Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening...

[Nina]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

By the way, what happens to the baby BOYS that are born in these groups? Are they ejected from the group in their teens because of the competition they represent to the older men?
(Not unlike young bull elephants being thrown out of a heard by the older males to form their own groups.)
And doesn't this lifestyle break down when you consider that most men won't have ANY wives (or "A" wife) if a select few get them all?

Brother,

Read it and weep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy

Nina

[Nina]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

In the case of the FLDS community I can see those specific cases of abuse calling for removal of those specific children from their parents with a full investigation following. But what we're seeing is the government rounding up all their children and separating them from all their parents, even in cases where there hasn't been any confirmed or alleged abuse. Certainly not all the children involved have been abused, in addition certainly not every parent has arranged an underage marriage. I can see investigating and taking action in those confirmed cases of abuse...but to take every child in the community from their parents is just crazy to me.


Why not only take those individuals and children involved in the confirmed abuse cases and leave those children and parents where no abuse is present alone?

Just some questions and concerns I have. God bless.

Brother,

How else are they going to protect these children?

They are so interrelated and evasive about who is who.

This is probably the only way to get to the truth of the reported abuse.

Think about it,
No records of birth in many cases.

DNA is probably the only thing that will sort them all out IF it is allowed.

Nina

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by Ron

And while I wouldn't want "ANY" child to be abused-"EVER" I would love to see there be a basis in proof for the authorities to step in.

I guess I am basing it on my experience in Canada where because of past cases it is shoot first-question later & more often then not it has caused problems & created a nightmare before the parents can be reunited!

I am sorry to offend anyone but I believe the burden of proof rests with the state & not with the burden of defense resting with families!

Just wanted to share with you a story about what can happen when CPS isn't vigilant, I have a cousin that stood by while her husband abused her child, to the point that when the baby was 6 weeks old, he choked him to death with a wad of toilet paper shoved down his throat, (he was tired of him crying.)

This child had multiple fractures in various stages of healing, again, he was 6 weeks old. My cousin had already had two children permanently removed from her, in my opinion, CPS should have been breathing down her neck.

CPS is in the position of being vilified if they do act, and vilified if they don't. If we had seen the girl that made the original accusations on the news, and she said that she had called for help and no one acted on it and told of the many children who were being abused in the compound, IMO, everyone of us would outraged and calling for the blood of the TX authorities. IMO.

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Ron

And while I wouldn't want "ANY" child to be abused-"EVER" I would love to see there be a basis in proof for the authorities to step in.

I guess I am basing it on my experience in Canada where because of past cases it is shoot first-question later & more often then not it has caused problems & created a nightmare before the parents can be reunited!

I am sorry to offend anyone but I believe the burden of proof rests with the state & not with the burden of defense resting with families!

I would imagine that CPS would try to make sure that they are following all their P's and Q's to the letter. From everything that I've heard so far, I think they've been extremely careful to make sure everything they do is done correctly. They can't risk making a mistake and have everything thrown out.

Yesterday they announced that one of the sheriffs, or CPS officers, (I'm not positive which) who went to check out the allegations of the 911 call from 'Sarah' had taken the stand to testify as to what 'proof' she had witnessed. She was able to question a schoolroom full of children if they knew a 16-year old, pregnant girl named Sarah, and several told her, 'yes, they knew of her'. Yet the adults have denied knowing any Sarah that fits that profile.

The girl has yet to be identified, though Voss said a girl matching her description was seen by other girls in the ranch garden four days before the raid began.

I'm sure that was all they needed to be able to go in and find Sarah.

Instead of finding Sarah, they find several pregnant minors. They did the right thing. And have the proof to back it up.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

Rico, I can't get over it because one of our churches may be next...

If and when it happens to one of our churches, we'll cross that bridge. There is no sense in worrying about things that haven't happened yet.

You came on here saying we were gossiping, etc. We are doing no such thing. We are discussing a current event and its different aspects. The consensus among us is that it's wrong for an older man to be married, spiritually or otherwise, to such young girls.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

I thought Tish threw that thing in the street for the snow plow to take care of???

KRISTEN!!! He's at it again!!!!

I made that cradle with my two hands... do you really think I would let it be destroyed??


Kristin is not allowed to talk to strangers.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Kae

Your perception of what goes on in this group I think is a little idealistic. This isn't like the Amish where they don't want to go forward, but want to stay back in time due to preserving family values. What you have described reminds me of the Amish community I used to live in. What is going on in that compound is totally different.

I'm sure that life inside this compound is different from the Amish. However, I don't think that things are so bad that I'm willing to believe everything people are saying. Some have argued that these people have killed and buried babies.

These children are brought up by different women not just their mothers

.

And? Many kids of grandmothers as primary guardians for quite a while, sometimes aunts and older sisters help raise children. You might say, "But they're blood." True, however these children don't have any extended family but these women. Most children in America are also raised in daycare (with multiple care givers) and have babysitters. I don't see this as a major issue as long as these children are still in the primary care and supervision of their own mothers. In my opinion it's simply an issue of communal living. We'd see similar parenting strategies in some African villages.

They don't have a family life that is normal.

LOL Define "normal". Normal according to whom? As I said before some communities in Africa would use communal parenting strategies. In addition this was even common in biblical times.

If a women decides to leave this compound she can do so, but can't take her children with her.

This is a valid issue concerning their religious culture that you and I agree upon as being over the top.

There is no love in this type of lifestyle it is fear and control. This is a cult that people are kept out of for a reason.

I do believe that there is excessive fear and control going on here. However, these are grown women who are willingly submitting to this. There is a degree of personal responsibility here. If they wanted to leave they have to know that they could. They also have to know that they could file suit in court to regain their children. Yes, there is a degree of control, but personal responsibility has to be a factor. My grandmother said that the church I attended when I was first saved was void of love and functioned on cultic fear and control.

I don't doubt that some young women were abused. I believe the police need to take action in these cases. They have no reason to take children from parents who committed no crime. It' not a crime for consenting adults to choose whatever living arrangement they prefer. It's also not a crime to engage in communal living. Also it isn't a crime to share parenting responsibilities. We have to address those specific cases where a crime was committed...but we can't use this as justification to persecute an entire community just because we don't agree with their religion, parenting styles, chosen living arrangements, or think their ways are abnormal as compared to our own.

Some people are so excited over using government to police these people, I'm surprised they haven't even been accused of cannibalism yet.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Just wanted to share with you a story about what can happen when CPS isn't vigilant, I have a cousin that stood by while her husband abused her child, to the point that when the baby was 6 weeks old, he choked him to death with a wad of toilet paper shoved down his throat, (he was tired of him crying.)

This child had multiple fractures in various stages of healing, again, he was 6 weeks old. My cousin had already had two children permanently removed from her, in my opinion, CPS should have been breathing down her neck.

CPS is in the position of being vilified if they do act, and vilified if they don't. If we had seen the girl that made the original accusations on the news, and she said that she had called for help and no one acted on it and told of the many children who were being abused in the compound, IMO, everyone of us would outraged and calling for the blood of the TX authorities. IMO.

Dizzy, the way I see it is we have to choose how much power CPS should be allowed to have in our society. Do we want the government able to intrude, separate, and prosecute families forcing them to prove they are innocent? Or do we want to require CPS to have substantial evidence of abuse before acting to protect families from unjust accusations? We're going to have to accept that each choice comes with pros and cons. The first choice would allow CPS to work quickly to protect children...the con is that innocent families can be put their the ringer and even law abiding parents could loose custody because they can't exonerate themselves of an accusation. The second choice would protect innocent families from much heartache stemming from a false accusation... but the con is that CPS may not be able to move in as quickly.

What matters most to us parental rights or the perceived welfare of the children?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

I would imagine that CPS would try to make sure that they are following all their P's and Q's to the letter. From everything that I've heard so far, I think they've been extremely careful to make sure everything they do is done correctly. They can't risk making a mistake and have everything thrown out.

Yesterday they announced that one of the sheriffs, or CPS officers, (I'm not positive which) who went to check out the allegations of the 911 call from 'Sarah' had taken the stand to testify as to what 'proof' she had witnessed. She was able to question a schoolroom full of children if they knew a 16-year old, pregnant girl named Sarah, and several told her, 'yes, they knew of her'. Yet the adults have denied knowing any Sarah that fits that profile.



I'm sure that was all they needed to be able to go in and find Sarah.

Instead of finding Sarah, they find several pregnant minors. They did the right thing. And have the proof to back it up.

Certainly those who can be charged with abuse should be charged. But what about those kids and parents where abuse wasn't a factor? Do we allow the state to take their kids because we don't like their religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

... We have to address those specific cases where a crime was committed...but we can't use this as justification to persecute an entire community just because we don't agree with their religion, parenting styles, chosen living arrangements, or think their ways are abnormal as compared to our own.

Some people are so excited over using government to police these people, I'm surprised they haven't even been accused of cannibalism yet.

It is an interesting case for seeing how far the state should be allowed to dictate what is "normal" and "right." But since the criminal elements are clearly interwoven within the cultural elements, I think it would be hard for the state to simply pull "the criminals" and their "victims" out from the community without destroying the community.

And, when the state went in they were met with opposition that sought to confuse the already confusing parent-child relationships. How do you remove the "victim" and prosecute the "criminal" without a full accounting of who is bedding whom and what child was the result? It seems the state found such a tangled knot that they simply pulled out the whole ball of yarn.

There are clear genetic reasons for avoiding first cousins from marrying and for keeping uncles from marrying their related neices. The state ( you and me ) have an interest in this.