Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening...

[Rico]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't think we should stand by and allow children to be abused simply because we're afraid our own rights will be immediately or eventually infringed.

Religious freedom: Yes. Freedom to commit crimes: No.

The right thing to do, if polygamy is what they want to practice, would be to press legislation to legalize it.

But it's ok to stand by and say nothing when the government decides to punish innocent people because of the actions of others?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Rico

But it's ok to stand by and say nothing when the government decides to punish innocent people because of the actions of others?

I don't believe any are innocent that LIVE at the compound. They are endorsing the behaviour.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't believe any are innocent that LIVE at the compound. They are endorsing the behaviour.

Sister, if you keep this up I am going to have to resurrect the HOGWASH award. Don't make me have to resort to such drastic measures!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Rico

Sister, if you keep this up I am going to have to resurrect the HOGWASH award. Don't make me have to resort to such drastic measures!!

LOL! I'll just skip on down the street with it. It's my opinion and I am not likely to change that.

If they want to live that way then move to another state. We don't want it here!

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Rico

But it's ok to stand by and say nothing when the government decides to punish innocent people because of the actions of others?

I'm not in agreement with removing children from their mothers unnecessarily, which I've already stated. I am in agreement with the state for taking some action. Unfortunately the programs in place to deal with the children and mothers is flawed at best, and that's the main source of my worries. If these kids were going into capable hands or into a community environment, which they're obviously accustomed to, with as many family members present (sisters, brothers, mothers) as possible, I wouldn't be nearly as horrified.

I'm not particularly interested in the "rights" of women who knowingly allow young women and children in their care to be coerced into marriages, pregnancy and a lifestyle they lack to capacity to freely choose, which undermines their whining about religious freedom at its core.

And I have no intention of standing by and saying nothing about what the government does. My first statement is with my vote.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm not in agreement with removing children from their mothers unnecessarily, which I've already stated. I am in agreement with the state for taking some action. Unfortunately the programs in place to deal with the children and mothers is flawed at best, and that's the main source of my worries. If these kids were going into capable hands or into a community environment, which they're obviously accustomed to, with as many family members present (sisters, brothers, mothers) as possible, I wouldn't be nearly as horrified.

I'm not particularly interested in the "rights" of women who knowingly allow young women and children in their care to be coerced into marriages, pregnancy and a lifestyle they lack to capacity to freely choose, which undermines their whining about religious freedom at its core.

And I have no intention of standing by and saying nothing about what the government does. My first statement is with my vote.

I am for removing them from their mothers. Any women that would give their child to a perverted older man doesn't have the right to raise that child.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am for removing them from their mothers. Any women that would give their child to a perverted older man doesn't have the right to raise that child.

For the sake of the child, it would be best to remain in the supervised care of the mother, IMO.

Those who "gave" their children to older men should be prosecuted as much as the man. However, I think it would be in the best interest of the children to keep as many familiar faces around as possible. Even if only an older sister or brother....

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

For the sake of the child, it would be best to remain in the supervised care of the mother, IMO.

Those who "gave" their children to older men should be prosecuted as much as the man. However, I think it would be in the best interest of the children to keep as many familiar faces around as possible. Even if only an older sister or brother....

According to the law, this is what they must do. It is a bad situation, and I place that blame on the compound members and not the State of Texas.

"Religion appears to play little or no role in the allegations about practices at the Eldorado ranch. No religious belief held by an adult justifies any kind of child abuse. No religious belief allows an adult to have sex with an underage girl. One fear is that any children that you don't remove will be themselves abused, and the other fear is that any children you don't remove will be whisked out of the state, which both puts them at risk potentially and impedes an investigation" " Scott McCown, a former district judge.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

According to the law, this is what they must do. It is a bad situation, and I place that blame on the compound members and not the State of Texas.

I do agree that the members of the compound are to blame, ultimately, but in the meantime, the state is being a bit short sighted if they are only concerned with the letter of the law, and less about the over-all wellbeing of the children.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I do agree that the members of the compound are to blame, ultimately, but in the meantime, the state is being a bit short sighted if they are only concerned with the letter of the law, and less about the over-all wellbeing of the children.

Who is the mother? They may have three?