Wow. Although I have no time to stay and discuss the issue; I would love to see a thread started about the 400+ children in Texas that have been ripped from the lives they knew.
It is ALARMING to me that the state is seeking to terminate all parental rights (from what I have read).
Prosecute crime? Yes. But aren't we also prosecuting the victims of what they were taught all their lives without outside influence to the contrary? Girls who became mothers just past puberty and knew no other way?
And what of the implications of taking all the children from their parents (not just the ones in immediate harm's way) because we don't like what is taught?
It isn't that far removed from the idea that children could be taken from homes that aren't in step with mainstream society, is it? Think on that and hug your child.
So, what's the verdict? Is Texas right or wrong to remove all of the children and seek to terminate the parents' rights to these children?
What would you do? Are you sure? What path is set for the future????
Again, I wish I had time to discuss the issue, but don't. Hopefully, some others will think and post on this. I would love to read what you all have to say.
Texas is right on. You cannot commit crimes in the name of religion and try to hide behind the Free Exercise Clause. If the law is one of general applicability (not aimed at discriminating against a religion) the state has a right to enforce that law. You cannot rape children and force them into marriages and expect that the state sit back and say "Oh, that's your religion? Well in that case go ahead and violate the law and those little girls too."
Polygamy has been a crime from the very founding of this country, and if you read the Justice Waites opinion in Reynolds he traces it back in the common law prior to the founding of this country. You can teach whatever you want in a religion, but you may not be able to act it out. This is not the ruling of a crazy liberal Supreme Court in the twentieth century, this was the ruling from the nineteenth century!
Texas is right on. You cannot commit crimes in the name of religion and try to hide behind the Free Exercise Clause. If the law is one of general applicability (not aimed at discriminating against a religion) the state has a right to enforce that law. You cannot rape children and force them into marriages and expect that the state sit back and say "Oh, that's your religion? Well in that case go ahead and violate the law and those little girls too."
Polygamy has been a crime from the very founding of this country, and if you read the Justice Waite’s opinion in Reynolds he traces it back in the common law prior to the founding of this country. You can teach whatever you want in a religion, but you may not be able to act it out. This is not the ruling of a crazy liberal Supreme Court in the twentieth century, this was the ruling from the nineteenth century!
Excellent points, Baron; especially about the time honored traditions behind our society's stand against polygamy.
I think what most people take issue with however is the "jack booted" approach and the subsequent pain we see coming from the moms and children. I notice too, that there have been no media photo ops with any of the "dads." I wonder how much of this is being staged by the defendants' counsel? Presumably these children fathers. Where are they?
Polygamy has been a crime from the very founding of this country, and if you read the Justice Waite’s opinion in Reynolds he traces it back in the common law prior to the founding of this country. This is not the ruling of a crazy liberal Supreme Court in the twentieth century, this was the ruling from the nineteenth century!
How in a country that is trying to legalize same sex marriages, can we as a Nation say that polygamy is wrong?
Isn't that the logical next step?
Even though I totally agree with what is going on in TX, as far as the intervention that has been made, I did want to comment on this thought, because I have never heard anyone else voice it. I thought I was the Lone Ranger.
It is terrifying to me that the government can legislate whether or not I wear a seat belt or a helmet when I am driving. It has only to do with my personal safety, so how is it any of their business? And if it is, why do they still allow cigarettes to be sold? And how long will it be before they get to decide what my weight should be legally, for health reasons of course? And if I am exercising enough?
We are having our civil liberties slowly stripped away, and we aren't even aware it is happening I'm afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
Sorry folks......... even though there are some things that are good for us - the government FORCING us to do these things is slowly but surely taking away our rights. I'm all for safety - I buckle my seatbelt every time I get in the car, I think helmets for motorcycle riders make sense, I think that helmets for children on bicycles makes sense - but something deep inside me believes that by passing such laws and not allowing me to make that decision for myself (and/or my children) is slowing desensitizing us to how much control the government has now and how much more it is trying to get.
Even though I totally agree with what is going on in TX, as far as the intervention that has been made, I did want to comment on this thought, because I have never heard anyone else voice it. I thought I was the Lone Ranger.
It is terrifying to me that the government can legislate whether or not I wear a seat belt or a helmet when I am driving. It has only to do with my personal safety, so how is it any of their business? And if it is, why do they still allow cigarettes to be sold? And how long will it be before they get to decide what my weight should be legally, for health reasons of course? And if I am exercising enough?
We are having our civil liberties slowly stripped away, and we aren't even aware it is happening I'm afraid.
The government already does that. It's called 'health care'. If you purchase health care for yourself and you are overweight, you can be denied for that reason alone, even if you are in good health otherwise.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
The government already does that. It's called 'health care'. If you purchase health care for yourself and you are overweight, you can be denied for that reason alone, even if you are in good health otherwise.
The government already does that. It's called 'health care'. If you purchase health care for yourself and you are overweight, you can be denied for that reason alone, even if you are in good health otherwise.
That's not correct. An insurance company can deny you the coverage when you apply for it, but, once the policy is issued, they can not deny claims because you have gained weight.
Are we to believe children can be kidnapped without evidence??
There should have been enough evidence to require DNA samples of every single person in that community. If they did not have enough evidence for that, then surely there is NO compelling reason to steal all the children! The media and Texas is spinning this big time... "The state Texas intends to place all the children in foster care" What?? Without evidence??
The evidence was the under age girls who were pregnant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cneasttx
Pregnant children are the evidence and children with babies are evidence. Hard to hide that.
What she said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover
It's just seems whatever the evidence is... they should be using that to retain the perpetrators of the crime - not holding the victims against their will.
BTW-- I am sure there is little doubt that some crimes have been committed.
They do not have the eveidence to take the men because no one has been offering up who the rapists are (the men who actually impregnated the girls) as far as I know. That is why they were questioning the women and children.
BTW, I have seen several references to these being peaceful people, I have to assume that some of you do not know the history of this particular group. This is part of the sect, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints headed by Warren Jeffs, who has controlled a couple of towns, Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, for years.
I have watched several documentaries and read numerous articles over the years on this group and while the people living in this compound may be peaceful, (if you don't count the raping and beating of young girls of course), this is a very scary, very menacing bunch. In Colorado City they control everything and if you do not belong there, they will usher you out of town very quickly. You are followed from the moment you enter the town. The group in Texas may operate differently only because it is all on private property, they don't have to worry about outsiders as much.
The evidence was the under age girls who were pregnant.
What she said.
They do not have the eveidence to take the men because no one has been offering up who the rapists are (the men who actually impregnated the girls) as far as I know. That is why they were questioning the women and children.
.
So if a rapist impregnates an underage girl in a community, that is just cause to detain ALL the children in the whole community (for their own protection) against their will?
We better round up every kid, from every inner city to protect them from any would-be nieghborhood pimps.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Wow. Although I have no time to stay and discuss the issue; I would love to see a thread started about the 400+ children in Texas that have been ripped from the lives they knew.
It is ALARMING to me that the state is seeking to terminate all parental rights (from what I have read).
Prosecute crime? Yes. But aren't we also prosecuting the victims of what they were taught all their lives without outside influence to the contrary? Girls who became mothers just past puberty and knew no other way?
And what of the implications of taking all the children from their parents (not just the ones in immediate harm's way) because we don't like what is taught?
It isn't that far removed from the idea that children could be taken from homes that aren't in step with mainstream society, is it? Think on that and hug your child.
So, what's the verdict? Is Texas right or wrong to remove all of the children and seek to terminate the parents' rights to these children?
What would you do? Are you sure? What path is set for the future????
Again, I wish I had time to discuss the issue, but don't. Hopefully, some others will think and post on this. I would love to read what you all have to say.
Just from my perceptions: Texas tends to go a bit too far when it comes time to "clamping down" on a problem. These people lived there for years and followed this way of life. However manipulative and out of step their teachings may have been, for Texas to suddenly jump up and say, "Hey! You can't do that!" after turning a blind eye to these folks for so long seems hypocritical to me.
But then again - it is an election year. I think that explains why this happened now.
Hopefully, some others will think and post on this. I would love to read what you all have to say.
Hybrid Mode
