Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
The Texas Polygamist Raid Was A Legal Lynch Mob.
briancuban.com — The Texas Court of Appeals has finally restored order to one tiny corner of the universe
bcuban- 825 diggs
- digg it
- AussieCynic, on 05/23/2008, -38/+30I must say this is a surprisingly good outcome.....
- wezman2, on 05/23/2008, -14/+43No, this is not a good outcome. What is promoted in these camps is disgusting. The tactics that Texas used unfortunately left a lot of room for the group to fight back, but look at the individual cases. It is just wrong, and it robs these children of their freedoms.
- Navicerts, on 05/23/2008, -21/+9Don't make it any more complicated than it is. If they broke a law, they pay the price. Point to the law they broke or stfu.
- wynja, on 05/23/2008, -5/+32Wow, let me see forcing 14-16 year old women into sleeping with and having babies for men twice or three times their senior........ no laws broken here...... move along. nothing to see.
- kirralin23, on 05/23/2008, -3/+9Polygamy is illegal.
- Vohu, on 05/23/2008, -4/+2The law was broken by both sides apparently. Just as members of the FLDS violated those underage girls the State of Texas violated the law in seizing them given the facts. The entire situation sucks but the law must be obeyed and that means, sadly, returning the children to a group we know to be abusing them.
- taiakpun, on 05/23/2008, -0/+14Apparently 15 is the legal age to marry in Texas, as well there was no proof of abuse. You cannot just come in and take 400 children because "some" of them were abused - that in itself is illegal. The outcome may not be generally liked, but legally it is the right outcome.
- LeeSoong, on 05/23/2008, -2/+6This whole crime against humanity is a test case for state sponsored hate crimes, launched against groups:
Time to round up the Jews?
Shut down the Mormon's Churches because they are a threat to the community?
Get the Catholics out of government because they all secretly report to the Pope?
What about the Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans, Pagans, etc? Are they next on the 'to do' list of Texas? OMG - They don't believe in JeSuS!
The USA is supposed to have Freedom.
That would include Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Belief.
Now here is a group of people who Believe God not only desires plural marriage, but God has designed men to be larger and stronger in order to support the needs of several wives, raising large families.
The religion of the Police State is different.
Reminded me of the way they used to hunt down 'mixed race' couples. You half expected to see a burning cross in the front yard of the Mormon Church.
At least this raid didn't end with a burning campus or lifeless bodies swinging on the end of ropes.
I am actually glad to see Texas has come a long way in many decades - no fatalities, no buildings destroyed, and no officers hurt or injured because their duty forces them to uphold unjust laws.
In the goddess we trust.
May the gods bless America!
And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage continue to win the hearts and minds of the judges in these hundreds of cases.
http://www.venganza.org/materials/wallpapers - dagnome1984, on 05/24/2008, -0/+3It makes no sense to round up an entire town because of a prank phone call. What the CPS did is against the law and due process of law. You save the kids that were harmed then you pin down the person or persons that committed the crime. You don't go in and assume every one is guilty then take their children without due process of law and place them in foster homes. The burden of proof was placed on the mothers and not that of the state. They were forced to prove their innocence. I'm sorry, but no sane legal system should not operate in such a grotesque manner. The burden of proof should always rest on the one that makes the claim.
- Izult, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1First off get over yourself and your self righteous BS. They BELIEVE that they are practicing GOD's LAW as revealed by a man whom they revere as a modern day prophet. If you were a good Christian who actually read the bible you'd see that polygamy in various forms was practiced by many of the prophets in the old testament, including Abraham, Issac, Jacob etc. Solomon himself had many wives AND concubines or did you skip over that part because it was boring? Oh but let me guess, it was the old testament so it doesn't REALLY count as God's word right?
what's promoted in those camps are their beliefs and under the constitution they're allowed to practice those beliefs freely even if you don't understand or agree with them.
kirralin23kirralin23 - many of those "marriages" aren't considered marriage by the law the way it is now ergo they're not polygamous. That's why they can't prosecute. If they were actually MARRIED then they'd have a case but you'll notice that they have NOTHING NADA ZIP! they'd have to charge them with incest or child abuse and they didn't have a prima facia case for that even.
- Navicerts, on 05/23/2008, -21/+9Don't make it any more complicated than it is. If they broke a law, they pay the price. Point to the law they broke or stfu.
- Hetman, on 05/23/2008, -6/+19There is no proof. And this is America. You need proof before you can charge someone with a crime. What ever happened to being innocent before proven guilty?
- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -3/+11since when is a bunch of pregnant teenagers not proof?
- aukxsona, on 05/23/2008, -6/+6Pregnant adults you mean. When I got knocked up 15 no one did this to my parents.
- wezman2, on 05/23/2008, -4/+2aukxsona - were you knocked up by someone twice or three times your age? If you had, I'm sure someone would have. Plus, I'm sure your parents weren't aware that you were getting knocked up at the time. Had they known, I am sure they would not have condoned it.
- LeeSoong, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4Better raid those inner city schools and urban poor too, lots of teens having kids and working 2 jobs to support very young families...
Oh, wait...
Instead, the government uses force to take your paycheck from you - and give the money to bastard families,
while you try to use your take home pay to fill your gas tank! - Izult, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Cause you right now can't walk into any high school in America and find a pregnant teen. Oh I also bet not a single one of them slept with someone twice of three times their age either.
do i really need the /sarcasm?
- cawpin, on 05/23/2008, -2/+3"You need proof before you can charge someone with a crime. What ever happened to being innocent before proven guilty?"
No, you need proof to convict them. You simply need reasonable suspicion to arrest them. Know what you're talking about before speaking and you won't look like an idiot.- Izult, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1well according to the judge they didn't even technically establish reasonable suspicion so they really ***** up there now didn't they?
- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -3/+11since when is a bunch of pregnant teenagers not proof?
- Vohu, on 05/23/2008, -6/+6While I agree that these children were ultimately harmed by their environment the State of Texas clearly dropped the ball here and in a huge way. And while I don't approve of returning these kids to the FLDS compound I must support the Appeals' Court decision here to do so considering the facts.
- Izult, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1It's not for you to approve or disapprove of their way of life or their beliefs. they disapprove of your beliefs and way of life as much as you disapprove of theirs but they're willing at least willing to let you live your life the way you wish to.
- faskill, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1That is only because they are in the minority. Imagine they they were the majority. Imagine they were in power and set the laws. They'd have the ability to mandate multi-partner marriages as well as outlawing other religions... just a thought...
- Izult, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1It's not for you to approve or disapprove of their way of life or their beliefs. they disapprove of your beliefs and way of life as much as you disapprove of theirs but they're willing at least willing to let you live your life the way you wish to.
- ronaldst, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5I hope the victims sue the abusive authorities and the individual who started this into oblivion.
- st00f72, on 05/25/2008, -0/+2Mike Nifong comes to mind. Unfortunately the American justice system is a slow, cumbersome system too easily taken advantage of by power freeks. I hate to seem pessimistic but this is going to be a long fight. Much unnecessary damage will be done.
- wezman2, on 05/23/2008, -14/+43No, this is not a good outcome. What is promoted in these camps is disgusting. The tactics that Texas used unfortunately left a lot of room for the group to fight back, but look at the individual cases. It is just wrong, and it robs these children of their freedoms.
- chupavacas, on 05/23/2008, -24/+73Make that "Illegal" lynch mob.
- bcuban, on 05/23/2008, -12/+6LOL-point taken.
- skydharma, on 05/23/2008, -7/+8Make that "something completely unrelated to a lynch mob". Whatever it was, it didn't involve lynching. If anyone is unsure what lynching actually involves, research the Klan, Emmitt Till, etc.
- geneticlone, on 05/23/2008, -7/+3this article is stupid
- faskill, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Your mom is stupid.
- orblivion, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2He actually went over this fine point in the article so your clever observation is sortof moot.
- LewP, on 05/23/2008, -29/+5Dugg and submitted to the DDD.
- bjornski, on 05/23/2008, -2/+11Nobody cares. Flog your blog elsewhere.
- louiebaur, on 05/23/2008, -28/+23It is looking good for them so far. Strange how this whole thing went down I feel bad for those families.
- estrela123, on 05/23/2008, -22/+4dugg
- cashman57, on 05/23/2008, -42/+90I was very suspicious of the actions of the government from the beginning. They had an unidentified informant who claimed she was calling from inside the compound but was really calling from Colorado Springs Colorado. Don't the police have caller ID??
Then we have the government coming in and stripping the people of their right to be secure and stripping them of their family ties and threatening to force the parents to no longer have any say over what happens to their children.
The families are separated and the children are put in foster care where real rapes occur and real abuse happens and there's no secret about that.
IMHO those people involved in the heinous act should lose their jobs and their pensions and they should be made to pay personally for the damage they have done. The sheriff should be recalled and an election to rid that county of his presence should be forthcoming.
I have read of many cases where the state agencies have walked all over the rights of the people and taken actions that are on their face illegal.
I hope this is a wake up call. If it so easy to take your children away from you, what can be done to make you secure again? How can you ever trust the government to be fair and impartial when we see how biased and wrong they were here?
If there were ever proof of government run amok, this is it.- kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -21/+20Think about how many people stood by idly in Nazi Germany as more and more "strange" people were pulled from their homes. All I can say is, you won't see me stand for this BS.
- onetimer, on 05/23/2008, -18/+33Yeah! The government pulling abused and raped children out of a compound is JUST like when the Nazis were rounding up people out of their homes!
*insert facepalm here*- kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -8/+13Please provide evidence that the 460 children seized were raped.
- scubaman5000, on 05/23/2008, -3/+7From what I've seen it was all consensual. Nobody, not a single one that lived in that community has complained about their way of life. The only complaints I've heard from them are regarding the government kidnapping of their children on the assumption that abuse would/might happen in the future.
What if the government came and put your children in foster care because they think that one day you might do something to abuse your children? Can't you see that this is wrong?
I don't agree with this church's views (I don't agree with any church's view for that matter...). Like all churches I think they use fear tactics to ensure complete obedience (obey or burn in hell). I would love to see the people freed from the grasp of this oppression however there is a right way and a wrong way to do it and imposing your own moral standard by force is wrong.
If the government wants to take down this church then they should focus on actual crimes that have been committed (past tense). They should look into welfare fraud (this is very prevalent in this group), and individual cases with sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that abuse occurred, just like everywhere else. For years the government has left them alone largely do to the geographic isolation and that their law enforcement is part of the same church just like everyone in their community. If the government would keep pressure on them to comply with the laws of the state they can make a much more substantial change than running in there with guns drawn and taking nearly 500 kids from their families. - kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2Nice post Scubaman.
- LeeSoong, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2In a surprise announcement,
the State of Texas has decided to
arrest the entire population of
the State of Utah,
under reasonable suspicion... - ultimateMJ, on 05/23/2008, -2/+3@kemp34: Many of the children were pregnant or already mothers. Thats rape.
- onetimer, on 05/23/2008, -18/+33Yeah! The government pulling abused and raped children out of a compound is JUST like when the Nazis were rounding up people out of their homes!
- onetimer, on 05/23/2008, -7/+30When you say "real rapes", are you trying to imply that there wasn't ANY rape in the compound? How do you explain the underage mothers? There is no doubt that at least some of these children were being abused.
- Digger1218, on 05/23/2008, -17/+8So every underage pregnancy is the result of rape?
- sugarazor, on 05/23/2008, -6/+13In this compound? Yes.
- onetimer, on 05/23/2008, -6/+28Yes. It's called "Statutory Rape"
- Brainclone, on 05/23/2008, -9/+8Check the age of consent in your state:
http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm
Utah marriage age is 15:
http://www.utcourts.gov/howto/marriage/
Here is utah law:
http://www.moraloutrage.net/staticpages/index.php? ...- coreman, on 05/23/2008, -4/+14except...these pedarists were in Texas.
- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1In South Carolina, you can get married at 14, with a parent's permission. But the age of legal consent is 16. LOL.
- kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -2/+18Even if there were statutory rapes, which is what you should call it, not just "rape" as there is a BIG difference and anyone with any sense knows that, you don't just seize EVERYTHING and EVERYONE without sufficient evidence that each one of them is at legitimate threat. This case was a seize first, ask questions later and it's not OK, as even the Texas Appeals Court agreed with. You can't go and just SEIZE people without MAJOR evidence that the seizure is justified. I do not agree with the FLDS way of life, but do I want hundreds of children stolen from their parents against both parties' will? ***** no. Anyone who supports this mass seizure is stepping awfully close to tyrant status.
- kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -3/+11I see people digging me down. Must be fun to advocate and support seizing children against their and their parents' will. Many of these children have been hospitalized since being taken into state custody. People digging me down would probably take pleasure in that. Morons.
- kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -4/+7No surprise you are defending mass people-seizure Onetimer. You love the state and you want it to enforce your will. You would think an aware Jewish individual would be very wary of mass people-seizure given the history of the religious group being persecuted for being different. If there were specific INDIVIDUALS who were being charged, take them in. Don't MASS ROUND UP whole groups of children and place them in unknown situations where they are getting sick en masse. You supporting this activity is pretty disgusting.
- onetimer, on 05/23/2008, -6/+5WTF? Just because I am questioning cashman's statement implying "no rapes happened" doesn't mean i'm a supporter of "MASS ROUND UP"
Your statement comparing that to the Nazis is still full of fail, though. - kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1My statement in relation to Nazi's was clearly taking it full tilt. My point is, in situation's like this I am hyper sensitive. I don't want mass-people-seizure to become a normal and accepted thing. We should all be hyper-wary and I would think, as a Jewish individual, you would see the sense in this stance.
Do you disagree with the assertion that it was a mass round up?! - expert01, on 05/24/2008, -1/+2I, for one, AM a supporter of mass round up. I don't care what their religion says, they raped innocent children to make their babies. If there are any children being abused, then all children in a household must be removed for their own safety.
Face it, Diggers, all the guys at that compound were pedophiles. - ichbeineinrcg, on 05/24/2008, -2/+1Kemp, you're a moron.
1) You don't want children taken from parents without both parties consent? So the abusive parent can say no, and you have to badger the abused child into agreeing that they were in fact abused?
2) "Many of these children have been hospitalized since being taken into state custody" doesn't exactly speak well of where they came from, does it?
3) What does "mass round up" mean to you, exactly? There was a reasonable suspicion that these children were being abused--their parents were still out free to live their lives. You're trying to hang a Texas cops = nazis analogy on this that just doesn't work.
- cashman57, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1No doubt about abuse? Please show me your proof. Show me and tell me when and where and who abused them.
Or is this just another one of those "everybody knows" statements from you?
- Digger1218, on 05/23/2008, -17/+8So every underage pregnancy is the result of rape?
- drmobutu, on 05/23/2008, -11/+3"If there were ever proof of government run amok, this is it"
I agree, but maybe the government "ran amok" on purpose, this time. The purpose, being to generate outrage among conservative religious groups...with the result being that some type of legislation will get drafted preventing this type of thing in the future, and thus, opening up plural marriage for other religious groups that would like to practice Biblical polygamy, but are currently afraid to do so...we might just see polygamy becoming a mainstream Christian family values issue...after all, it's in the Bible...- kingmanic, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3The states stake in inheritance will prevent this. Polygamy greatly complicates inheritance.
- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but if we kill off enough of our guys in all these wars we have planned, there might have to be polygamy - or else there might be instead, something much worse, rampant lesbianism :)
- kingmanic, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3The states stake in inheritance will prevent this. Polygamy greatly complicates inheritance.
- kemp34, on 05/23/2008, -21/+20Think about how many people stood by idly in Nazi Germany as more and more "strange" people were pulled from their homes. All I can say is, you won't see me stand for this BS.
- comedyfan, on 05/23/2008, -20/+77I see everyone's point, but it should be noted that these polygamist sects are a legitimate issue. Cashman- you note foster families are where the real rapes or abuses occur, but there is not much distortion when police assert that children are being raped in these fundamentalist Mormon alcoves.
I think this was conducted incorrectly, but the goal is not incorrect. In these Mormon sects, woman are frequently abused and children are frequently forced to marry men more than twice their age. In Warren Jeffs community there were many documentations of 15 year olds forced into marriage with 50 year olds.
I think we can agree that that's not okay. Fundamentalist Mormons are not harmless. Rather, the male leaders perpetuate an abusive misogynistic environment through powers vested in them by "God." There are many documented cases where these sects have used their religion to justify murder. It's really a problem.
It simply wasn't handled well. And, I'll be honest, I'm not sure how to handle it.- cashman57, on 05/23/2008, -16/+16If a rape occurs, then there is reason to act. Unless there is some proof of the illegal act nobody should be deprived of their security and their family.
I am not here trying to say that these sects are blameless and pure.
What I am trying to convey is the fact that foster care is not the safe haven some people think it is. Foster kids are abused.
Also what I want to convey, and perhaps I didn't make myself clear, is that the government had no right to do what they did. They have a duty to respect the rights of ALL people no matter what religion they believe or who they follow.- jjustice, on 05/23/2008, -2/+33Here's my dumb question: isn't polygamy itself illegal?
- barktwiggs, on 05/23/2008, -7/+16Yes it is, but that is a civil issue. When people are getting married off the books, how can you regulate that. If you make sexual activity outside civil marriage illegal, then every adulterer and playboy will be breaking the law and should be incarcerated.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/23/2008, -2/+7"If you make sexual activity outside civil marriage illegal" then the entire united states will migrate to Europe or Asia.
- VieRelative, on 05/23/2008, -2/+6Depends on how you define polygamy. Because so much about civil unions have been encoded into law (immigration, taxes, criminal witness: cannot be forced to incrimate your spouse, etc..), allowing multiple simultaneous civil unions would open up massive legal loopholes all over the place.
There's nothing illegal (or at least, there shouldn't be) about having more than one lifelong partner. - IPublius, on 05/23/2008, -0/+7Polygamy is, but sleeping around is not. They are not married to more than one person according to the state of Texas. Their leader Warren Jeffs was not tried for polygamy, but aiding in underage sex. Polygamists they may be, but legally. Unless you want to outlaw sleeping around and adultery, they did not break the law that way.
- HonestAbe, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3It shouldn't be.
- LeeSoong, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3No, plural marriage is not illegal.
It is a time honored tradition for consenting adults in many cultures.
Plural marriage is Biblical, just look up King David.
The United Slaves of America insists it will force it's religion and it's dogma upon all people - when in truth, plural marriage, gay marriage, and No marriage (living together) should all be legal.
What consenting adults do in their personal lives is their own business.
The modern, married 3 times, mom and dad with 2 kids from the mom's first marriage and 3 kids from the dad's second marriage is legal.
The divorce / remarry game has just become little more than a formality in serial polygamy.
- EntropyFan, on 05/23/2008, -4/+18You have several incidents of 16 year old girls having had kids. Forced marriages.
Add to that everyone refused to talk, tell who was married to whom, who's kid was who...
So basically everyone there covered (as in aiding and abetting ) child rapists. The state was correct to go in exactly like they did.
I think you will see this overturned be a higher court.- cashman57, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Which 16 year old kids were forced into marriage? How many of them lived at that compound?
- karel747, on 05/23/2008, -2/+11Last I checked, sex with minors is illegal too.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/23/2008, -2/+4I'd be more worried about the rape than the sex with minors tbh.
- karel747, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2And rape is illegal too, so that's 3 for 3.
- aznhomig, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2FYI, sex with a minor is statutory rape. There is no consent by the underage girl because by legal definition, she cannot consent for being such a young age. Opens up too many doors towards exploitation and trickery if the girl "consented".
- BabyWookie, on 05/23/2008, -2/+3"They have a duty to respect the rights of ALL people no matter what religion they believe or who they follow."
What if I worship "Boltor The Rapist" and my religious rituals involve ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism? The government should respect my beliefs, right?
These sick ***** are brain-washing these little girls into their *****-up, patriarchal fundamentalist way of life since they are born, instilling these values through manipulation and fear. It's either "when the time comes, marry some disgusting old goat" or "be thrown out and condemned to eternal damnation." How can they even consent?- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2Baby Wookie:
You are right that is what happens. However, manipulation is NOT illegal. Sex with children and assault IS illegal. Regardless, it is STILL not okay for the state to go in without substantial evidence and mass round up everyone. They should have had specific evidence of specific crimes and arrest warrants for those specific crimes for specific people. That is all.
- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2Baby Wookie:
- jjustice, on 05/23/2008, -2/+33Here's my dumb question: isn't polygamy itself illegal?
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -8/+6You make it sound like "Fundementalist Mormonism" is a rampant problem. It's a small organization with only an estimated 7,000 - 10,000 followers.
- sugarazor, on 05/23/2008, -0/+10So if 5,000 of those are women were forced into a marriage with an older man, we shouldn't worry about it? I don't want to ignore one rape, let alone one thousand.
- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5at the rate they are reproducing, it could be a big problem in 1 generation.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1What rate is that? Source?
They've been in the same compounds for the last 110 years.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1What rate is that? Source?
- aeonoftime, on 05/23/2008, -3/+3Mormons are like 10 million and they are all a problem Dr. Phil interviewed a psychiatrist in Salt Lake who stated that the data reflects that even the mainstream LDS population has some of the highest exposures of child abuse in America.
About polygamy ask any one of them even the "mainstream" one if they are going to practice polygamy in heaven and they will tell you yes!
- dinostabOMG, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5"There are many documented cases where these sects have used their religion to justify murder. "
Then it should have been no problem to go about this action the correct way. - kirralin23, on 05/23/2008, -6/+5Fundamentalists are not Mormons. It is a different religion.
- vegasbright, on 05/23/2008, -5/+5No, mormon fundies are just practicing mormonism in a time capsule from 100 years ago. They are the real mormons, not the corporation that is LDS Inc.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3Yay! based on your Digg Comment history, I'd say you're an anti-mormon activist. Good for you. Everyone needs a hobby.
- rendersan, on 05/23/2008, -0/+6The FLDS aren't practicing anything that resembles Mormonism from 100 years ago. There's a lot more going on here than just polygamy, and the Mormons never functioned this way even when they allowed for polygamy.
- rendersan, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3Wait, did I just get suckered into responding to vegasbright? Yes, we've all had this conversation before and with no productive outcome.
- Vic333, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2"Fundamentalist" is an adjective. There are Fundamentalist Mormons, Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims, etc.
- LeeSoong, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Then outlaw fun-duh-mental-ism,
and shut down all these churches.
Do you think that would cause a problem?
Is funduhmentalism a protected constitutional right ?
- LeeSoong, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Then outlaw fun-duh-mental-ism,
- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Fundamentalism is a problem in most religions. It means that you adhere to the principles of the religion strictly and without question and word for word. No room for critical thinking. Or thinking at all. Fundamentalism is not a religion, in itself. Fundamentalism fosters complete ignorance.
- vegasbright, on 05/23/2008, -5/+5No, mormon fundies are just practicing mormonism in a time capsule from 100 years ago. They are the real mormons, not the corporation that is LDS Inc.
- rdizzle, on 05/23/2008, -4/+3Here. Here. Fundamentalists are not Mormons, and circumventing the law is a stupid thing to do for the Texas CPS.
- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2maybe we should just get rid of "god". Think of how much less it would cost the taxpayers. And not just the Christian god, but all of them.
- sugarazor, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1People would just find another reason to be stupid.
- cashman57, on 05/23/2008, -16/+16If a rape occurs, then there is reason to act. Unless there is some proof of the illegal act nobody should be deprived of their security and their family.
- DeskFlyer, on 05/23/2008, -12/+130I still say the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is still a ***** up organization.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -7/+11Good thing they're a minor church with only an estimated 7,000 - 10,000 followers.
- sugarazor, on 05/23/2008, -1/+18And nothing bad ever happens in those. Here, have some of this Kool-Aid.
- orangefly, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5the smaller cults use flavoraid....
- Chronoped, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1We need to restore dignity to Kool-Aid, Ken Kesey style.
- sugarazor, on 05/23/2008, -1/+18And nothing bad ever happens in those. Here, have some of this Kool-Aid.
- vegasbright, on 05/23/2008, -8/+11Well, the mainstream mormon faith is just as ***** up. Ask any of them what happens if you marry after becoming a widow. You still get your first wife in heaven.
How do I know? I used to be one for 25 years until I pulled my head out of my ass.- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -6/+5Oh yeah, that sure is messed up. Much better to pay money to repent for my sins, or believe I'm going to be reincarnated as a dog.
Yay! Everyone is stupid but VegasBright. - str1fe, on 05/23/2008, -3/+6Dugg for knowing what you're talking about instead of "I heard/know this from an indirect source"
- rendersan, on 05/23/2008, -2/+3So you left when you were 25?
- LeeSoong, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1ouch,
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -6/+5Oh yeah, that sure is messed up. Much better to pay money to repent for my sins, or believe I'm going to be reincarnated as a dog.
- MadEnvoy, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3No argument there, but so is the US government.
- Chronoped, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1They know damn well what they're doing to the American people. With all of that money stuffed in their pockets, they have no reason to care.
- kiedesu, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Everyone is ***** up, except those innocent children and their mothers.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -7/+11Good thing they're a minor church with only an estimated 7,000 - 10,000 followers.
- digthebest, on 05/23/2008, -20/+2DUGG!
- icantseeyou, on 05/23/2008, -7/+23This was a great article but I think some of you are missing the point. The point is that the legal system to a great degree values the relationship between mother and child. Ask any man trying to go into court to get custody. Whether this is right or wrong is not the issue (of women having more right in court), the point is that that's how our society and legal system works.
How it applies here is obvious. Maybe they should have gone into the compound and shut it down. But the proper thing to do would have been to keep the children with their mothers while the courts did their work. Now, as Mr. Cuban has said, the Mothers rights have been violated (since they were taken away from their children without hearing) and even the mothers who should not have these children will retain custody.
That's the effect of how we did this had.- Herkimer56, on 05/23/2008, -6/+15The "mothers" are the ones who agreed to allow their own children to be raped. The "mothers" then defended the men who raped their children. The "mothers" surrendered their rights when they allowed 50 year old men to have sex with their twelve and thirteen year old daughters.
- Cerebron, on 05/23/2008, -1/+6Allegedly.
- BabyWookie, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Michael Jackson and OJ kind of "allegedly", as in "every knows they did it."
- jpmulli, on 05/23/2008, -2/+0The mothers should go to prison right along with the men who raped the girls.
- ichbeineinrcg, on 05/24/2008, -1/+1This is the most often overlooked point in the whole sordid story. The brainwashing and grooming that it would take to convince a mother to think that would be OK for her daughter, it's staggering to think about.
- cashman57, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Where is the proof such a thing occured?
Remember that these allegations were made by a woman in Colorado Springs Colorado who had not been in the compound and knew nothing about what happened there. If you have some proof that these actions occured, produce it.
As is typical of your type you jump up and down without waiting to see if the allegations have any substance.
If I called from my home and accused you of having sex with a 12 year old, should you be arrested and held without any proof of wrongdoing??
- Cerebron, on 05/23/2008, -1/+6Allegedly.
- Herkimer56, on 05/23/2008, -6/+15The "mothers" are the ones who agreed to allow their own children to be raped. The "mothers" then defended the men who raped their children. The "mothers" surrendered their rights when they allowed 50 year old men to have sex with their twelve and thirteen year old daughters.
- blinkatron, on 05/23/2008, -12/+65So underage polygamy is legal? Pretty sure there are precedents for both of those things being illegal (there was a case from the 1870's where polygamy was made illegal in the US)
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -2/+18Polygamy aside, it is still illegal to have sex with a minor. However, where the Texas state government over stepped it's bounds, is when it removed _all_ the children from their parents, even where there was no sign of illegal activity.
The government was within it's rights to remove children when there was proof of wrong doing, but they can't remove all the hundreds of children from their parents just because a few of the kids showed signs of illegal activity.
Additionally, pregnant teenagers, and boys with broken bones is not conclusive proof of illegal activity (teens do get pregnant, and boys do break bones). The law is supposed to err on the side of reason, and not get hysterical after a single anonymous phone call.- blinkatron, on 05/23/2008, -6/+5So in a sect of society where it is OK to A.) Marry underage children and have sex with them and B.) Have multiple wives (illegal in the US as it frankly should be. I'm not even a christian and I believe polygamy should be illegal), you don't think there was any reason to keep all of those kids out of harms way because only a few of the kids showed signs of actually being abused? ALL of those kids were affected by this, unfortunately the government didn't bother to make a proper case or get the proper warrant for this. Their knee-jerk reaction doomed these kids.
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -2/+10"It is of no concern to government what a person believes, what he thinks, what philosophy he embraces."
- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
It's not within the government's rights to interfere with the rights of a group of people just because of their beliefs. You may be the leader of an anarchist group, and you may advocate burning down all the government buildings in the country, but the government can't touch you until you actually commit a crime.
They may believe in under age marriage, but that in itself is not illegal.
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom."
- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas - deadlyfluvirus, on 05/23/2008, -2/+5Huh? Why should polygamy be illegal? So it's ok for me to have an orgy with women, but it's not ok for me to take on multiple wives? Yet you claim to not be religious? lol, yeah right. You sound like an angry woman instead of a guy.
- blinkatron, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Way to make ad hominem attacks. good job.
No, I actually think Polygamy should be illegal because it establishes an unequal relationship where one gender has control (and yes, I am a guy). I think you should be able to sex it up with whoever you want, but for the government to recognize relationships with multiple wives/husbands just isn't fair or equal... things guaranteed by the constitution. And yes, I am sad that the Texas government peoples came in and infringed on these people's rights without providing the proper evidence. It sucks, but I'm surprised there wasn't more investigation going on with these people after the warren jeffs business. - Lukesed, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3Multiple spouses aren't a problem. Multiple underage brainwashed baby-making slaves are. Seems to me we should be working on the the underage sex slaves, regardless of how many of them happen to be paired with the same man (why are these cults always sexist?). If a bunch of consenting adults want to put together a complex web of paperwork asserting joint ownership of each others property, I say let them.
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -2/+10"It is of no concern to government what a person believes, what he thinks, what philosophy he embraces."
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/23/2008, -8/+3Too bad they can't just make the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints illegal.
- darkened, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3And people like you are why people like me die a little bit more inside every day as the Constitution dies a little more in this country.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1What good has it done? None. Just as any other religious institution, nothing good has came out of it. It's just another bunch of people worshiping things that are constantly misinterpreted.
And FYI, I was not being serious. People taking this sort of thing serious makes me die a little bit more. - mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Just like what good has "came" out of the public schools. We should shut all of them down, as well.
- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -6/+6in texas we don't trust cults. the branch davidians ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege ) are still fresh on our minds. and the pregnant teens all have over-aged husbands. there is no need to jump to conclusions. dna test are already proving there was abuse.
one more time: cult in compound = bad.- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4"there is no need to jump to conclusions. dna test are already proving there was abuse."
Quoting Justice William O. Douglas once again:
"An arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses"
You don't take the children first, and find evidence of wrong doing second. The fact that DNA tests taken after the children were removed from their parents shows proof of wrong doing, it doesn't justify taking the children in the first place.
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4"there is no need to jump to conclusions. dna test are already proving there was abuse."
- blinkatron, on 05/23/2008, -6/+5So in a sect of society where it is OK to A.) Marry underage children and have sex with them and B.) Have multiple wives (illegal in the US as it frankly should be. I'm not even a christian and I believe polygamy should be illegal), you don't think there was any reason to keep all of those kids out of harms way because only a few of the kids showed signs of actually being abused? ALL of those kids were affected by this, unfortunately the government didn't bother to make a proper case or get the proper warrant for this. Their knee-jerk reaction doomed these kids.
- IdevInull, on 05/23/2008, -1/+8Of course polygamy is illegal. None of these people were "polygamists" in the legal sense. That is why they can't prosecute for polygamy. Polygamy to the state means you get married with a state marriage license and then try and do it again, by obtaining a state marriage license without a divorce from the first marriage. So essentially what we have with these groups is a man and several woman all agree to be "married" to me and the man has sex with all of them. Not much different anywhere else except in regular society the man has sex with lots of women and leaves them -- whether or not they have his babies. At least these Mormon 'hippies" take care of their kids. And to the point that they teach kids it is o.k. to be a polygamist - well this society teaches kids that they can have sex with anyone and ANYTHING. So how are we better really?
- J4k3, on 05/23/2008, -3/+3"So underage polygamy is legal?" Apparently it is, according to this latest ridiculous judgment. As a victim of child abuse I find this ruling absolutely appalling. Prior cases have overwhelmingly shown that when someone is sexually abused and is unable to free themselves from systematic abuse, the perpetrator will continue to commit his acts (often with even more intensity) until he is forced to stop by either being caught or if he feels that it's getting too "hot" for him and that his cover might get blown.
Keep in mind, the victims here are children who can't do anything to defend themselves. And believe me, I'm sure that at least in the first instances the children were bound and tied up preventing them from going anywhere until they were thoroughly abused, as it happened in my case.- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1@J4K3 I am sorry that you were abused. However, the government's actions will in fact, because of the law and the legal implications, negate anything that they could have used to prevent future abuse. There are protocols that must be followed. All of those kids will end up being returned to their parents, whether they have been abused or not. You cannot collect evidence AFTER you make the arrest - when it is the only evidence. The state SCREWED the victims. Which is not unusual.
- J4k3, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, but right now some of the children are going to be sexually molested even more than they already were. When I was younger (at just eleven years old) I was repeatedly anally raped by an older man, so I can clearly identify with what the victims have gone/are going through. It's such a shame that nothing more could be done for these children and that the humiliation will most likely continue for years to come. Something has got to be done for these victims!
- mystcnurse, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1@J4K3 I am sorry that you were abused. However, the government's actions will in fact, because of the law and the legal implications, negate anything that they could have used to prevent future abuse. There are protocols that must be followed. All of those kids will end up being returned to their parents, whether they have been abused or not. You cannot collect evidence AFTER you make the arrest - when it is the only evidence. The state SCREWED the victims. Which is not unusual.
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1As if precedent has not been set to the detriment of minority groups in the past… Using precedent as an argument is a fallacious stance which invokes the appeal to authority. Just because X people who were in power at the time think it was ok doesn’t mean it actually was ok.
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -2/+18Polygamy aside, it is still illegal to have sex with a minor. However, where the Texas state government over stepped it's bounds, is when it removed _all_ the children from their parents, even where there was no sign of illegal activity.
- eekfuh, on 05/23/2008, -7/+22The words "knee jerk" were overused way too many times for me to legitimately digg for this pseudo-author.
- talkingpidgin, on 05/23/2008, -4/+6"overused way too may times"
- Spikito, on 05/23/2008, -31/+112I live in Texas, so I've been hearing a lot about it. Within the first 2 weeks after their removal, 2 of the children gave birth, another 29 are pregnant, or have been pregnant. Mind you these girls are 15 or under.
I don't think the raid was out of line.- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -17/+38Your facts are incorrect.
There were 31 females suspected of being underage, and pregnant or having had children.
In the last week, it has been discovered that 15 of those 31 females were 18 or older at the time of their pregnancy, and 1 was a 14 year old who has never been pregnant. There is no word on the remaining 15 females, but the 31 girls was the states most compelling evidence, and at this point, more than half of that evidence was 'bad'.
Get your facts straight.
Also, you don't think the raid was 'out of line'? Let me put it in terms you could understand:
I live in a new sub division with 150 homes. It is LIKELY that at least some of the children in my subdivision are being physically, emotionally, or sexually abused. Do you think the state should come and take all the children from 150 homes in my neighborhood, and place them in dangerous foster care?- sugarazor, on 05/23/2008, -9/+14But your subdivision is a bit different than a compound where everyone follows the same wacky religion.
This is a cult for all the nuts to come together and think it's okay for underage children to have sex with older men.- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -2/+11I could quote this guy all day long,
"It is of no concern to government what a person believes, what he thinks, what philosophy he embraces."
- Justice William O. Douglas
We don't go around arresting people, or taking their children based on a groups personal beliefs. There has to be actual proof of illegal activity. - wavenger, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I wonder how they established that they were 18 or over? I hope it's not their word, because, to quote Chris Rock, "If a woman tells you she's 20, and looks 16, she's 12."
- sugarazor, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3Pregnant underage girls isn't proof of illegal activity?
- rendersan, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3I don't think for the authorities it mattered so much that the kids were all part of the same community as that they were all basically living in the same household. The fact that they were all in a compound together instead of living in separate households in a neighborhood meant that you really couldn't target individual households. You have to take them all. It's not fair, and it was a sloppy job by law enforcement, but that's the way I read the situation.
Surprise! Living in a walled compound doesn't do much to endear you to law enforcement. Who knew?
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -2/+11I could quote this guy all day long,
- IphtashuFitz, on 05/23/2008, -5/+11Your analogy doesn't fit. Living in a sub division with 150 other distinct families is one thing. Living in a compound where virtually everybody is related somehow and their religion teaches and promotes plural marriage, underage marriage, etc. is entirely different. Now if all those 150 homes you talk about contained people all related to you, and you shared wives, had sex with 14 & 15 year old girls, etc. then it might be more fitting.
- sugarazor, on 05/23/2008, -9/+14But your subdivision is a bit different than a compound where everyone follows the same wacky religion.
- joebrender, on 05/23/2008, -6/+15Did you hear that most of the "Underage" girls were actually adults? And that one was actually 29?
- BlacklabelSAR, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1The entire issue rests on this piece of information. Evil Police State or child-saving heroes? Total noodle-baker.
- utahnkid, on 05/23/2008, -2/+15See that's not true. Everyone thought it was and the raid was seen as a good thing but it turns out the VAST majority of women were at least 18, if not older. The reason it was out of line is because this sets a very scary precedence of what we'll put up with from our police. There are very good reasons we have such strict rules about the requirement of warrants and reasonable cause; basically so this exact thing doesnt happen..
It's almost kind of funny because if it had been as bad as they painted it, then the raid would have been smiled upon and no one would have questioned it but the whole thing fell apart making the police seem like a bunch of douche bags when they were just trying to help. - nmnnotmyname, on 05/23/2008, -2/+5Innocent until Proven Guilty.
If you do not like this, you really shouldn't be in the US. Yes, It does have problems. What would you suggest in place of it?- darkened, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately it's been replaced as guilty until proven innocent as this case primly shows.
- OutLawSuit, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Guilty until proven innocent rarely applies when law enforcement agencies believe children could be in danger.
- nmnnotmyname, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Letting emotions get in the way.
Sure, It has good intentions, but it causes bad problems.
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -1/+9"An arrest is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses"
- Justice William O. Douglas
Finding out that some of the children are underage and pregnant _after_ you take them, does not justify taking them. We have a great system in this country: You're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
Additionally, the fact that a teenager is pregnant is not proof of wrong doing. - IPublius, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2The raid was out of line. there are not that many pregnant, and of the two who gave birth, one was 24 and the other 22. They both have DLs and birth certificates to prove their age as well. One of these "children" was 27. CPS is lying and doing so egregiously. Not to mention the fact that it was illegal to begin with. It may be a messed up group, but for the most part they have not broken any laws.
What this really amounts to is thought police. - maz2331, on 05/24/2008, -0/+3Actually, the state and several officials have a major problem here. The women over 18 who were taken and detained as "juviniles" each now represents a false imprisonment and Federal civil rights count. These are MAJOR felonies - even in Texas. And being a cop isn't a pass on them either, since there is guaranteed to be a Fed someplace who just lives to enforce that statute.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -17/+38Your facts are incorrect.
- FearFactory, on 05/23/2008, -16/+10Wait until those elder 50 year old pimps get a hold of those 15-16 year olds. They are going to have twins and triplets. Expect their arrival around January 09. Joseph Smith would be proud.
- utahnkid, on 05/23/2008, -9/+6I'm almost positive you're just trolling, because it's hard to imagine someone as ignorant as that, but joseph smith wouldn't have been proud, the psychos that broke off and formed their own COMPLETELY SEPARATE religion would be.
- vegasbright, on 05/23/2008, -5/+5Um, utard, joseph Smith had sex with Fanny Alger, a 14 year old girl. I know you are brainwashed by mainstream mormonism to have an almost homoerotic reaction to joseph smith but you need to get over your afectation for the con man.
I did and I have never regretted it.- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5A lot of people move on... and some regret it, a lot do not. Same is true with any religion. Are you so conceeded as to think your personal experience in your previous religion is so different from that of any defector from any other religion?
Please. Stop your ridiculous online anti-mormon activisim. You're no different than anyone else who has left any other religion, and you haven't gained more truth, either. - utahnkid, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Grow up man. "utard"? are you kidding me? And what makes you think I'm even Mormon to begin with?
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5A lot of people move on... and some regret it, a lot do not. Same is true with any religion. Are you so conceeded as to think your personal experience in your previous religion is so different from that of any defector from any other religion?
- vegasbright, on 05/23/2008, -5/+5Um, utard, joseph Smith had sex with Fanny Alger, a 14 year old girl. I know you are brainwashed by mainstream mormonism to have an almost homoerotic reaction to joseph smith but you need to get over your afectation for the con man.
- utahnkid, on 05/23/2008, -9/+6I'm almost positive you're just trolling, because it's hard to imagine someone as ignorant as that, but joseph smith wouldn't have been proud, the psychos that broke off and formed their own COMPLETELY SEPARATE religion would be.
- carlvjack, on 05/23/2008, -4/+19I think Texas was just looking for a way to make them pack up and leave their state and go somewhere else.
- voteobama4, on 05/23/2008, -13/+21From the beginning, I thought the Texas government was using popular opinion to completely throw out the constitution in dealing with these people.
The public tends to have knee-jerk reaction to cases like this becuase they are so unusual and different. It is normal to hate or fear what we don't understand, and this is a perfect exampe. Sure, they might hold some beliefs that our different than ours, and they might even practice some things which most of us find immoral, but they still have rights.
Glad to see justice has been served.- chicofaraby, on 05/23/2008, -4/+6"they are so unusual and different"
Yes, raping children is "different."- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -1/+1Unfortunately, grouping people into derogatory categories without proof on each individual's guilt is not very “different” here at digg. Way to be a conformist though.
- chicofaraby, on 05/23/2008, -4/+6"they are so unusual and different"
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/23/2008, -11/+6Just glad the LDS sect didn't get all Waco. It could've been a lot worse. Besides, IF they had nothing to hide, IF they did nothing wrong to the innocent children, then they had nothing to worry about. The kids got a vacation away from Mom and Dad, watched some television, got to see the "outside" world, then went right back home. I thought the maneuver was rather ballsy, even for Texas.
- StarlessKnight, on 05/23/2008, -1/+12Wait, you're saying it's okay for the government to detain you, process you, find you're innocent, and then kick you back out into the public? Your flippant attitude suggests that's okay. 'Hey, if you're not actually guilty, who cares? It's like a vacation!' Yeah, remember when the Bush Administration held the same sentiment to Katrina victims? 'It's like a little camp out.' Brilliant.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -2/+4Are you serious?
If I didn't have a deep appreciate for the personal rights and liberties of people who live in the United States, I'd wish this had happened to you just so you could experience the great vacation the kids have.
P.S - You suck as a person.- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Sarcasm. Just think it's odd, don't you, that with them things DIDN'T spiral out of control... "ballsy even for Texas" think about it. This sort of police action occurs with greater frequency, under any administration. Just glad no one got shot.
- clynnc, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4Well, that's fantastic logic. Their kids were illegally taken away, but they shouldn't worry about if they weren't really doing anything bad. I guess those 17 wrongly convicted men should stop worrying about the decades of their lives they lost. They were eventually freed. It was like a vacation, huh?
- kirralin23, on 05/23/2008, -4/+4This is not the LDS sect it is the FLDS sect, two entirely different things. You may feel differently if it were your children who were getting a vacation from Mom and Dad. Television is not a vital part of growing up. And these children have not been returned home, there is still an appeal to be fought and it could then be appealed to higher courts. This could take a very long time, during which these children are separated, not just from parents, but from siblings as well. Many of these children will be abused in foster care.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Excellent reasoning. Next time I get detained by police officers (of course, not arrested), locked in a room, striped of my rights, I'll think of it as a vacation. Besides, I'm innocent, what do I have to worry about being locked up for half a year? They'll let me out eventually, right?
- rebotfc, on 05/23/2008, -7/+37Whether you like it or not it is a fact that underage girls were being systematically abused in this sect.
- clynnc, on 05/23/2008, -3/+6You're most likely right. But, there are still laws in place regarding the removal of children from their families. By their own actions, the authorities seriously damaged their chances of actually stopping the abuse.
- EntropyFan, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3I don't think so. As soon as the mothers (and the kids, for that matter) shut up, refusing to tell authorities who was married to whom, who's kid belonged to whom, they were pretty much aiding and abetting child abuse.
Once you start helping in the cover up of a felony, game over.
this will be overturned.
- EntropyFan, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3I don't think so. As soon as the mothers (and the kids, for that matter) shut up, refusing to tell authorities who was married to whom, who's kid belonged to whom, they were pretty much aiding and abetting child abuse.
- maliath, on 05/23/2008, -2/+3You're right, and I still think the original ruling was right. Those kids co-habitated in a *compound*. There WAS sufficient reason to believe that all the kids were in danger of the same abuse as other kids.
- talkingpidgin, on 05/23/2008, -4/+5That's purely speculative and that's the point. The only justification for believing this is that it's known that they behave out of the norm and it's not known to what extent they did so and that is an extraordinarily broken justification. To do so is to just assume the worst of anything you don't understand. You are entitled to do so on a personal level, that is if you are entirely conceited, but you can't enforce those principles socially, at least until you are elected as benevolent protector of societies morality and given the iron fist necessary to carry out that task.
- vidaliasweet, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2It's not just the girls. They like to have lots of available women so they throw the boys out into the streets. It's absoloutely heart wrenching. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_%28polygamy ...
- clynnc, on 05/23/2008, -3/+6You're most likely right. But, there are still laws in place regarding the removal of children from their families. By their own actions, the authorities seriously damaged their chances of actually stopping the abuse.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -21/+21Sure - And if there was abuse, and children in danger, we need to help those children. But there was no evidence, or reason to believe that all 400 children were in danger of abuse. You can't seize 400 chlidren and seperate them from their parents on the fear that *some of them might be in danger. That's not acceptable.
I live in a new sub division with 150 homes. It is likely that at least some of the children in my subdivision are being physically, emotionally, or sexually abused. Do you think the state should come and take all the children from 150 homes in my neighborhood, and place them in dangerous foster care?- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -6/+7No evidence? How about pregnant 15 year olds? Is that evidence? And your straw-man argument is easily dismissed: you did not live in communal homes with several wives in a secretive, gated compound.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -7/+5Oh no!! 15 Pregnant girls? We'd better seize all 400!
... And you call MY argument strawman?
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -7/+5Oh no!! 15 Pregnant girls? We'd better seize all 400!
- PolishLogic, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5Is your sub division made up of a closely knit collection of people that all believe in and practice what the law constitutes as underage sex?
- kevlarbaboon, on 05/23/2008, -4/+9You keep repeating yourself. How many comments do you need to make? Your argument is flat out stupid. If your subdivision had odd practices that constitute illegal activity it seems reasonable to further investigate the rest. Children were being abused and the government may have overstepped its bounds in terms of what it did. I don't think this is a sign of things to come, but rather an explanation on how seriously the government takes child abuse.
And it was 15 year old girls who were pregnant, not 15 pregnant girls, you ***** idiot. - MidnightRealism, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2Does everyone in your subdivision have access to everyone else's children? Do they all follow the same belief system? Are all of the children kept in the dark about the outside world and rendered totally unable to seek help?
You're absolutely disgusting for defending this.- pilot3033, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1calling someone else names does nothing to help your argument
- pilot3033, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1calling someone else names does nothing to help your argument
- str1fe, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1This kids didn't really know their parents. The way the commune was run, the kids didn't grow up knowing one person as "mom" or one person as "dad". They were raised by several women and will never know which one gave birth to them unless they are told the results of any DNA testing.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2Do you have a legitimate source that states this purported fact? Because I haven't heard it.
- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -6/+7No evidence? How about pregnant 15 year olds? Is that evidence? And your straw-man argument is easily dismissed: you did not live in communal homes with several wives in a secretive, gated compound.
- Hetman, on 05/23/2008, -14/+14I do not understand why polygamy is illegal. The government does not need to watch my mating habits. The sex with a minor is definatly a big concern though. Since they are unable to give concent because they are to young. But I agree with this decision. There was no proof that there was adults having sex with minors. So I do not see how the government can take your kids away from you without proof of wrong doing.
- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -6/+10once again: pregnant teenagers isn't proof? what else do you want as proof? videotapes?
- gurudrew, on 05/23/2008, -1/+10According to the CDC there were 757,000 teenage pregnancies in the US in 2002 (old data, but that's the government for you). I guess we need more foster homes if we plan to take them all away.
- VieRelative, on 05/23/2008, -2/+5I don't know I've seen a couple pregnant teenagers in my time. I guess there must something wrong with me, because I just assumed that the father was also underage.
But I guess you're right, the police should have placed all the kids in my school in foster care to "protect us".- Dragular, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Vie, that would be a valid point if the pregnant teenagers you'd seen hadn't been locked on a compound. It's not like they were roaming around having free lives full of sex sex sex like in an open world, they weren't allowed out of the compound, were basically constantly under supervision yet somehow ended up pregnant? Odd...
Also it just so happened to happen in a church run by Warren Jeffs, scum of the Earth and all.
- Dragular, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Vie, that would be a valid point if the pregnant teenagers you'd seen hadn't been locked on a compound. It's not like they were roaming around having free lives full of sex sex sex like in an open world, they weren't allowed out of the compound, were basically constantly under supervision yet somehow ended up pregnant? Odd...
- BabyWookie, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4I would be all for polygamy, if there were 5 or more women for every man out there. Do you know what happens to a lot of boys who live on these "compounds" after they hit puberty? One day, the elders accuse them of doing something bad, put them in a car and abandon them in the middle of some city to fend for themselves. Just getting rid of competition... These are "The Lost Boys" of polygamy. They have no idea how the real world works and end up homeless, doing drugs, turning tricks and other horrible *****.
- kingmanic, on 05/23/2008, -5/+2Polygamy (especially polygamy with minors) has a few marks against it:
1- Complicates inheritance and the laws surrounding it
2- It's been fairly taboo in mainline Christianity
3- It riles up various groups (Feminists, The religious right, the child protectionists)- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/23/2008, -1/+6So then we should get women to cover up their bodies and heads because it makes certain societies angry when they show skin.
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -0/+3Your argument reminds me of the days of pro-segregation argumentation.
Desegregation has a few marks against it:
1- Complicates equality laws
2- It's been supported by white Christians.
3- It will rile up various groups (white people).
1 in both arguments is a ***** argument because equality is of greater importance than complication. Just because something is complicated doesn't mean we should not address inequality.
2-3 arguments are totally subjective morality nonsense/opinion that should not be pressed on other people who are causing zero harm to others.
- kirralin23, on 05/23/2008, -2/+6At least there was no proof that adults were having sex with 400+ minors. Only those who were clearly in imminent danger should have been taken.
- dcmjzero, on 05/23/2008, -6/+10once again: pregnant teenagers isn't proof? what else do you want as proof? videotapes?
- pablo0713, on 05/23/2008, -20/+24This was purely an attack against a group who decided to live differently from the non-standard norms of an American family. It sickens me that the MSM reported the possibility of these people having to give up their way of life and go live in sterile segregated and isolated suburban homes in exchange for getting their children back. I'm not religious. I think religion is nuts but something must be said about community. Where I live, I don't know a single soul. I live in an apartment complex and I don't talk to a single person. These people have something special in community. They might be weird looking but at least they've got each other which is probably the most valuable asset that they own and I'm glad to see they fought against the system even to the point of giving up their children in order to maintain their way of life.
- voteobama4, on 05/23/2008, -2/+7Well said. I think a lot of people confuse what is illegal with what is immoral.
- darkened, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4And people bury you? WTF, dugg for sanity.
- BabyWookie, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Do you support the Manson Family too?
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2Do you like to spout red herrings that involve false dichotomies?
- voteobama4, on 05/23/2008, -2/+7Well said. I think a lot of people confuse what is illegal with what is immoral.
- lsu123, on 05/23/2008, -6/+26Were the authorities trying to act in the best interest of the children - I believe so.
Did they go about it in the best way possible - no.
Comparing them to a lynch mob - that's a stretch at best.- hakamanakus, on 05/23/2008, -2/+5Sounds like definition of a lynch mob to me.
- lsu123, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3Searching 'lynch mob' in wikipedia produces:
**Lynching, an enumerated felony in some states in the United States, is defined by some codes of law as "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person which results in the death of the person," with a 'mob' being defined as "the assemblage of two or more persons, without color or authority of law, for the premeditated purpose and with the premeditated intent of committing an act of violence upon the person of another."**
Like I inferred...does not apply. - rendersan, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2So the difference between this and a lynch mob is that (1) nobody died and (2) everything done was carried out by law enforcement (though the courts are now ruling that it was done improperly).
Apart from the death, the actions committed seem to be those of a mob, though they were not carried out by an actual mob.
- moulin1, on 05/23/2008, -6/+10Unfortunately, it is the nature of illegal police actions ordered by politicians that it is the action itself that is the intended punishment, not the subsequent court procedings. A vague or flimsy excuse is offered, people are handcuffed and detained, children are removed from their parents. Afterwards the authorities can say oops our mistake. The damage is already done. And that was the plan all along. David Koresh doesn't seem so crazy after all.
- jonmlm, on 05/23/2008, -5/+21um. so senior citizens didn't impregnate 13 year old girls in that compound?
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -10/+6Yep - There is absolutely no evidence that that has occured at this point at all. Any evidence to the contrary has been redacted by the state. Keep up on your facts.
- BabyWookie, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2Like there's no evidence that Michael Jackson diddles little boys.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -10/+6Yep - There is absolutely no evidence that that has occured at this point at all. Any evidence to the contrary has been redacted by the state. Keep up on your facts.
- Kisama, on 05/23/2008, -7/+44Buried for stupidity. I live right up the road from them. They have rights, yes, but when that many underage girls come up pregnant, the community has shown itself incapable of caring for them properly.
- URnotheonly1, on 05/23/2008, -4/+9The law uses its power like this everyday in America. I know, it's hard to admit, but people are railroaded into the systems everyday. We have lost perspective in America, we have thrown the baby out with the bath water to many times. We jumped off that slippery slop decades ago
- lsumed, on 05/23/2008, -4/+11When the story first broke, I knew the raid was probably illegal. You have to follow the law. Somebody clearly didn't do their job here.
- jpmulli, on 05/23/2008, -1/+0Yes...and it was the Texas Court of Appeals!
- legendxx, on 05/23/2008, -10/+17When the church of a religion has beds on the top floor for old men to have sex with 13 year old girls I don't care if the raid was legal or not.
- talkingpidgin, on 05/23/2008, -4/+5cite your source. A statement with such matter of fact could not possible be speculative. Have you considered contacting the authorities about this fact they apparently weren't aware of?
- legendxx, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/18/polygamy.custo ...
"At least one bed found inside a temple that was allegedly used to consummate such marriages immediately after the ceremony."
Everyone and their mother, who has followed this story in any amount, is aware of this fact.- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -1/+2The key word here is allegedly. You stated the claim as fact and this source does not support your claim. Thanks for trying.
- legendxx, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/18/polygamy.custo ...
- telepheedian, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1We have laws for a reason, disregard the law and they could raid you if they wanted to.
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1When legendxx has internet access to spout stupid ass remarks, I don't care if the police shooting was legal or not.
- talkingpidgin, on 05/23/2008, -4/+5cite your source. A statement with such matter of fact could not possible be speculative. Have you considered contacting the authorities about this fact they apparently weren't aware of?
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -7/+12This whole situation was more "OMG, think of the children!" hysterics that has gripped this country over the past decade.
- Dragular, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1So wait who the ***** are we SUPPOSED to think of in sexual abuse cases?
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Provide evidence of the sexual abuse. I thought this was a country where you're innocent before proven guilty, not the inverse?
They had these children in custody for quite some time, and CPS couldn't produce one bit of evidence of child abuse? After all the fraudulent cases of child abuse with CPS, they couldn't even make something up?
- deadlyfluvirus, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Provide evidence of the sexual abuse. I thought this was a country where you're innocent before proven guilty, not the inverse?
- Dragular, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1So wait who the ***** are we SUPPOSED to think of in sexual abuse cases?
- txinfo, on 05/23/2008, -11/+32What the hell is wrong with you people?
These people were FORCING underage girls to marry men three or four or five times their age.
So the hell what if the way they got these kids out of there was not handled properly. The only thing that matters is that they did get them out of there.
And all of these people who are saying that they should just be allowed to live in peace and that they were not hurting anyone: *****!!!!! They were destroying the lives of these kids... I say all the more power to the state and I applaud them for taking the actions that no one else had the courage to take...- Hetman, on 05/23/2008, -10/+13Please give me proof that this is what was happening. It is called innocent before proven guilty for a reason. I
- VieRelative, on 05/23/2008, -1/+6The innocent before proven guilty mantra does not prevent the police from executing warrants and putting people under arrest.
However, in this case, the judge has ruled that they certainly didn't have enough evidence to take away 400 children from their parents.
I doubt that all the parents in this case are unfit (consider that KFed is legally fit to be a father). Though most are probably guilty of looking away from some of the things that happen in their community. But, so do most people.
- VieRelative, on 05/23/2008, -1/+6The innocent before proven guilty mantra does not prevent the police from executing warrants and putting people under arrest.
- mikeyellenlee, on 05/23/2008, -5/+4***** hetmen, i completely agree with you txinfo.
- headzoo, on 05/23/2008, -2/+12The government doesn't have the right to take _all_ of the children just because _some_ of them _may_ have been abused.
It's funny that I see people on Digg complaining that we're loosing our rights in this country, and then those same people think this whole debacle was justified. - scamper22, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Alright, the question you should be asking yourself is
If these kids were being abused, don't you think there are legal ways of going about it.
Why did the authorities choose the illegal way of doing things?
You find the guilty ones, launch an investigation into the cult, get proper warrants... You don't just ram through a neighborhood rounding up children and taking them away from their parents. You can call the world this sect lived in a sick world. But the government round up 400 kids like that is not a world I want to live in either.
- Hetman, on 05/23/2008, -10/+13Please give me proof that this is what was happening. It is called innocent before proven guilty for a reason. I
- SaladCactusKing, on 05/23/2008, -4/+18I'm of two feelings with this. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that children and teens were being sexually abused, no doubt at all. But to do a mass sweep and collection based on a dubious phone call? That's not right. The government should've used real evidence to get these kids to safety. Had they used the right channels, this mess would never have happened and the kids would be away from those fundy nutballs.
- Suricou, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4Yes, there is a lot of proof of abuse *now* - the many, many pregnencies alone are proof of widespread abuse, and I am sure there is more beyond that. But this evidence is collected as a *result* of forceibly breaking up the community and seperating the children from their families so they could be given a medical examination and questioning. The police launched the raid because they were fairly confident from local rumor and an informing phone call that child abuse was taking place, but they didn't have any real proof at the time, and couldn't possibly get proof by other means. It's a circular problem - the aggressive raid is justified only by the evidence that it produces afterwards.
It would also be near-impossible to collect evidence by any other means. Remember how isolated this community is. The children *never* leave the compound, and are taught to fear outsiders, so they can't be questioned. I don't imagine they use phones for communication within the compound - why? - so phone taps are of no use. The adults are all very suspicious of the outside world and well aware of what would happen were they to say anything to the police - not just the threat of legal action, but of punishment from the compound leadership. The children would even have given birth within the compound - that must be the case, or hospitals would have had to report the suspicious pregnency. It's a community so isolated that it cannot be infiltrated, or monitored by any means short of breaking in and planting bugs - a method which is of dubious legality itsself, even with a warrant.- SaladCactusKing, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Undercover cops going into deep cover as members of the cult wouldve been the best option.
- Suricou, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Because an isolationist cult is going to let someone just walk in and live in their compound? It would take a perfect cover story, and even with that building up enough trust to be allowed in would take months. If it works at all - I am not an expert on FCLS theology, but I think they might be a cult that doesn't accept new members from outside at all.
- SaladCactusKing, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Undercover cops going into deep cover as members of the cult wouldve been the best option.
- Suricou, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4Yes, there is a lot of proof of abuse *now* - the many, many pregnencies alone are proof of widespread abuse, and I am sure there is more beyond that. But this evidence is collected as a *result* of forceibly breaking up the community and seperating the children from their families so they could be given a medical examination and questioning. The police launched the raid because they were fairly confident from local rumor and an informing phone call that child abuse was taking place, but they didn't have any real proof at the time, and couldn't possibly get proof by other means. It's a circular problem - the aggressive raid is justified only by the evidence that it produces afterwards.
- jdigg06, on 05/23/2008, -4/+11Still does NOT make it right that these people were exploiting under-aged children, forcing under-aged marriages, committing sex with minors, and lying about it to the world. They were breaking the law and should be punished.
I won't even dive into the polygamy issue - it was what was done do these poor undeserving children. That's an entirely different moral issue there... - wynja, on 05/23/2008, -0/+18Look people, this is all legal maneuvering. It is know that girls as young as 14 have been married to men as old as 50 in this cult (yes, it's a cult. The Church of Latter Day Saints denounced polygamy years ago). These same girls are then forced to start producing children for their masters.
Now, we all know that the state of TX has a history of overreacting to cults. The appeals judge has only stated that the state was out of bounds with the way in which the children where removed from their families. That does not make what the children are made to go through right.- mahdaeng, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1[[The removal of the children at th Texas Polygamist Compound is the latest example of knee jerk panic leading to mass violations of human and constitutional rights.]]
And furthermore, this article is about the FLDS church, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.- wynja, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1The FLDS church is a branch off of the Church of Latter Day Saints, or have you forgotten that the Church of Latter Day Saint's late great founder was also a polygamist? Which BTW is the main difference between the FLDS and Church of Latter Day Saints. The FLDS believe that the Later Day Saint was right in establishing polygamy.
- mahdaeng, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1[[The FLDS church is a branch off of the Church of Latter Day Saints]
The FLDS church broke away from the LDS church, they are not a "branch" of it. Furthermore, the LDS church is not called "The Church of Latter-Day Saints", but rather "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". Someone who claims to know so much about their history should at least get the name right.
[[have you forgotten that the Church of Latter Day Saint's late great founder was also a polygamist?]]
Uh, no, I have not forgotten. I thought everybody knew that, in fact. Have you forgotten when polygamy was abolished in the LDS church? In case you have, it was more than 100 years ago.
[[Which BTW is the main difference between the FLDS and Church of Latter Day Saints. The FLDS believe that the Later Day Saint was right in establishing polygamy.]]
Wrong. The LDS church also believes that it was right in establishing polygamy when it did. However, it also believes it was right in abolishing it when it did. The FLDS church believes that the LDS church was wrong to abolish polygamy. They also rejected the leader of the LDS church and established their own. There are actually very many differences between the two churches.
- mahdaeng, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1[[The FLDS church is a branch off of the Church of Latter Day Saints]
- wynja, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1The FLDS church is a branch off of the Church of Latter Day Saints, or have you forgotten that the Church of Latter Day Saint's late great founder was also a polygamist? Which BTW is the main difference between the FLDS and Church of Latter Day Saints. The FLDS believe that the Later Day Saint was right in establishing polygamy.
- mahdaeng, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1[[The removal of the children at th Texas Polygamist Compound is the latest example of knee jerk panic leading to mass violations of human and constitutional rights.]]
- PolishLogic, on 05/23/2008, -2/+7Wow, such a different take than the comments from other stories about this. Where are all the "sick bastards", "church of pedos" comments that were flooding other submissions a month ago?
I still think it was justified considering a large number of 12-15 year old girls had evidence of past or present pregnancy.
I guess the lesson here is to make sure you're not in too much of a rush when dealing with any instance of child sex or child abuse. - Suzilla, on 05/23/2008, -4/+6Good to know that the FLDS folk can go right on f--king one another's (girl) children with impunity, now.
- URnotheonly1, on 05/23/2008, -2/+4I just want due process. Texas CPS like the ones here need to have checked authority. Dam good reasons and proof of those reasons. I have tired of the " WELL WE THINK" justice that has over taken America for the last couple of decades.
In other words; Government should have to "prove *****"
- URnotheonly1, on 05/23/2008, -2/+4I just want due process. Texas CPS like the ones here need to have checked authority. Dam good reasons and proof of those reasons. I have tired of the " WELL WE THINK" justice that has over taken America for the last couple of decades.
- tramblings, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2I think the most important issue here isn't the rights of the polygamists but rather all the underage girls that were forced into marriage. I feel like people are spending their time defending the rights of the polygamists when it's clear they had set up a system to exploit others for their sexual gratification. I'm all for getting the children out of there and locking the leaders up for statutory rape and whatever other charges can be brought. I'm sure the legal system in Texas knew for years that girls were being systematically raped in the compound. It's too bad they didn't bring them down sooner.
- fani, on 05/23/2008, -3/+10So much for Innocent until proven guilty. At least the texas lower court has ruled positively on the illegal raid.
Hopefully, we're letting the families get back to their lives while being aware that there are people preying on kids in the FDLS ranch and catching them. - sgtpppr, on 05/23/2008, -2/+10Funny that so many people here are now condemning the raids. The same people that were part of the lynch mob when it happened... I guess hind sight is 20/20. They raided the place based on a single phone call from a source they can't track down. Basically, they took one anonymous person's word for it and took more than 400 kids into custody.
- Suricou, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2I doubt the local law would do that - it seems more plausable to me that they had suspicions - probably local rumors circulating, dubious reports, strange observations - but nothing that they could use to take action. Then they got a phone call, which was just the pretext they needed - they could use it to launch the raid, and from the raid collect the proof of child abuse they wanted
- Brainclone, on 05/23/2008, -10/+7Check the age of consent in your state:
http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm
Utah marriage age is 15:
http://www.utcourts.gov/howto/marriage/
Here is utah law:
http://www.moraloutrage.net/staticpages/index.php? ...
Get out of this dilemna by helping change the laws...- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4... this didn't happen in Utah, it happened in Texas.
- mahdaeng, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2And Utah law has to do with this story, how?
- wishninja, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2I agree 100% these laws need some standardization. What other law can someone be legal in one state but cross the imaginary line and you are facing life in prison.
It is only serious abuse in Texas? but mental capacity to consent increases or decreases when you move to another state?
- Tokyosexwhale, on 05/23/2008, -4/+5Am I the only person from Texas on here who read that headline and felt a little bit of pride? I thought it was going to be some cool article about how in Texas, they don't mess around and can just call up posse's on you. But instead it's a humanitarian article, oh well.
- drmobutu, on 05/23/2008, -2/+7This whole thing could end up backfiring, and opening the door for widespread, mainstream Christian polygamy.
- kingmanic, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3Hope not. Hard enough to find a good GF/Fiancee/Wife. Now we have to compete to find more? Also without a huge shift in the sex ratios or allowing X men + Y women unions your going to have a lot of single and disgruntled young men like much of the polygamist parts of the middle east and africa.
- drmobutu, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2The way it works is: you contract for your GF/Finance/Wife with other members of your church...their daughter becomes your wife, and when the time comes, you return the favor.
So, what to do with the all disgruntled single young men, then? Conscription...send them off to fight foreign wars of occupation...it's win-win, for the faithful...
- drmobutu, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2The way it works is: you contract for your GF/Finance/Wife with other members of your church...their daughter becomes your wife, and when the time comes, you return the favor.
- Suricou, on 05/23/2008, -0/+6I have enjoyed watching the conflict in some conservatives - they want to condemn pedophilia and polygamy very strongly, but they also believe religious freedom means church doctrine must be above the law. This puts them in a difficult situation: If they support the ranch, they appear to be supporting polygamy and pedophilia. If they support the authorities, they are supporting the government in surpressing a religious belief and ceremony.
The most common response it to say that polygamy and pedophilia are completly unacceptable, but then to also say that the state exceeded it's authority on an anti-Christian witchhunt without evidence.
- kingmanic, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3Hope not. Hard enough to find a good GF/Fiancee/Wife. Now we have to compete to find more? Also without a huge shift in the sex ratios or allowing X men + Y women unions your going to have a lot of single and disgruntled young men like much of the polygamist parts of the middle east and africa.
- BryanG412, on 05/23/2008, -5/+11You know what this is *****, a large number of the female children were either pregnant or had been pregnant at one time. This is a cult infringing the rights of the people it controls, especially those who have unsuccessfully tried to leave. I understand that they all have rights but they have broken the law, children were molested in raped. There is no knee jerk about that.
- mahdaeng, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Oh, I see. So you have have proof that every member of this cult is guilty as charged?
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2Screw proof, BryanG412 is just another member of the lynch mob going with the group mentality.
- mahdaeng, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Oh, I see. So you have have proof that every member of this cult is guilty as charged?
- isparadiselost, on 05/23/2008, -8/+3If you own an AR-15, this is your ticket: http://www.awcsystech.com/raider.html With some slight mods it'll work on a Ruger 10/22 as well.
It's interesting to read the comments. Many are based solely on the ***** fed them by the MSM. I'm guessing the majority are by those who aren't parents.
It's time to take our country back from the rogues who view us as their chattel. Once we start giving them new breathing holes, they should think twice. It's even better when it's completely silent and they just see their partner drop. I'm fed up with this Police State and have full intentions of defending both my home and my family with extreme prejudice. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. ***** with us and it's bodybag time.- Suzilla, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3I think you missed the point.
This isn't about police intrusion into otherwise innocent goings on of a cloistered religious group. It's about older men having their way with young girls. That is, it's about the strong preying on the week.
You seem to be against that sort of behavior, judging by your views on the so-called Police State. I think once you become more familiar with the facts and issues involved, here, you might view this differently.- isparadiselost, on 05/24/2008, -0/+0I think you missed the point. This is totally about police intrusion.
So, it's OK if someone who is pissed off at you calls the cops and tells them you are a heroin dealer. You are sitting there watching American Idol and next thing you know, your front door is nothing but splinters and you've got a .40 pressed against your head and one pressed against the head of each family member.
No biggie. That's what freedom is all about. I know it sucks ***** your pants and having your kids scarred for life thanks to our "protectors" but they're just following orders right?
I honestly don't know why I even bother any more. You people love your slavery and have no intentions of waking up and taking back the freedom bestowed upon you.
Take your blue pill and R.I.P.
- isparadiselost, on 05/24/2008, -0/+0I think you missed the point. This is totally about police intrusion.
- BabyWookie, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Hey. I have a question for you:
When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading Guns & Ammo, masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how ***** crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?
By the way, if this trully is a "Police State", after what you just said, you should be expecting DHS kicking in your door any minute now. It's not going to happen though. The real terror, tyranny and brain-washing is what these kids are subjected regularly on these ***** compounds.- isparadiselost, on 05/24/2008, -1/+0The fact that I even respond to your post is proof of my insanity. It felt like I lost no less than 10 IQ points just reading your gibberish. Why don't you re-read what you sent me and take a moment or two to spell and grammar check it?
It must hurt to be as stupid as you. If it doesn't, it should.- BabyWookie, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Yes, Mr. Cunning Linguist, I misspelled "truly" and "...what these kids are subjected regularly on..." should be "...what these kids are subjected to regularly on...", but otherwise, I think that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Though, considering that you openly advocate killing police officers with illegal weapons on a public forum, that's the least of your problems.
- isparadiselost, on 05/24/2008, -1/+0The fact that I even respond to your post is proof of my insanity. It felt like I lost no less than 10 IQ points just reading your gibberish. Why don't you re-read what you sent me and take a moment or two to spell and grammar check it?
- Suzilla, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3I think you missed the point.
- trollick, on 05/23/2008, -6/+13God forbid we stop bunch of perverts from having sex with 10 year old girls.
- pintomp3, on 05/23/2008, -3/+4allegedly they are carrying out god's will.
- Chronoped, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2god just needs to find a nice older woman
- jocknerd, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2They went about it wrong though. Don't remove the children. Remove the men. Arrest their asses.
- pintomp3, on 05/23/2008, -3/+4allegedly they are carrying out god's will.
- Mandragon03, on 05/23/2008, -5/+12I am pretty sure no one in their right mind thinks it is ok for under aged girls to be having the children of old men who claim them as their wives. But this whole thing was a clear case of the government over stepping their authority. Imagine the government coming in to your home and taking your kids because your neighbor is allowing their own children to be sexually abused... WTF?
This should have been done on a case by case basis. Anyone who thinks this was ok is sitting pretty high on the hog... - Physicsmazz, on 05/23/2008, -6/+1Steers 'n Queers.
- mikeyellenlee, on 05/23/2008, -5/+6But all those brainwashed people are alright with old men marrying and having sex with their CHILDREN. This is not right, and when you pull ***** like that you should be stripped clean of your rights.
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -1/+1When you post stupid comments on the internet, you should be "stripped clean of your rights."
- mikeyellenlee, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1And who the hell are you? A coward that has nothing better to do then try and insult people that you will never see face to face? If you agree with this kind of behavior, you're pathetic and you need help. Have a horrible day, you worthless piece of *****.
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -1/+1When you post stupid comments on the internet, you should be "stripped clean of your rights."
- Kyrgizion, on 05/23/2008, -5/+13Yeah, so when there's some cult (whether they call themselves a religion doesn't matter to me, a cult is a cult) raping kids (because that is essentially what WAS going on), we should just let them continue "because they have rights you know".
Also the fact that the kids didn't know any better isn't an excuse. Ask how Natascha Kampusch or Elizabeth Fritzl felt after their ordeal.- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -3/+3Innocent until proven guilty. There is STILL no substantial evidence that any crime was being committed. And before you start going in to "31 pregnant minors!"... read the latest news. Most of that evidence has been redacted by the state.
- Suzilla, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2You do understand that "redacted" is not the same thing as "retracted", right? Just means that they have blocked out or removed information from the PUBLIC record that would tend to identify the minors. Since this information would otherwise be in the public record, it could prove embarassing and maybe even harmful to them later on.
- jameskong15, on 05/24/2008, -1/+1I'll tell you what would prove embarrassing; claiming you have 31 pregnant minors, finding out 15+ of them were not minors, and then "redacting" the proof of your failure so the public won't be able to shove it in your face.
- Suzilla, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2You do understand that "redacted" is not the same thing as "retracted", right? Just means that they have blocked out or removed information from the PUBLIC record that would tend to identify the minors. Since this information would otherwise be in the public record, it could prove embarassing and maybe even harmful to them later on.
- Wiini, on 05/23/2008, -3/+3Innocent until proven guilty. There is STILL no substantial evidence that any crime was being committed. And before you start going in to "31 pregnant minors!"... read the latest news. Most of that evidence has been redacted by the state.
- bohemianwatcher, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4It doesn't matter if these people are right or wrong. Without Probable Cause, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter if they found anything illegal. Do you want the government to be able to walk into your house for no reason and tear your life apart for something you believe? I know i don't.
- bigfruitbasket, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Bet the FLDS regrets going to Texas. Perhaps the state can make the FLDS an offer--get out and we'll forget the whole thing. Cause you don't mess with Texas.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
