digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

See the original image at cnn.com —

Polygamist case price tag: $7 million

cnn.com — Removing 460 children from a polygamist sect compound, then reuniting them with their families, will cost Texas $7 million, according to the state Department of Family and Protective Services. The children were ordered to be returned to their families this week after the Texas Supreme Court found that the state did not have enough evidence...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Jenadae, on 06/04/2008, -24/+2Penis Freckle...
  • scottro, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5215k a kid, maybe they should have just sent them to college
    • reisrocks, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5Very true.
    • Leomarth, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5That'd cover about a quarter of a good college bill.
      • cdigioia, on 06/04/2008, -6/+1...what?

        In-state public school costs ~ $6,000/year in tuition. (so a 62.5% of that).
        A private school ~ $40,000 (9.4% of that)

        Thinking you just pulled that angst-ridden 25% out of your ass...
        • Leomarth, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4Sorry amigo. My associates cost me $32,000. My Bachelors, still six months from completion, is costing me about $61,000. That at $416 per credit hour.

          I'm sure I don't have to do the math for you, but I will anyway. 15k would be 46.9% of my associates, and 24.6% of my bachelors. Like I said... a quarter of a good college bill.
    • pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5it's hard to go to college when you aren't allowed out of the house.
    • myranttoyou, on 06/04/2008, -7/+3Community college maybe, 15k would hardly get you anything for college today.

      Pre-Bush (the first one), it would cover 2 four year degrees. But hey, 12 years of Bush has been great for the economy, right?
      • intangible, on 06/04/2008, -2/+6I stubbed my toe this morning.... DAMN YOU BUSH!!!

        Yes he's a complete asshat and immoral greedy con artist, but that doesn't make him the only one responsible for all of our problems.
        • myranttoyou, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2If you don't think Bush #1 and #2, their policies, appointees and cronies don't largely account for the inflation in gas, food, education, housing etc. etc. in the past two decades, then you are clueless. Likewise, the huge loss in the value of the dollar from these wars doesn't help purchasing an education. Gas at an all time high, the dollar at a record low.

          This is what happens when you have a company/lobbyist first, citizens last attitude over time.

          I'm sorry if you think it is just Bush, but Republicans have had by far the most power the past two decades. We are largely in this mess from their leader and blind loyalty to him.
  • ralphthemagi, on 06/04/2008, -3/+11Fail.
  • peaceninja, on 06/04/2008, -6/+25maybe a 30 million bill on that tiny county will teach texans that they can't ignore simple civil rights, but hopefully overall this sets a precedent and hopefully they eventually nail the small group of families that encouraged inbreeding and pedophilia
    • mrynit, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2so you are saying what the police did was wrong and what the religious people do is wrong as well?
      • rongallant, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1Isn't that usually how it works?
      • amcerece, on 06/04/2008, -2/+6I think so. Obviously there is rampant sexual abuse going on there, and those kids should have been removed from the compound. However in the process Texas got trigger happy and ended up illegally violating their 4th amendment rights. I wish there was a way that everybody but pedophiles and terrorists have civil and constitutional rights, but as a free nation every citizen is afforded these rights. That's part of having a free society.
    • SRSco, on 06/04/2008, -4/+3Make up your mind. Which is more important? Upholding civil rights or prosecuting incest and pedophilia.
      • EtherGnat, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5We shouldn't have to choose.
      • jgzman, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3Civil Rights. No question in my mind. Once we have that, we can take down the scum.

        You might as well ask whether the airframe or the radar is more important.
      • Rabbittt, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Protecting civil rights is the government's only job..
  • MarioWhereRu, on 06/04/2008, -24/+0inb4atheists
  • reisrocks, on 06/04/2008, -11/+7boy.. things always get sticky when religion is involved.
    • sampsonb, on 06/04/2008, -3/+9Even more sticky when governments involved.
      • catbeller, on 06/04/2008, -4/+1No. Religion. The government isn't raping the little girls. God told them the religionists they could get themselves some imprisoned tail. The government tried to stop them. The religionists beat the rap and are now going to lock up the kids and bang them some more. God is good to them.

        And the Wacoites killed their own kids, not the government. Another bunch of little girl humpers.
    • myranttoyou, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5That is what she said.
  • Kidtuf, on 06/04/2008, -4/+50The real tragedy here is that the girls are all going to grow up to have stupid looking hair.
  • HookmasterCH47, on 06/04/2008, -16/+8I'd rather tear families apart than have hundreds of other paid civil servants making my community a better place. Serves them right for not being the same kind of christian...
    • Leomarth, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2I see what you did there.
    • Radar3D, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2Nothing tears a family apart like the government.. Except maybe a pack of wolves.
    • pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2nothing keeps families together like forced marriage and statutory rape.
  • XmenArt, on 06/04/2008, -9/+35Free expression and polygamy...you can't pick and choose people.
    And before any tosses out an argument about please thinking about the children...if there was sufficient evidence of child abuse they wouldn't have to give the kids back. Just another case of the government overstepping and taking people's children away. If we do nothing when they target the polygamists and gays, you won't be able to do anything when they start snooping into your own home.
    • haterofps3, on 06/04/2008, -8/+13The issue was not polygamy it was the rampant abuse sexual and physical, not to mention the arranged marriage of girls aged 9 to 16 marring a man in his late forties or fifties. These girls were getting pregnant at 16 with the father being middle aged. That is abuse and it was WRONG to take every child but they needed to find out who had been abused and who hadn't.

      I am all for polygamy go nuts, marry as many women as you can, personally I can barely get one to shut up long enough to sleep, I can not imagine two to six wives.
      • csw1342, on 06/04/2008, -4/+9That was all alleged, not fact.
        • PicklesNCheese, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6The presence of pregnant teenage girls was proven. 31 of 53 teen girls were pregnant or already mothers - a fact verified by Texas authorities. A bit higher than the national teen pregnancy average, wouldn't you say?

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_99097.html
        • catbeller, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2Reality is alleged, according to religion. I understand. A pack of pregnant teenaged girls who see no one but the men they were forced to marry could have been impregnated by an angel, I suppose. Allegedly.
    • liquidpele, on 06/04/2008, -2/+4The women in these sects are basically brainwashed. They let their young (under 16) daughters be married off as practically sex slaves to middle aged or even 60 year old men. Now normally I'd say that's gross but whatever, but usually the girls don't WANT to be married to those men, but they're told they'll go to hell if they don't get married and do what their new husband says. That's just ***** up, and any old man that takes advantage of girls like that needs to be castrated and put in prison in my opinion.
      • catbeller, on 06/04/2008, -3/+1It's rape by religion. Let's call it by it's real name. Those little girls have no choice, cannot know of any other choice. They are bred to be raped, and will consent to it. They will swear they do it of their own free will. And they do. A matter of who decides what a little girl believes in the first place, that's all. How can you argue with an invisible, all seeing, all-knowing, vindictive child-god who will punish your every thought of disobedience? They BELIEVE. They are in terror of the men, and the invisible super-man-god that backs up their every command. They cannot not believe. Not many Dawkins books lying around the compound. Not only are they fearful of the beatings that they could have today, but of the eternal agonizing torture by white-hot flames by the demon/god that they are assured will have their asses after they die. Every burn yourself with a match? Imagine that time ten thousand, every second, for eternity. This is the God they fear. And he loves you...
        • quakken, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Where Do you get your information that the girls had all those things done to them? It's kind of hard to know that they are being "bred to be raped" if you have NO SOLID PROOF.

          My best bet is some of the girls are being married off to old guys. But we don't actually know. YOU don't actually know, and until we get some solid evidence that such and such is actually going on, what can we do?
    • pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3forced marriage and statutory rape does not equal free expression.
    • gryphon50, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Warren Jeffs used to lead this group and his behavior gives you an idea of what they're up to...They've found pictures of him kissing his 12 yr. old bride, plus three of his nephews have accused him of sodomizing them as children (one killed himself) and in a jailhouse confession he stated he had also had relations with a sister and a daughter. Also, teenage boys are raised in this cult and thrown out in order to make sure the higher-ups have plenty of women to themselves. And if the elders want to punish any man, they kick him out of the community and take his wives and kids and give them to other people. I'm not seeing alot of freedom of expression here.
  • Leomarth, on 06/04/2008, -1/+9It's not over yet. There is a separate criminal probe into the actual polygamy, and the state of Texas has imposed many conditions onto the families so far so that they can continue about the children.

    This is only a temporary reprieve.
  • dazparkour, on 06/04/2008, -5/+13$7 Million?

    I'll add this to my "***** I could do $1,000,000 cheaper than the government and still end up with $5,500,000 profit" list, so that when America goes FULLY privatized and gets a CEO instead of a President, I'll be able to start several companies.
    • catbeller, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2This is enough. The state spent not much more prosecuting these bastards than if they had let the cops and the lawyers sit in a courthouse all day doing nothing. THIS COST IS JUST THE TOTAL "BILL" FOR THEIR SALARIES DURING THE PERIOD, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID ANYWAY! Are you all nuts?
      • dazparkour, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Yes, but if they weren't doing this - they would be doing something else.

        Either there are too many people working on this or their salaries are too high.
  • 360Slick, on 06/04/2008, -4/+1load em up on buses and ship them back, shouldn't be that expensive.
  • SeasonedBeef, on 06/04/2008, -5/+10I hope that the CPS gets sued and they are forced to make cutbacks including firing all who supported the decision to take the children into custody. The state completely overstepped their bounds on this one. I want my freedoms, so let these people have theirs.
    • alexforcefive, on 06/04/2008, -4/+5You don't have the freedom to systematically abuse the children in your care, I'm afraid.

      And let's be frank - we've all read first hand accounts of what happened on the ranch; we've seen the documentaries about warren jeffs; and then there was the news that something like 30 out of 50 of the girls they took were pregnant. I don't know how much more evidence you could need. The state has obviously bowed to media pressure in this case
      • MadN, on 06/04/2008, -2/+8This case is not about child abuse.
        This is about being guilty until proven innocent.
        The state had no evidence when it raided an unarmed group, the police had guns drawn, and were ready to kill someone.

        Would you want them to do this to your house if some 12 year old down the street made a crank call about your kids?
        Another thing, if one parent was abusing a child, why take 419 kids?

        I hope some of the ones in charge of this para-military raid go to jail.
        • alexforcefive, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4Yeah, that's a good point. I'd still say that by now it's "common knowledge" that these kids are being abused, but you're right in saying that means ***** legally. If they don't have the evidence, they shouldn't have raided the place
        • catbeller, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2No, it's about raping kids. And covering up the fact by throwing "freedom dust" into the air.
      • quakken, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Lets get some links going on in here, You cite no sources. The reason they're going back is because of lack of evidence because the state can't prove a damn thing.
  • trumpcard, on 06/04/2008, -10/+4This is what religion can do,jesus should be proud.
  • XtheXlanternX, on 06/04/2008, -4/+9Good job on the money wasting, federal government... I'm all for mocking religious wackos, but I don't try to to tell them what to do, neither should you.
    • Lavarock, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5Unless it's their KIDS
      • XtheXlanternX, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5These people weren't doing anything outside the law. Its not near as bad as those people who let their kid with some curable illness ( I think pneumonia) die because they said prayer would heal their kid.
        • PicklesNCheese, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3You are not disturbed by the pregnant teens and underage mothers? Regardless of what else may/may not have taken place, this is wrong and should be prevented.
        • XtheXlanternX, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Hmm... why should I be concerned if a woman who has reached sexual maturity willingly bears a child? I think its pretty despicable for an older gentleman to be the father, but to me, it doesn't really bother me as long as it was all consensual. If you look a couple hundred years ago, children were conceived at 14-15 years old and younger very commonly. It's what these people believe and as long as they aren't forcing people to engage in sexual relations, why should we tell them how they can live?
    • pintomp3, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2seeking justice is such a waste. god forbid we try to prosecute people for breaking the law. religion is not the issue here, the law is.
      • XtheXlanternX, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1And what laws were they breaking... the laws of social normalcy? While I do not believe (and I find it disgusting) that older men should have relations with obviously underage women, as long as the sex is consensual there really shouldn't be an issue here. Just because I'm not a wacko Jesus freak doesn't mean I don't respect their right to live how they want. Also, as far as I've read, no one in the community complained. The reason this was investigated was because someone saw a pregnant teenager and assumed it was because those "crazy FLDS people" were forcing teens to have sex with geriatric old timers.
  • Nurven, on 06/04/2008, -3/+3I'm not american, so my question is, how ware the children separated from their families in the first place?
    • SteelChicken, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5people accused the adults of harming the children and abusing them. a simple accusation if often all thats needed to take a child away so an investigation can be conducted.
      • liquidpele, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2Ummm, no. They got a phone call from a girl in the sect that said she was being abused but didn't give them her name. They went in, and found lots of children, and took them all out to investigate.
    • PosedMagnet, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1Um, someone (or a group of someones) went in, took them out, put them in a van, and drove off.

      How else?
    • liquidpele, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Since you're not American, I'll give you some background.

      In America, there is a branch of Christianity called "Mormonism" and they follow the bible and the book of Mormon. The book of Mormon was written by an ex-con man who said Jesus came to the Americas and taught to the Natives there (before the British/French/etc set foot here) and those books were written from that. So basically he started a cult.

      Originally, the Mormons were polygamists and very secretive. They had their own city (Salt Lake City, Utah). Over time, they've cut out a lot of the crazy beliefs and the secrecy, and their leaders denounced polygamy. Now the Mormon church is pretty much like any other denomination here, they just have a very strange history.

      However, certain sects still exist that follow the old crazy, cult-like beliefs. Usually it's a big scam of some sort - either the man that gains the follows takes all the wealth of the believes, or he controls who gets married to who and will tell parents that God told him that their young daughter must be married to people who gave him large gifts (bribes). It's really quite a sick and unhealthy thing to be in one of these cults. Please note that these sects are not affiliated with the Mormon religion anymore, they are quite literally cults and are always controlled by very manipulated and bad people.
      • EtherGnat, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Thumbs up for you, but I'd like to add my $0.02 about polygamy.

        As long as all parties involved are consenting adults I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's not a lifestyle I would choose, but I see no reason to try and control the choices of other rational, intelligent human beings.

        It's only when, as you say, people are forced into it or people are not of legal age that it becomes a problem.
        • jgzman, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I concur, but the practice is at odds with the theory.
        • letherial, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0hey if a guy wants to torture himself with 6 or 7 nagging women instead of one...none of my buisness, i fail to see why its illegal execpt to prevent tax fraud.
    • st00f72, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1This source should help you find whatever you need to know. Search digg for: Full Coverage of the Raid on the FLDS YFZ Ranch
  • itstodd, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5thats chump change compared to what they are going to pay out in law suits.
  • forcedfx, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4And that doesn't include the forthcoming lawsuits. Tom Green county is going to be bankrupt for the next several decades.
  • treehugger87, on 06/04/2008, -3/+9The 9/11 investigation was originally given a budget of $3-million. That was later increased to $12-million and eventually cost $14-million.

    Comparatively, Kenneth Starr spent $47-million on the investigation of Bill Clinton’s involvement with Monica Lewinsky.
  • lorductape, on 06/04/2008, -6/+4with Billions being spent on Iraq I'd rather that a mere 7 million go to this cause.
    • Opiate, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6What cause is that? Government terrorism? You people are scary, you don't agree with something so you want "legal" force to coming reigning down on people.
  • mike17032, on 06/04/2008, -6/+8Good, more kids can grow up crazy locked in a religious compound. Our welfare dollars at work!

    And think of the poor parents, who were they going to rape during the time their kids were away?
  • Jenadae, on 06/04/2008, -5/+2Since when the ***** does it cost 7mil to drive 460 kids home?
    • ChildeRoland420, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4Since it was done by a government agency...
  • brbeaird, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5This makes me sad for those children.
  • Observer001, on 06/04/2008, -1/+10Why's it always "the polygamy case" when a crazed religionist makes himself a harem of children? Why's it never "the religious multiple child rapist case?" The former implies that polygamy is somehow inherently bad and intrinsically tends to cause statutory rape, which is frankly dumb.
    • Opiate, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2The burden of proof lies on the people the mob doesn't like, isn't democracy great?
    • gryphon50, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1technically the dictionary definition of polygamy shouldn't necessarily lead to statutory rape but it does tend to. In those cultures that practice it, the man marries very young wives who have practically no rights at all. Even Mohammed married a nine year old.
      • Observer001, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1As may be. When that happens, the actually important law being broken is the age of consent protection, which is punishable on its own. But when it happens next - and it will - the first word of the story will be polygamist. Or at least it'll be in there, I don't know, I don't write headlines. :|

        Anyway, the way it's been isn't necessarily the way it'll always be.
    • thewise1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Mostly because the majority of these girls weren't even under age.
      • Observer001, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Interesting. And which ones were separated by force by the government from the FLDS? Which ones were the central press-trumpeted cause of the furor? Which ones did people actually care about?
  • charlietuna, on 06/04/2008, -4/+14Gay rights - MUST HAVE
    Polygamy rights - MUST NOT
    What gives here?
    • quakken, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1It's actually a very good point. Not that I'm for either of those things, but how is a bunch of heterosexual women getting married to the same man worse than two guys boning each other?
  • BadHeatherNo, on 06/04/2008, -1/+7Perhaps next time they'll try and get some actual evidence that something is going on, instead of going, "Yeehaw, someone from another state made a prank calling claiming to be abused, let's go get em' boys!"
  • rlh1, on 06/04/2008, -1/+14This case may have been mishandled but these polygamist sects here in Utah are a drain on the state anyways ( this sect went to Texas because of pressures here in Utah).
    Most of these groups drain massive amounts of welfare from the state. This particular group give the young girls to the older men. If 20% of the men have 4 wives, 80% of th men have none. These guys regularly turn out there own sons out of the compound with no education and no support so that there is no competition for the young girls. Imagine banning your own 17 year old kid because the "Prophet" said to do so.
    There is another sect here that forces nieces to marry their own uncles, their "Prophet" decide who marries. They have assets of $200,000,000 but their kids and wives are all on welfare.
    These groups should be brought down on labor laws, welfare fraud etc.
    Polygamy does not make a good society.
    • EtherGnat, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3I'm missing how polygamy is causing a problem for society there.

      It sounds like the problem is with lack of education, fraud, cultism, people being married against their will, and scumbags.
      • rlh1, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1As with everything, it depends on the scale.
        If 20% of the men have 4 wives, approx 80% of men have none.
        If 80% of your highly testosterone laden young men have no outlet then you have problems.
        I view men and women as equal partners, which monogamy re-enforces. With polygamy, women become possessions, not equal partners.
        You have divided families where the children of one wife compete for the affections of the father from the sister wives.

        • EtherGnat, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2"If 20% of the men have 4 wives, approx 80% of men have none."

          Somehow I doubt that would be a typical situation without coercion and forced marriages.

          "With polygamy, women become possessions, not equal partners."

          I see no reason that is inherently true. Even if it were, as long as the women enter into the partnership willingly that's their choice. Also keep in mind that polygamy can also be one woman with multiple husbands.

          "You have divided families where the children of one wife compete for the affections of the father from the sister wives."

          Children will always compete for attention from a father, regardless of who the mother is.

          I basically agree with you, but I don't feel it is my place to mandate how others live.
  • Cnat, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Ironically, the forthcoming lawsuit will probably help the FLDS continue the potentially alleged illegalities. They'll just have to actually read the constitution next time they decide to violate someone's civil rights.
  • jessedigg, on 06/04/2008, -2/+9I can’t believe all the diggers siding with the Polygamists. If 12-15 year old girls are pregnant, that is abuse.
    • robertwilliam, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6If 12 - 15 year old girls are pregnant, its called Baltimore, and Essex, and Dundalk.....
    • kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5So go ahead and SEIZE EVERYBODY, right? Don't find evidence and prosecute single individuals, just go right ahead with a mass seizure.
      • Charnoble, on 06/04/2008, -0/+312-15 year old pregnant girls doesn't mean abuse (not even statutory rape). They could have been impregnated by another minor or teen. Not saying that nothing funny happenned, but a pregnant 12-15 year old isn't sufficient evidence for grounds of a conviction.
    • jgzman, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2We theoreticly support the rule of law, here. Under the laws, the government erred, and they must back off.
      I am quite happy to see child abusers of this type taken down, and hard, but it must be done correctly. The first issue was improper search warrant. (or similar) Are you prepared to give up that right to punish these guys? Remember, if they can suspend it here, they can suspend it any time they want.
  • digitallysick, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2I feel like we should leave them alone, the girls get married willingly that young, and have kids, its part of the religion. Their mothers and mothers before them probably did the same thing. Although we might not all agree with it, but its not our place
    • gryphon50, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Warren Jeffs is in prison precisely because the girls he married off were NOT willing. Are you saying that 12 yr. olds should get married, even if they wanted to (which in this case they most certainly do not, when it is to a man 10-50 yrs. older than them). For all the diggers who favor the polygamists, would it have been ok for a cult to marry YOU off, at the age of 12, to a 50-60 yr. old woman?
      • digitallysick, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Well the mother is allowing it, so she should be thrown in jail to as a co conspirator?
      • quakken, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Where did you get the information that warren jeffs was marrying literally 12 year old girls off against their will? links please
    • Vitiare, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1It most certainly IS our place. Just because you call it a "religion" doesn't mean that you can do whatever the hell you want.
  • kronzdigg, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5We Digger are siding with freedom and liberty. 100 years ago it was normal for girls to get married young and be pregnant young. And now it is "normal" for johnny to have two daddies. Don't be so quick to criticize a world you don't understand.
    • gryphon50, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1you are just pulling facts out of thin air. In 1900, the average age for a man when he married was 25, the average age for a woman was 22. Look it up.
  • silentb0b, on 06/04/2008, -5/+1shoot them all. i'll even pay for the bullets. end this ***** cult ***** now.
  • myranttoyou, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
  • kemp34, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Just reaming tax payers for stupid *****...
    • Adamlite, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah, this ***** is going to cost me about 50 cents. It's not much, but it could have been used for something better.
    • Vitiare, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Good to see the intelligence level of the average Digg user is right where I expected it to be.
  • nirvanix, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3'Mission Accomplished'. The mission was of course to set a precedent that the state can seize your children. This goes on a lot in the US these days. It made all the media outlets everyday, and so it's been ingrained in your psyche that you must let the government control you. They will continue to round up your children more and more for various excuses.
    Land of the free, home of the brave?


    • catbeller, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Raping your own kids must be a lot more popular than I thought.
  • bbqsalad, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2We should make them join the military and help kill all the terrorists who threaten our freedom to rape children.
  • sultanica, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1has the sect announced they will sue the state for damages yet? how much is that gonna cost the tax payers?
  • bobjohnsonmilw, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

    Wow, the stupidity we have to deal with today.
  • Albion01, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Yup, they released the kids back to their families, but they're not allowed to leave Texas and the parents must agree to allow random examination of the children by the state at any time.
  • catbeller, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5Children are not property, and religion CAN be a form of child abuse.
  • Charnoble, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3It really bothers me that this is/was an a idealogical battle, that attempted to shroud itself as a legal battle. As a Christian, it was absolutely miserable for me to see all those kids hauled away in "First Baptist Church" vans.

    The ironic thing is that polygamy and arranged marriages were a common practice amongst many of the great bible characters (not saying the bible condones it, but that it was how they lived). And even Mary Magdalene was probably around 12-15 when she had Jesus.

    I really think taking the children was a rediculous and heinous act, that most definitely isn't the "Christian" thing to do. It scares me that anyone seriously considered the proposal, let alone act it out. What group are we going to take kids away from next?!

    Oh, this article is about the operation being expensive . . . umm. . . on topic . . . 7 million . .. that's . .. alot of money.
    • thewise1, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Erm, Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus, not His mother.
      But I agree that this targeted their religion, not their actions.
      • Charnoble, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2haha, dang, I stand corrected. Don't know how I managed to say that. It should read, "Mary, the mother of Jesus, was about 12-15 when she had him."
    • sparrowkc, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1"Mary Magdalene was probably around 12-15 when she had Jesus."
      :-/
  • Charnoble, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah, typo everyone, MARY, not Magdalene!!!! Crap, I'm not going to hear the end of this. I feel so bad when I get dugg down.
  • pagemap, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2No one knows how to waste money better than the US government.
  • ZeroG52, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Polygamy, homosexuallity, beastiality, pedophilia......they're all the same level of deviancy. I understand now what Reverend Wright was talking about in his speech.
  • RickyBarnes1960, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1$7,000,000 - the price of acting before thinking ... among others.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.