were nice enough to say
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger,"
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger,". They did not have "reasonable" suspicions for what they did. They had no legal right to do what they did. They had every legal right however to open an investigation into their activities.
What basic human rights are we denying here?
The first "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."
No guns so the seconds out, and the third.
How about the fourth? 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.
One phone call from someone they cant even FIND is suddenly sufficient? For an investigation most certainly, for a full on raid? No fucking way.
How about the 8th Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Taking a child from its parents, sending if halfway across the state to live with a foster family when you cant even prove any wrong doing?
They have also determined that some of the "children" that needed to be stripped from their families were as old as 27.
You really need to stop SHOVING your beliefs down others throats. You do not like someones culture. Thats fine until you start demanding they change for you. You have 0 right to tell another human being how to live. You may not agree with their choices. You may think their culture sucks. Their culture may suck, their culture may butcher women, it may marry 9 year old girls to 50 year old men, it may do a bunch of shit that you find completely disgusting. That does not make you right, and them wrong.
You do not have the moral high ground when you move into someones culture and start telling them how to behave. However i do suffer from moral relativism. While I may personally feel I have no right to tell a culture that practice x and practice y are amoral.
I however have absolutely no problem saying you sick fucks are going to stop practice X because if you dont im going to kill every, single, fucking one of you until your culture lies dead and forgotten. I may not believe we have a moral right to tell them to change. That however does not mean we cannot use amoral methods to solve the problem.
However if your going to hide behind the law, then you better damn well make sure a law is broken before you kick in a mans door. Now those children are going back to their zealot parents, on their zealot ranch, to be brainwashed, their women are going to end up being property for another generation or two, and nothing is going to change except them getting a bigger ranch off the settlement checks they are going to get from suing the police. Why? Because some dip shit could not be bothered to make sure he had enough evidence to get those children out of there for good.
So if a girl calls the police and says she has been systematically abused and raped on a regular basis for the past several years, but the police can't prove it before investigating, they don't have probable cause for a search or an arrest? I see. Tell us more about this "THE LAW" of which you speak, it seems different from the law. It seems "THE LAW" also doesn't include a sound-mind provision for agreements and consent.
Except that it's not like that at all unless the judge issuing the warrant has an IQ in the teens.
No, it's more like he called and said he lived with you and you raped little girls.
In fact, it is exactly like that.
And when the police busted down my door and found no little girls, they would leave, and likely go and arrest him.
Edit: And I would sue him to replace my door as well as however much my hypothetical lawyer can get out of him.
Edit 2: There would certainly not be a knee at my neck though.
Yeah, just like all the little pregnant girls they found in Texas?
Not really, I don't have a compound that I keep people in. Situation's quite a bit different.
Don't get me started on Kiryas Joel, Cat.
A lot of issue was taken on the fact that they basically took down the entire compound rather than establising the evidence of who were the molesters and who was being molested. And then they found out that they can't prove anyone was even being molested, despite CPS' attempts to isolate everyone they could.
CPS, the sheriffs, and the courts were shooting from the hip the whole time on an election-year crusade. It blew up in their faces, massively.
And, it's really sad for the women and children involved, because not only did they get violently pulled out to be "saved", they are going to be just as violently shoved back in, with no real chance of being helped, ever, due to the complete ineptness of the people that are supposed to protect them.
Yes. As are the sheriffs involved. I don't see them lasting another term.
But, Korea is where they learn their new rake fighting techniques.
That's the thing that got me. I'm sure that someone, somewhere was probably abusive to their children/family. When you have that many people living together, there's bound to be bad parents lurking somewhere. But Texas CPS completely over-stepped their bounds by pulling everyone out. They could have handled the situation a lot more delicately.
That was one of the things that Texas CPS talked about. They viewed the entire community as one family, because it was really hard to separate out different groups of people because of the way the marriages were set up. But if I were CPS, and I were looking at the same thing, the intertwining of different families would probably give me greater reason to be more diplomatic, and try to work something out with these people, and hopefully gather up more information so that I don't botch any intervention.
Basically, this whole thing reeked of piss-poor-planning.