Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[bmacwilliam]

But it's worse to give the State the power to barge into your home and tell you how to raise your children. There's a clear line between that and physical neglect/endangerment/harm.

Raging lunatic nonsense. There are many many valid reasons other than physical harm where the state should damn well barge into your home and "tell' you how to raise your children while carting your ass off to jail.

Bob

[sjw]

But it's worse to give the State the power to barge into your home and tell you how to raise your children. There's a clear line between that and physical neglect/endangerment/harm.

Raging lunatic nonsense. There are many many valid reasons other than physical harm where the state should damn well barge into your home and "tell' you how to raise your children while carting your ass off to jail.

Bob

So what are some of these "many many" reasons? And explain how it makes me a "raging lunatic" if I didn't happen to precisely categorize legitimate reasons why one should have children taken away while you go to jail. Maybe you should ask me whether you should go to jail for X before calling me a "raging lunatic".

Shayne

[william.scherk]

The State law of Texas states that the legal age for marriage is 16, with parental consent. Furthermore, would you admit that:

a ) the 416 children that were taken did not all fall into the category of female, under 16, and married? and

b ) that the originating phone calls age, location and motive, is now under serious dispute? and

c ) that we do not know how many boys were in the 416, or were they all female.

I accept these points. Moreover, I believe most of the children will find their way back to the parents after adjudication.

It could happen that a court will throw out any evidence collected and being collected if it judges Texas' response to the 'Sarah' complaint to have been handled in bad faith. In which case, I see all the kids being sent back. I foresee a number of straightforward cases of child sexual abuse pursued on DNA evidence, and a number of petitions granted for return of children.

What do you see happening, Adam?

So before you project your perception of what I meant when I complimented Shayne on raising a valid point, you could direct a question to me.

Or do you ascribe to the guilt by association school of thought?

No. I mix you up with Shayne as much as you mix me up with fiendish cultists. Sorry to have left the wrong impression. There were the questions, "But this doesn't mean that 'the hammer' should never come down, does it? I mean, do Shayne or Adam take issue with the jailing of Jeffs? Do they have interesting predictions to make on the future course of the FLDS? Do they worry that seeming to be allies of the bereft FLDS moms and dads has a certain Objectivist ick-factor?"

[bmacwilliam]

I essentially agree with this. The problem is that the isolation, insulation and intimidation from birth in that culture do not allow a healthy volition to develop.

This is of course quite correct. Education beyond the basics is forbidden for girls (at least that's what was shown on a Canadian documentary). A big red flag should go off when a huge double standard exists along gender lines. Polygamy isn't a freedom, it's a forceful assault on the female gender. Therfore, bust it up and throw the perps in the klink.

Bob

[Ellen Stuttle]

...

Scroll down and watch the first video at this link:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/...hild-abuse.html

...

PS: I did not read most of the information provided at that link but it looks horrifying.

I read a fair percentage of it (and watched the first video, assuming the video you mean is still the first video -- it's one of some of the women whose children have been taken).

I'm feeling sick. As best I can tell, the story's shaping up to be what I'd expected it would be, a case of "arrogant aggression," as blogger William N. Grigg describes it, by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

Ellen

Edit: PS: Have any of you seen Rabbit-proof Fence?

___

Edited April 23, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[sjw]

I mean, do Shayne or Adam take issue with the jailing of Jeffs? Do they have interesting predictions to make on the future course of the FLDS? Do they worry that seeming to be allies of the bereft FLDS moms and dads has a certain Objectivist ick-factor?"

I have as much worry as I expect Ayn Rand had about supporting the free speech rights of pornographers in her Playboy interview.

I would rather be associated with standing for correct principles even if it means defending the rights of Mormons than standing with hypocritical Objectivists like you.

Shayne

[sjw]

Edit: PS: Have any of you seen Rabbit-proof Fence?

I haven't but just put it at the top of my Netflix queue, thanks for pointing it out.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

I would rather be associated with standing for correct principles even if it means defending the rights of Mormons

Would you consider polygamy a right? Or at least would your concept of individual rights go that far?

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the video:

If anyone can see anything at all in those women's statements but the anguish of a mother who loves her children and have had them taken from her, I would be interested in hearing it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A few posts got moved to here for derailing the topic.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I would rather be associated with standing for correct principles even if it means defending the rights of Mormons than standing with hypocritical Objectivists like you.

I am not an Objectivist, thanks.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It could happen that a court will throw out any evidence collected and being collected if it judges Texas' response to the 'Sarah' complaint to have been handled in bad faith. In which case, I see all the kids being sent back. I foresee a number of straightforward cases of child sexual abuse pursued on DNA evidence, and a number of petitions granted for return of children.

William,

This is exactly what I see happening. In other words, a few people will get targeted and punished whether brainwashed or power-monger (it will not matter), the majority of the state's case will go right out the window for administrative misconduct and the media will sell some more news.

And the problem will continue.

As I said in the first post, what a mess!

(EDIT: Sorry I missed that garbage. I don't feel like micromanaging it, though. If it gets worse, I will haul some more out.)

Michael

[tjohnson]

A subset of our society, like the polygamists, have to abide by the same laws that everyone else has to live by - sorry.

[sjw]

A subset of our society, like the polygamists, have to abide by the same laws that everyone else has to live by - sorry.

You sound like the SS man banging on the door asking whether there are Jews in the basement.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

You sound like the SS man banging on the door asking whether there are Jews in the basement.

Shayne

Yep, life's tough sometimes.

[sjw]

You sound like the SS man banging on the door asking whether there are Jews in the basement.

Shayne

Yep, life's tough sometimes.

Wow.

[Selene]

because you are just a cultist, a zealot who worships the State. People like you are far more dangerous than those Mormon folks your fellow cultists rounded up. You people wield the guns, indoctrinate far more children in your dangerous philosophy,

Well at least Shayne is firmly rooted in reality. The sky would be what colour in your world?

Bob

Black on the day he is not wearing the rose colored ones.

Adam

[sjw]

because you are just a cultist, a zealot who worships the State. People like you are far more dangerous than those Mormon folks your fellow cultists rounded up. You people wield the guns, indoctrinate far more children in your dangerous philosophy,

Well at least Shayne is firmly rooted in reality. The sky would be what colour in your world?

Bob

Black on the day he is not wearing the rose colored ones.

Adam

So Michael, why are personal attacks just fine when they are against me, but if I defend myself, then the "garbage" is moved to a different thread?

Please explain your bias.

Shayne

[sjw]

I would rather be associated with standing for correct principles even if it means defending the rights of Mormons than standing with hypocritical Objectivists like you.

I am not an Objectivist, thanks.

Glad you clarified that. Now what about the brazen hypocrisy?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

sigh...

[Selene]

Adam:

He is ust hopeless Michael.

Visit My Website here is a cute little game that may help you reduce your stress Shayne.

Adam

[william.scherk]

It could happen that a court will throw out any evidence collected and being collected if it judges Texas' response to the 'Sarah' complaint to have been handled in bad faith. In which case, I see all the kids being sent back. I foresee a number of straightforward cases of child sexual abuse pursued on DNA evidence, and a number of petitions granted for return of children.

William,

This is exactly what I see happening. In other words, a few people will get targeted and punished whether brainwashed or power-monger (it will not matter),

I disagree. Those targeted for prosecution will be the men who stupidly impregnated too-young sister-wives. None of those men, young or old, is unaware of the law, no matter their indoctrination. The oldline FLDS families (led by Jeffs from prison) and their menfolk know very well what put their prophet in prison. Crimes that approached the gravity of Jeffs' will be prosecuted vigourously.

I think you Americans will do right by the kids and the sect, ultimately, though there will be more heartache.

[Brant Gaede]

A subset of our society, like the polygamists, have to abide by the same laws that everyone else has to live by - sorry.

Jim Crow? This is go along to get along. "They came for us one by one." (The rest were abiding, like cattle in the slaughter shute.) Sometimes you just gotta man the barricades! Where are the barricade manners when we need them? Shrugged?

--Brant

Edited April 24, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I've unblocked Shayne. He's wrong too much on one level, but too right on a more important one.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

because you are just a cultist, a zealot who worships the State. People like you are far more dangerous than those Mormon folks your fellow cultists rounded up. You people wield the guns, indoctrinate far more children in your dangerous philosophy,

Well at least Shayne is firmly rooted in reality. The sky would be what colour in your world?

Black on the day he is not wearing the rose colored ones.

So Michael, why are personal attacks just fine when they are against me, but if I defend myself, then the "garbage" is moved to a different thread?

"Mom, how come it's okay if the other kids are statist cultist hypocrites and stupid and disgusting, but if I call them on it I get smacked and not them? They are the enemy. You don't have to play nice with enemies. Or are you turning into a hypocritical cultist hyena state-loving slut yourself? Huh? Whattaya say to that, ma? Got you cornered now, don't I, you dumb bitch?"